The target has been set and the election won — now the government must set about achieving 3m apprenticeships. But what exactly is being aimed at and is it even the right target, asks Nick Linford.

As the dust settles on a general election result few predicted, the FE and skills sector will be considering the implications of a Conservative government.

Above all else, the manifesto commitment to fund 3m apprenticeship starts over the next five years now takes centre stage. In fact, even outside of our sector, it is arguably the government’s top priority given the newly-elected Prime Minister listed it first in his maiden speech.

So before waking up to the reality and potential hangover of the task ahead, let us start with a raised glass and sector back-slap. The government wants to invest further in our sector and in their own words; apprenticeships support young people to acquire the skills they need.

With the self-congratulation out of the way it is time to consider if the 3m starts is the right target and how it might be achieved.

The Conservatives have chosen to use apprenticeship starts as their target, which is a figure published in official Statistical First Releases. This means within the FE sector it is already well understood and credible as a measure. However, how many listening to the Prime Minister would realise this 3m is neither the number of people, nor does it mean they passed the apprenticeship?

Hard as it may be to believe, the number of individuals participating in apprenticeships has never been published

Firstly, many of the 3m starting an advanced apprenticeship are being counted for the second time, having already achieved an intermediate apprenticeship.

In fact, apprentices joining the accountancy profession often enters at level two and progresses to level three and then continues on to level four. They would be counted three times towards the 3m target.

Hard as it may be to believe, the number of individuals participating in apprenticeships has never been published, and efforts by FE Week to find out the number through a freedom of information request have been rebuffed.

Surely it would be better to count people benefiting — let’s call them ‘apprenticeship entrants’ — to avoid this double or triple counting. This would also save me shouting “wrong!” every time a politician refers to the number of ‘people’ doing an apprenticeship.

The second issue with the target is that it only counts how many apprentices started, which simply means they were on the course for 42 or more days. Last year, a third of all apprenticeship leavers failed to successfully complete the course.

This means we would be counting 1m failed apprenticeships towards the 3m target. How many politicians realise this and would it not be better to be chasing a target that only counts those apprentices who actually graduate?

To achieve 3m starts in five years will require an average of 600,000 starts every year, with an emphasis on supporting the ‘young’, if the Conservative manifesto is to be believed. This is a huge challenge, given last year apprenticeship starts fell 14 per cent to 440,400, of which just 278,900 were aged under 24.

The returning Skills Minister, Nick Boles, is therefore faced with an immediate dilemma. Cop out, and chase growth the easy and cheap way by encouraging more adult apprentice starts, many of whom will be large employers with existing employees. Or stick to the commitment to support the young and incentivise or force more large and small employers to recruit 16 to 23-year-old apprentices?

It is also worth keeping an eye on the development of Degree Apprenticeships, which featured in the Conservative manifesto. For example, might a quick win be to simply rebadge nursing degrees as apprenticeships?

Then there are higher level apprenticeships, but should we be spending public money subsidising level six professional training at law firms and banks? More clues are due soon, with an Apprenticeship Bill to be announced in the Queen’s speech.

Before Nick Boles and the Skills Funding Agency panic and take the cop out route to 3m starts, we need to quickly debate whether ‘starts’ represent the best target to chase and how to ensure many more young people participate.

The government can’t create apprenticeships; only employers can do that, so they need to do their bit too.

David Cameron could have spoken about many policies in his agenda when he addressed the nation outside Number 10 Downing Street having been re-elected as Prime Minister — but he chose apprenticeships. David Allison considers the task ahead.

No matter who you talk to in the education sector, we are all waiting with bated breath to see what the unforeseen Conservative majority will actually deliver.For schools, it is likely that the onward march of academies and free schools will continue.

For schools, it is likely that the onward march of academies and free schools will continue.

For FE colleges, there will be challenges across the board — from 16 to 18 provision to further reductions in the Adult Skills Budget that has been cut so much in recent years.

The one area where there is more certainty is apprenticeships.

When David Cameron stood outside Number 10 as our newly-elected Prime Minister on Friday, May 8, he had many flagship policies he could have talked about.

The re-negotiation with Europe was one, fixing the economy another, or possibly even investment in the NHS. But it was none of these.

It was… apprenticeships. Now whether you agree that this rather single-minded focus on just one educational approach is right or wrong, there is general cross party support for the concept of ‘on-the-job’ training for young people as an alternative to the ‘academic’ approach offered by universities.

Unless there is a change in approach, the 3m apprentices are not going to come easy

This means that for FE colleges and independent learning providers alike, the one area of certainty that we can all work on is a significant growth in apprentice numbers.

This growth is not going to be easy. Much was made in the election campaign of the ‘decline’ in new apprentices in the last academic year and unless there is a change in approach, the 3m apprentices are not going to come easy.

As has been noted by many commentators before, growth in apprenticeships has to be as much about quality as quantity.

My concern is that with this public — and very ambitious — commitment to a volume of apprentices the government will now have to hit it, one way or another.

Those of us that have been in the sector for some time will recognise the cycle that sometimes follows.

Large scale government commitments that are not being achieved lead to a ‘relaxation’ in standards — either through more flexible eligibility criteria, or through lower educational requirements and standards.

One thing we can all agree on is that a relaxation in standards will do nothing for apprenticeships as a whole — and certainly not the young people that go through them.

So how do we make the most of this situation? Good apprenticeships are those that meet the needs of an employer; high quality candidates that are available when the business needs them and high quality education, training and assessment that fill the skills gaps that have been identified.

One of the facts that we have observed when looking at both candidate and vacancy data is the importance of timing.

Successful candidates join a business when both the business needs them, and the young person wants to start.

This may sound obvious, but understanding the link between the two will be critical to growth of high quality apprenticeships.

In a recent survey that we undertook with individuals that applied for an apprenticeship, there was good news in that about 20 per cent had found an apprenticeship and started it while 36 per cent were still looking, 16 per cent had found work without an apprenticeship and 14 per cent had returned to full time education. The slightly scary fact was that in the survey, when we explored attitudes to training with the 16 per cent that had found work, the vast majority — 95 per cent of them — had no interest in undertaking any further training and showed no interest in an apprenticeship.

So what happened to these young people to change their view? By definition these young people were employable — they had also been interested in, and applied for an apprenticeship.

Having found work, their interest in education appears to have disappeared. Furthermore, why had these businesses that employed 16 to 18-year-olds not thought that an apprenticeship was a good way of helping equip their business with the right skills for the future?

These are questions that we all need to ponder, and solve. If we don’t, I foresee an era of lower standards and a time when quantity becomes the measure of success and that won’t benefit anyone.

 

Research in the last edition of FE Week showed how the proportion of new grade three results was up this year versus the same period last year. Jayne Stigger considers what might be behind this rise.

It was reported in FE Week that 33 per cent of the 57 general FE colleges (GFEs), sixth form colleges and independent learning providers (ILPs) inspected and reported on between January 1 and May 5 this year were downgraded to a three or ‘requires improvement’ rating compared to 17 per cent of 64 inspections for the same period last year.

The proportion of new grade one or ‘outstanding’ results fell 3 per cent, with no new grade ones so far this year compared to two in the same period last year, and new grade two or’ good’ ratings as a proportion of inspection results fell from 50 per cent last year to 32 per cent, the proportion of grade fours went from 2 per cent to 9 per cent. So is there a trend in Ofsted results that is a cause for concern?

Ofsted needs an updated and uniform CIF to capture the complexity of colleges and it will now run shorter, more focussed inspections with the expansion of the following areas of provision graded “where appropriate”; 16 to 19 study programmes, 19+ learning programmes, apprenticeships, traineeships, employability, learners in receipt of high needs funding, community learning and 14–16 provision in colleges full-time & part-time.

We must honestly examine the link between inspection outcomes and management input

For this group of college inspections, however, the overriding factor for a college to downgrade appears to be cultural.

The GFEs who went down a grade all underwent recent management change, Mid Kent College (change of principal), Tameside (change of principal), Solihull (new principal), Wigan & Leigh (change of principal) and New College Stamford (change of principal) which would understandably lead to an unsettled atmosphere and contribute to a change of grade.

There were 11 ILPs downgraded, four (37 per cent) of which had never been inspected before, so they were not technically downgraded, just awarded their first grade. Their grades are not truly relevant in this context. The remaining seven (63 per cent) are struggling due to the pressure on funding in terms of overall budgets and that funding rates have not kept pace with inflation.

Previously, ILPs outperformed GFEs and the small numbers who have now fallen to a three are the first victims of the vicious and destructive cuts. We will sadly see more, but it is not caused by Ofsted.

Of the SFCs, amazingly, Bilborough principal Chris Bradford and its governing body admitted they weren’t surprised by their grading, but claimed they had already put in place measures to turn it around. New College Telford has also recently undergone a change of principal, and Strode’s, according to Ofsted, require improvements in teaching and learning and has been slow to implement changes, again a management issue.

Leaving aside the issues of funding which impact us all, we must recognise that while Ofsted will never be ‘perfect’, nor will ‘FE and skills’; I’d prefer a peer-based review, but whatever the method of appraisal, we must honestly examine the link between inspection outcomes and management input.

Let’s look at the results from question two of the Ofsted Better inspection for all consultation on its incoming new CIF. It asked ‘Do you agree or disagree with the proposed ‘effectiveness of leadership and management’ judgement?’

Support for the ‘effectiveness of leadership and management’ judgement was very strong … support was also high among staff working in … the FE and skills sector. Respondents commented that it was right for leadership to be emphasised strongly in the new framework.

As the college inspections in the table demonstrate, change of leadership is destabilising. Colleges must have stable, reliable and outstanding leaders to be successful. Leadership and management are key to the culture of the college, engagement of the staff, ethos in which they work and by definition, how learners achieve.

Rather than taking a shallow look at the data and shouting ‘fix’, we should be focussing on being the best leaders and managers we can, to create the right culture for our staff, learners and success.

 

Lewisham Southwark College and Greenwich Community College are both considering merger as part of reviews with the FE Commissioner having been rated as inadequate. Dame Ruth Silver argues for a broader assessment of South East London FE that does not necessarily entail merger.

Here we go again, round and round the mulberry bush, looking at mergers as the solution to yesterday’s problems, lacking serious strategic intent, with the obvious operational focus serving today’s need for good housekeeping while failing tomorrow’s opportunity to act in fellowship, with the whole system of providers in local education, training and employment provision.

Yet again it is restricting what our sector can become in service to its peoples.

What a waste of an unignorable moment: even worse, yet again it is combining weakness with weakness and failing to honour the wisdom of Gregory Bateson who cautions that, ‘it’s difference that makes a difference, sameness gives us more of the same.’

We can and need to do better than the usual response — more of the same is dangerous to more institutions.

The vicious funding attack on adult and community education in colleges and elsewhere, following decades of continual squeeze, closes down avenues where colleges and their learners are known to thrive

Any serious analysis of the South East London colleges’ difficulties clearly reveals that the state they’re in is, in large part, the outcome of consistent long term funding-led operational squeezes from stronger, privileged and more improving parts of the whole system.

To illustrate, the terrific success of Adonis’ Challenge Initiative in London’s reinvigorated, repurposed schools has resulted in an extreme narrowing of the pipeline which brought a strong supply of young people through our doors: they are now staying where they are and thriving and colleges struggle without them.

Add to that the rise and rise in the valuing of apprenticeships in the hands of independent learning providers and employers has also narrowed a pipeline of other young adults and colleges also struggle without them.

The vicious funding attack on adult and community education in colleges and elsewhere, following decades of continual squeeze, closes down avenues where colleges and their learners are known to thrive. Universities too have taken up supply routes for folks who were previously the population of FE.

The state of the colleges in the sector is just as much sending out serious distress signals about systems in collision as it is about inadequate funding, perilous timescales for change and a crisis in succession as our colleagues leave or fall. It is Darwinian.

What to do? As ever, we have been very near to scoping solutions on this and they were cut short when funding ceased. The LSIS regional sustainability advisers, some seven years ago, participated with respected others in how, in local circumstance, a truly connected system of education and training could happen — and with some enlightened London chief executives, we even got as far as rehearsing some of the parts of strategic planning for the whole system working within a progressive borough.

Two things got in the way, funding of course, but we all know that money is rarely only ever about money — it is also a signifier of territories, power clashes, respect , love even, and votes, of course.

As a sector, we have much to learn about the importance of subsidiarity in a collective contribution to a bigger goal than simply the institutional.

FE Commissioner Dr David Collins stands in a place of possibility as the reviews begin — he is absolutely the one who can invite contributors from the wider local system, starting with what’s walking towards the area, what’s being asked of all provision, players and communities, construct with others the coming strategic context and what is needed to capture it for all, with performance analysis for positioning on strengths.

He must call on ambitions, the evidence and research of other systems and sectors for this is a time for new thinking.

Review is inadequate, reform is not enough. This could be the time for the reformulation of our purpose, in modern times.

 

Staff costs are, like all variables, a source of savings that come under review in times of austerity. Ian Sackree makes the case for strong HR leadership to offer guidance on staffing issues.

Over the years I have seen HR used well and appropriately, and I have also seen it used poorly and inappropriately to retro-fit and shoe-horn poor management decisions taken without HR advice as if they were made by HR in the first instance.

In these challenging times the latter application of what should be a strategic, business and change-enabling resource is simply foolish and wasteful. How can you avoid this bear trap and get the best out of your HR?

Firstly, while most HR directors are friendly and outgoing, do not take this easy-going persona as an excuse to by-pass their contribution. It is imperative that HR is viewed as a strategic resource and applied to each aspect of strategic problems, challenges, and change-management processes.

Times are tough, money is tight and around 70 per cent of the scarce resource each college receives goes out monthly on pay and people.

Therefore, ensure that the HR director is never far away from the ‘top table’ and is ‘in at the beginning’ of a good idea or proposed problem-solving solution.

HR managers should challenge staff utilisation — but don’t keep ‘bashing’ the lecturers who generally account for only one-third of the wage bill

At this time more people are exiting the sector than joining it, a sad reality of reduced real-time funding.

Notwithstanding, each person’s exit must be handled correctly to avoid a legal, and expensive backwash.

Don’t let managers who ‘know a bit’ about HR lead on this; use the experts because that’s why you employ them. On the converse, where recruitment is taking place each lecturer computes to an annual recurring £50k investment, senior managers up to £100k per annum (or more) so commit at least as much time to each appointment as you would to spending the equivalent money on non-pay.

You would not renew the college vehicle fleet after a 30-minute interview, so don’t slack when it comes to assuring that new recruits are the very best available. Use HR to fully validate the credentials and skills set of anyone you allow to join your organisation, and don’t be afraid to make it challenging to get in.

A good HR director will provide strong, yet appropriate challenge to ensure that the organisation is following the important rules (not the less important rules), and using its resources well.

My advice is to accept, and support that challenge across the college. Pay costs measured against total income must be pushed downwards to 60 per cent, a repetitive annual task if income is falling year-on-year.

HR managers should challenge staff utilisation — but don’t keep ‘bashing’ the lecturers who generally account for only one-third of the wage bill.

Deploy your HR Task Force across the college to find and resolve waste, because it is out there. In many high-performing colleges HR directors work very closely with finance directors in a collaborative way. Good cop, bad cop (you decide) but regardless of who is who, this approach should be encouraged. Get ‘money’ and ‘people’ right and the rest follows.

The sector has had many back-to-back difficult years and staff tensions are often high and stress can be rife. In tightening times avoid temptation to cut your people-related HR horsepower.

Never before has it been so important to do the HR-basics well, focussing on good employee and union relationships, morale (a leadership thing), managing attendance and ensuring that in the absence of pay awards the organisation does everything to respect, motivate, develop and recognise high performers who have decided to stick around.

In summary, a well-resourced HR function led by a skilled, forward thinking HR director is essential.

Your HR director must be many things to many people in order to do their job well, but one thing they should never be is left in the corner as an observer in this kinetic and frenetic time.

Use them as the strategic enablers that they are and your organisation will reap the benefits.