A system of ‘Local Offers’ for children and adults with special educational needs went live in September. Kathryn Rudd reviews the progress and finds worrying results.

For young people with disabilities and their families, the much-awaited Children and Families Act promised a more coherent and aspirational approach to their education.

The Act promised a joined-up education, health and care plan, instead of endless assessments and wrangling between departments about who should pay for what.

It heralded new independent advice and guidance — central to which was an information portal in each Local Authority (LA), the ‘Local Offer’.

This was a huge undertaking for each LA, particularly at a time of stringent cuts and with reduced capacity.

They needed to provide comprehensive information for people with disabilities aged from birth to 25.

They also needed to include information about out-of-county, specialist providers who were listed on the Section 41 list.

Young people and their families would be allowed to name organisations on this list as their ‘preferred provider’ on Education, Heath and Care plans.

On September 1 the first Local Offers went live. Well, a few did. Many had got notices on their websites saying some of the Offer had been completed and they were working on the rest.

Many had seconded a local special school head to lead on the implementation of the Local Offer so understandably the majority had prioritised their school age provision.

We sent information to LAs about what we could offer — the majority of LAs did not respond and only two initially put us on their Local Offers.

A significant proportion of Local Offers did not mention out-of-county specialist colleges (and indeed some didn’t mention specialist providers that were in-county)

We were thrilled when one LA actually approached us to ask whether we could provide them with information for their Local Offer.

We have been researching what is available and our research demonstrated that National Star, and indeed other specialist providers, were largely invisible across Local Offers.

Natspec, the Association of Specialist Colleges, undertook more research at the end of October and a significant proportion of Local Offers did not mention out-of-county specialist colleges (and indeed some didn’t mention specialist providers that were in-county), many did not provide a link to Natspec, and more worryingly didn’t provide a Section 41 link.

This is changing on a daily basis and LAs are putting information out, although many are now struggling with old information cluttering up their Offers and confusing the situation still further.

So, on the ground, what is happening? Parents say it is reinforcing inequality. If you have a skilled parent or advocate who can work the system and fight, you stand a chance of getting to the college of your choice.

One of our parents kept a diary last year of her fight to access National Star — she recorded more than 600 hours of work with different agencies to access the college that best met her daughter’s needs and aspirations.

Young people and their parents are telling us that even if you know the Local Offer exists you actually need to already know what you are searching for as they are just so complex to navigate.

With all this added complexity, advice and guidance by careers staff, schools and independent supporters becomes even more critical.

However, parents are reporting they are getting inaccurate information. Some parents have been told there is no provision for students with complex needs in county even when the local specialist college has “outstanding” provision for these learners. Others have been told that to get to a specialist college they will need to self-fund.

I seem to remember a lot of talk about a “level playing field” across pre and post-16 provision.

We want to know the reality for young people with disabilities, so in partnership with parents we have established a survey to enable their voices to be heard. Visit here to take part.

And the one college that actually asked us for information for its local offer – it took us off two weeks ago.

 

Proposals to change the way traineeship providers are funded were rejected following the government’s eight-week consultation on the issue. Andy Gannon explains what this, plus some of the changes that were sanctioned, means for the sector.

Amid ongoing media rumours of yet more pressure on budgets after the next election and a looming Autumn Statement, this week’s government response to the traineeships funding consultation may have made some slightly more pleasant reading for many in the FE sector.

What seemed, in the summer, to be a consultation heralding potentially wholesale change to the funding system around the relatively new initiative that is traineeships has, it appears, turned into an acknowledgement that we can make better use of data on student outcomes, but that any real change in this area has to be ‘incremental’.

This message alone should allow us some space to rejoice. After being pummelled with reform after reform for the past four years, it seems that some sense has prevailed. You don’t get to assess the benefits of any new initiative if you constantly tinker around with it.

Whether this new-found love of funding stability is a sign that that message has been understood for good, or is simply a sign of political pragmatism six months ahead of a general election will only become clear in time, of course. But, for now, it is a positive.

And, more than that, what the response does include is tinkering which expands the opportunities for young people and employers to engage with traineeships — applying the same criteria to those over 19 as those under 19, increasing eligibility and acknowledging the important possibility that a traineeship may prepare someone for further learning, rather than a job or an apprenticeship.

In our recent Future Colleges report, the 157 Group called for policy change to be tested against four key principles — stable structures, equal treatment, freedom to innovate and durable funding. In some ways, this week’s response meets all four of those criteria.

It doesn’t change the fundamental structure of the programme or its funding system, and it therefore provides some small sense of durability within which providers can plan. It removes some of the artificial age divide at 19, which, as we know, stems from nothing other than the way in which government organises itself and has nothing to do with how young people actually experience the world. And, in emphasising the need for programmes to be individualised, it genuinely encourages innovation.

Many colleges, in particular, will now see real opportunity to expand their traineeship offer

Many colleges, in particular, will now see real opportunity to expand their traineeship offer in partnership with employers of all sizes. And that can only be a good thing.

Aside from the question of political motivation, there remains one fly in the ointment, however. What is really meant by ‘making better use of data on progression and outcomes’?

We are also awaiting the response on the recent BIS consultation around outcome success measures, which was curiously quiet about how these measures might be used, and Ofsted has merely said it will take all measures into account when forming judgments.

History teaches us that, once data is available, we have a tendency to interpret it simplistically — to compile league tables and set minimum standards, and then to reform our funding and accountability systems to enforce the achievement of those standards.

But we all know that learner outcomes are affected by a plethora of factors — including personal and economic ones — of which the quality of their college experience is only one.

‘Making better use of the data’ should mean that we use it to understand this complete picture, and interrogate it intelligently so that it can inform the development not just of our approach to funding and accountability, but to policymaking itself.

Whether our system is mature enough to be able to do that is the one question that this week’s response leaves unanswered.

 

A review of English and maths accreditation is welcome, but should not result in new qualifications, says Charlotte Bosworth.

In the Skills Minister Nick Boles’ introduction to his speech he mentioned a moment full of risk, his analogy was to make a party political point about the choice the electorate face in May’s general election, but for me the analogy works well for the place we find ourselves in as a sector.

In my foreword to the FE Week Reader’s Manifesto, I mentioned the political football nature of reform and constant churn that has affected our sector for too many electoral cycles.

I believe that although relatively policy light, the two inputs we had on the first day of the AoC Conference from the Skills Minister and his Shadow Cabinet counterpart suggested that this initiative churn shows no sign of abating.

Nick spoke of English and maths and the need to review the best ways to accredit these, including in said review employers, providers and exam boards.

But we must not rush to create new qualifications or assessments nor must we rush to re-title something that as a qualification type is still in its infancy and beginning to gain credibility with employers.

Liam Byrne spoke of three shifts needed in FE — for FE to become the new spine of professional and technical education, to have as many people going into apprenticeships as university, and for FE to become closer to business.

These are laudable aspirations, but we must ensure we continue to provide services through FE that cater to the needs of the entire cohort and we must avoid the rush to an apprenticeship arms race over numbers of starts.

The quality of provision is still more important than the quantity. But Liam also spoke of his party’s vision for Institutes of Technical Education, and this for me is an area of concern.

We must look at how we create capacity in the institutions that we already have, rather than creating further complexity to layer onto our already complex system

Through policy churn we have, in some places, lost a sense of the purpose of different types of education and provision.

If Institutes of Technical Education is a plan to create another layer of different types of institutions then we must resist it.

We should be able to look critically at where we are as a sector and if there is a gap to fill to meet the technical education needs of learners, then we must look at how we create capacity in the institutions that we already have, rather than creating further complexity to layer onto our already complex system.

The Skills Minister also spoke of the outcomes of the traineeships funding consultation that the government ran in the summer.

The announcement signals a greater parity between arrangements for traineeship funding between 16 to 18-year-olds and 19 to 24-year-olds.

Our response to the consultation had argued for greater consistency in programme management.

One of the key issues is that in the way that the government department’s responsibilities are split, there is an artificial policy divide at 19. We are pleased that the announcements in the government response to the consultation address this in both learner eligibility and approach to funding.

I was also pleased that, in the announcement, the government is looking at an “evolutionary” approach rather than a revolutionary one in the move to a greater focus on outcomes.

In the simplest terms, the answer to the consultation’s central question about whether there should be a greater focus on positive outcomes was ‘yes’. However, I think we must be clear about what behaviours we want to drive.

In schools policy, we have seen the all-pervading effect of performance tables and their ability to drive school curriculum offer and qualification choice.

But the often hidden message is that education is broader than just the exam syllabus. So we must ensure that in this evolutionary approach we keep in mind and guard against the introduction of a new set of ‘performance measures’ that to help those easiest to help and to forget those young people who need time and support.

 

Andrew Morris looks at how problems affecting FE practitioners are being a tackled with an appreciation of the need for evidence, and how this evidence might be used to bid for research funding in tough economic times.

South Staffordshire College and Thurrock Adult Community College are anything to go by, a significant change in the use of evidence is taking place.

Teachers and managers from these and many other organisations discussed the practicalities of using research at the latest workshop of the Learning & Skills Research Network (LSRN).

The What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth, the College of Policing and the Alliance for Useful Evidence — all established in the last five years — bear witness to this recent upsurge.

In education, the remarkable success of the Education Endowment Foundation’s ‘Toolkit’ of evidence-based practices in teaching and learning has been used by more than half of secondary schools in its three years of existence.

Numerous organisations are now helping get the right kind of evidence in the right format to those who need it most — practitioners and decision-makers at
the frontline.

What this means in practical terms for the learning and skills sector is illustrated by the work of Michael Smith and Paul Roberts, team leaders at Barking and Dagenham College.

Having identified an important college-wide issue — initial assessment procedures that assigned too many students to the wrong level — they set about collating information, looking at existing research and proposing a new approach to the senior team.

With their support a pilot scheme was developed and carefully tested. As Michael said: “We were then able to move forward with knowledge and understanding from
the testing.”

Innovation requires a degree of risk-taking and leaders have to weigh this up in allocating budgets

Chris Davies, director of curriculum at South Staffordshire College, reinforces the importance of first identifying a serious college-wide problem and then taking an evidence-based approach.

A study he had undertaken revealed that 40 per cent of staff non-teaching time was spent on activity not related to teaching. On the basis of this changes were made, such as aligning central administrative staff with curriculum areas on each campus.

From the many examples of evidence-use brought out at the workshop, some idea of the practicalities began to emerge. “Stop waiting for government initiatives” was one piece of sound advice; “stop counting beans” was another, equally pithy.

The key message, repeated in case after case, was to start by identifying a key problem that seriously affects student learning and then arm yourself with knowledge and evidence.

To do this, requires space and time for reflection and experimentation. Finding these scarce resources was a recurring theme.

The solution demonstrated in many successful initiatives is to make use of existing structures such as professional development days and to focus on problems that will help the organisation move forward.

No doubt the new grants announced at the workshop from the Further Education Trust for Leadership will help, providing financial and professional support for a number of new practice-based studies.

Encouragement from leadership teams proves an essential ingredient in the view of most project leaders. But for budget-holders it is not easy to decide where to invest.

Research does not generally provide simple answers guaranteed to improve outcomes — by definition it addresses unknowns.

Innovation requires a degree of risk-taking and leaders have to weigh this up in allocating budgets. So what can project leaders do to persuade a reluctant leadership team? Be pragmatic seemed to be the advice from participants — if the leadership team is accountancy-minded, base your research on the data they collect. If a research investment carries a big risk, look for previous studies first, then pilot it on a small scale.

The overarching message from initiatives in different parts of the sector is that evidence-use is not just an individual affair — it flourishes when a collaborative approach spreads across an organisation. Trust is the key — trusting relationships in which sound evidence and professional judgement justify the risk of investing in innovative approaches.

In such an environment an evidence-using culture can develop which, over time, offers the prospect of better outcomes for both learners and the bottom line.

 

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg fleshed out his idea, first revealed in February, for a UCas-style system for post-16 vocational learning this month. Mary Curnock describes the progress UCas has made with its system that already meets such requirements.

The Deputy Prime Minister called again for a ‘UCAS-style’ system for younger students who need to make decisions about their post-16 education choices. He joins a list of senior politicians and leading commentators who have made the same call at various times over recent years.

The benefits of the UCas centralised admissions service for higher education have long been recognised. It provides a single point of information, a comprehensive course search, and a common, fair and streamlined admissions service which is available for a generation that expects to use digital interfaces for almost everything it needs.

A highly valued benefit of the service is the rich data it provides about progression to higher education.

UCas has now deployed its expertise to provide a similar service for post-16 progression.

UCas Progress (UP) lists all post-16 learning opportunities in England and Wales and students can search for subject, by course-type, by geographical location or provider type.

They can apply for courses online, and they can access plenty of information and advice to help them make informed choices about post-16 studies.

More than 100,000 courses through 4,550 providers display GCSE, A-level, vocational, work-based and apprenticeship courses.

Swansea local authority working with UCas Progress more than halved its Neet numbers

Currently, we’re registering more than 2.5 million page views per month and our advice pages received 350,000 views alone in the last four weeks.

The service is free of charge for students, whether they register through a school or self-register at home. Course listings are also free of charge for providers.

A modest subscription — typically £500 to £2,500 a-year — is made for providers who want to be switched on to receive, track, monitor and report on online applications.

More than 1,000 providers are using the application service already and more are being added all the time.

One user is Etone College, in Warwickshire, which found that UP not only enables them to streamline the application process and track outcomes, but also to increase awareness and aspiration for progression to higher education through UCas in the future.

In many cases, the UP service has been adopted at a Local Authority level, where our tracking services provide aid planning, track and reduce Neets, manage the September Guarantee, and ensure that RPA requirements are met.

For example, Swansea local authority working with UP, more than halved its Neet numbers from 6.9 per cent in 2009 to 3 per cent in 2011 and has sustained that level since.

It has used UP to track and report on student progression, enabling limited numbers of outreach staff to target their interventions where most needed.

Ensuring that young people stay in some form of education or training until they are 18 requires consistency of approach and UP ensures that learners get all the information and advice they need to make informed decisions, with a simple application process.

UP also supports those working with students; giving teachers and advisers dedicated tracking tools, as well as the reports, insight, and data needed to fulfill their statutory obligations.

UCas already provides a range of similar services for undergraduate admissions, post graduate courses, teacher training, and conservatoires. In each case, we develop our services around the needs of users — students, those who support them, and education providers.

Our services are developed and enhanced with the guidance of user groups so that it is our customers who dictate their content and scope, and have a stake in the success of the service.

As an independent charity, we are happy to work closely with government departments to ensure our data conforms to common standards, but it will be our service users who dictate how our services develop, including UP.

We welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s support for this initiative but we have no reason to delay until September next year. UP is available now.

 

The march towards a digital future is not in doubt, but how colleges stay on course is the cause of many a sleepless night for those in the FE sector, explains Ian Fordham.

There is a critical mass of factors coming together around the digital agenda in the UK that has the potential to disrupt and change the way the organisations operate and do business, as well as having far-reaching consequences for FE colleges and providers on the ground.

Numerous reports, including the Government Digital Strategy and Digital Inclusion plan, working groups and other forums have been set up to understand the implications of the digital world, culminating in the much-heralded Further Education Learning Technology Action Group (Feltag) report.

But despite the promise of that report, and the now aspirational 10 per cent online learning requirement, we are hearing from many principals and senior leaders that they are frustrated and struggling to get to grips with where to go next on tech and the digital agenda.

From our work on the Digital Colleges programme, set up by The Education Foundation and Penny Power, chair of Digital Business Britain, we have found that there is a growing distance between the ‘promise of digital’ and frankly too much tech evangelism, and the reality on the ground, in terms of implementation and sustainable change.

In addition, leaders are looking for a much clearer roadmap to become Digital Colleges, and a digitally driven sector, rather than being sent down “technology cul-de-sacs”.

There is a growing distance between the ‘promise of digital’ and frankly too much tech evangelism

In our report, (visit www.digitalcolleges.co.uk to download a copy of the Digital Colleges report) launched at the Association of Colleges conference, we showcase the digital journeys of FE leaders who are delivering high quality digital solutions across their institutions and sprinting past other sectors in terms of innovation and impact in their use of digital.

We also set out a framework for digital colleges that brings together all areas of provider practice and administration, from HR to finance to the engagement of small and medium-sized enterprises and the community to harnessing the potential of social media for the good of the whole of the organisation.

By starting with a much broader definition of digital, we argue there is a much better chance of the vibrant FE and skills sector achieving its ambitions.

And while the lights dim on Feltag and the new cross-Whitehall Education Technology Action Group reports its mostly school-related findings in January 2015, it is vital that the FE sector is on the front foot in the digital arena and there is a clear policy roadmap from government to ensure this transformation is not cut short.

Like many pragmatic colleges and leaders, we as an organisation are not dazzled by the bright lights of technology — but the digital economy is here to stay and growing at a frenetic pace.

The digital economy now accounts for almost 9 per cent of total GDP and between 2009 and 2012, 83,000 new technology and digital industry jobs were created, while the number of tech and digital companies has almost doubled from 50,000 to 88,000.

The FE and skills sector must harness its potential and be at the forefront of its development of this important sector, not technology for technology’s sake, but rather technology for all learners, staff and the wider community.

Now is the time for FE and policy leaders to move past the “bright lights of tech” and see the systemic change happening in this space.

It is vital that the leaders and ideas identified in our Digital Colleges report become the norm and not the exception.

As one FE principal said at the launch of our report, the Digital Colleges programme challenges the FE and skills sector to consider the digital agenda across the learner journey, across our businesses and between our stakeholders.

Its focus is not on a new paradigm or promise but on pragmatism, for far too long the digital box has been empty and the challenge for college leaders is to fill it with purpose.

We couldn’t agree more and welcome dialogue from the sector about how we can work together to achieve this vision.

 

The principal of a large and well-established FE college writes about life at the top — the worries, the hopes, the people and the issues they have to deal with every day.

So it’s Association of Colleges conference time again. I think this is my fourteenth year of coming and to be frank not much has changed over the years.

The usual scene through the course of the three or so days is a few hollow-eyed and grim looking faces following the late nights being entertained by delights of the Hyatt bar for instance late on Tuesday evening is an exhibition in itself.

We were treated to a fairly predictable and heavy political assessment of our world punctuated with some talk about skills and education

But conference does provide some respite to the long and hard first term we all have to deal with.

Let’s face it, conference provides a mix of serious and intelligent debate together with some light-hearted fun too. The exhibition stands and staff from over 130 exhibitors this year vying for the attention of principals, FE is big business for many of them and they have a captive audience.

On Tuesday, we were treated to a fairly predictable and heavy political assessment of our world punctuated with some talk about skills and education. Talk of men in white coats got my attention early on and there were a few raised eyebrows later in the day when Gaganomics entered our psyche. I wonder how many people are now going to try and explain that one to staff on their return to work? Seriously though, it was thought-provoking and reminded me of a recent headline from this paper and a principal who didn’t quite get it right on social media. Bet he had a poker face (pun intended) when that presentation was going on.

Dr Collins had the majority of the audience eating out the palm of his hand in a way only he can do

Martin Doel gave in my view a good speech urging conference to challenge the politicians on differing fronts. Well that would be good but for some reason when Nick Boles sat on the sofa with Emily Maitlis following a rather dull and uninspired speech it simply didn’t happen. Emily failed to get the audience engaged and allow us to question him. Mr Boles started by saying how vital and important education is to the economy both short and long term but when pressed about ring fencing funding for 16 to 18 he became more non committal than ever. Shame, literally.

On the other hand Liam Byrne gave in my opinion a far better account of himself. Then we had Dr David Collins interviewed about his role as FE Commissioner and the lessons learned over the past year. A few minutes in and he had the majority of the audience eating out the palm of his hand in a way only he can do. I predict a knighthood within two years.

Because of print deadline I can’t comment on what Vince Cable and others will say but it will probably if not definitely be his last time addressing conference, I think without his firm stance and belief that FE transforms people’s lives and is fundamentally good for business and the economy our sector would be in a far worse state. Thanks Vince.

Finally, it was especially good to hear FE Week described by Emily as the “bible” for the sector. A little controversial maybe but pleasing none the less.