The Manchester College is set for a new principal next month.
Lisa O’Loughlin takes over from Jack Carney having joined the college in July last year as a vice principal, from Blackburn College, where she was deputy principal.
She starts in the post from November 1 and will work alongside Mr Carney until his retirement on December 19.
John Thornhill, group chief executive of The Manchester College, said: “The combination of Lisa’s leadership style, her experience, knowledge and track record in the sector and her passion for quality and the success of all learners, makes Lisa the ideal successor to lead the college forward on the next stage of our exciting development plans.”
Sue Murphy, governors’ board chair, said: “I am delighted to announce the appointment of Lisa O’Loughlin as principal of The Manchester College.
“On behalf of The Manchester College’s board of governors, I’d like to congratulate Lisa on her new role and I look forward to working with her. This is an important and exciting appointment which I believe will be exactly what is needed to take the college forward at this point. Lisa shares the board’s passion for the college’s continued success and dedication to its mission.
“I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Jack Carney, for his long service and contribution to the college. He has worked tirelessly to raise aspirations, improve lives and support learners from all backgrounds to achieve.”
Meanwhile, the man charged with unifying Ofsted’s FE and skills inspection regime with all other education sectors is to step down from the education watchdog at the end of the year.
Mike Cladingbowl, national director of inspection reform, will be leaving his post on January 1 to become executive principal of a new multi-academy trust in North West England.
It is understood that until then he will continue working on proposals to merge all education inspections under a single framework from September next year, just three years after the current FE and skills common inspection framework (CIF) was introduced.
He said: “I’ve thoroughly enjoyed my national role with Ofsted and being able to make a real difference to education standards in England over the last 12 years.”
He added: “This is the right time for me to be taking on a new challenge. I’m very excited to be returning to my roots in Cheshire and being more directly involved in making a difference in schools. Before that, I still have a big job to do steering through Ofsted’s forthcoming consultation on the future of education inspection.”
Niace is calling for adults to have an entitlement to career reviews, not just in mid-life but at other points in their lives, including returning to work from maternity leave, long-term sick leave and caring responsibilities. David Hughes explains why.
Why, when most of us will now work for 50 or more years, do we expect people to make do with the (often inadequate) careers advice they had at school?
This is even more baffling when we know that people will change career many times and jobs will change enormously in coming years.
This lack of advice and support comes to a head at times of transition — perhaps re-entering the labour market after caring for children, or after redundancy, for instance.
The other big transition we have been looking at in the last year is when people enter mid-life — around the time we reach 50.
This is the age at which most people really start to think about retirement, and it often coincides with concerns about ill health, caring responsibilities, children starting their adult lives and even leaving home.
It is also a time when some people have paid off their mortgage and can see new opportunities.
This is why our Mid-life Career Reviews, which have since become part of the government’s Fuller Working Lives Proposals and have also been endorsed by the Liberal Democrats as part of their Manifesto, are such an effective intervention.
The economic case for helping people in mid-life make the right choices about their careers is profound.
The economic case for helping people in mid-life make the right choices about their careers is profound
Our society is going through a fundamental change. People are living much longer. One-in-six of us is over 65, but by 2050 it will be one-in-four.
Over the next decade there will be almost twice as many vacancies as there will be new entrants to the labour market. There is also a powerful social case — staying in work can help people feel valued and valuable, contributing rather than taking. That makes for better communities and stronger families as well as a stronger economy.
The latest evidence from our Mid-life Career Review Pilot Programme shows that, even though most people want to stay working, the majority end up retiring as soon as they can.
This is often due to ill health or not being able to find the right type of job to fit their desired lifestyle.
We have found in our work that small tweaks to designing jobs and to the workplace can help people stay working longer and that re-training can help people who are not physically able to continue in their job.
It’s absolutely vital older people have the right opportunities to develop their skills and participate in learning so they can stay productive, contribute to their employer’s success, as well as making the final years of people’s working lives dynamic and fulfilling.
Our work has shown that the Mid-life Career Review — a simple and relatively cost-effective intervention — provides the information and confidence people need to take more control of their work and their lives.
It also aligns with Ros Altman’s three Rs — as discussed at our conference last week — retaining, retraining and recruiting.
A recent House of Lords report said that we were ‘woefully underprepared for our rapidly ageing population’. That is no longer an option.
We — national and local government, employers, local enterprise partnerships, providers, charities and individuals — must work together to ensure that as Britain ages it does so in a way that benefits everyone.
And we would like to see the career review model extended to help more people, especially those returning to work from maternity leave, long-term sick leave and caring responsibilities.
People do not like to think about getting older. As a country we have been slow to consider the full demographic implications that await us, some popular, others much less so.
But the simple fact remains that people delaying their retirement and working longer can help to diffuse the ‘ticking time-bomb’ of skills shortages and skills gaps for employers, help people stave off poverty in retirement and save money from the
welfare bill.
Apprenticeship funding reforms have been thrust back into the spotlight after government figures indicated the programme was heading for the second consecutive annual drop in the number of starts.
Provisional data shows that in 2013/14 the number of all-age apprenticeship starts was 432,400, a 13 per cent fall from the comparable figures for 2012/13.
Although the number of 16 to 18-year-olds starting apprenticeships rose 5 per cent to 117,800 since last year, the number of 19 to 24-year-olds fell 3 per cent to 156,900.
And the number of 25 + apprenticeships — the largest apprentice age group — tumbled from 222,200 to 157,700, a drop of 29 per cent.
The government figures, published in the Statistical First Release (SFR) on Thursday (October 16), also suggest the number of people starting apprenticeships has dropped for the second year running.
The final figures for 2012/13 showed the first drop in apprenticeship take-up in seven years (from 510,200 to 499,800 — a 2 per cent drop) and if the provisional figures are confirmed in the next SFR (due in January), they would prove the worrying downward trend was continuing — and include level two.
Skills Minister Nick Boles pointed towards the failed FE loans system for apprentices, which applied to learners from the age of 24 and from level three and was dropped in February, as behind the drop and said he “looks forward to numbers bouncing back”.
Nut he has been warned that the hoped-for recovery in numbers remained at risk from proposals currently on his desk to make employers pay towards apprentice training costs.
Stewart Segal, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, told FE Week: “While the increase in starts for under 19s is very encouraging, the mixed news underlines why we need to get the apprenticeship funding reforms right, especially in the context of the two main party leaders’ pledges to massively expand the programme by an extra 200,000 starts a year.
“The Skills Minister at the AELP conference on Wednesday [October 15] told providers he was ‘nervous’ about requiring mandatory cash contributions from employers and the evidence that we and other groups have presented about this proposal’s likely effect on volumes suggest that he is right to take his time about pushing ahead with it.”
Dr Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), said: “Although it is good news that there has been a rise in the number of under 19-year-olds starting apprenticeships, it is worrying that there has been drop in the number of over 19s doing so.
“When so many young people are out of work, the government needs to do much more to encourage employers to invest in apprentices.”
Mr Boles, who told this month’s AELP autumn conference of his being “nervous” at the apprenticeship funding reform proposals, said: “I welcome the increased number of 16 to 24-year-old apprentices as well as a marked improvement in the quality of training.”
He added: “Changes in the funding of adult apprenticeships did affect the number of starts between August 2013 and February 2014.
“We have since addressed this and look forward to numbers bouncing back.”
David Hughes, chief executive of the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, warned the “significant impact” of loans on apprenticeships could “have serious implications for the economy”.
He added the organisation had “concerns” that loans had also affected the uptake of other level three and four courses.
Meanwhile, the number of traineeship starts in the programme’s first year was provisionally put at 10,500.
Mr Boles said the figures were “excellent” and showed traineeships were off to “a strong start”.
Pictured: Nick Boles
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Editor’s comment
On the level
It wasn’t too long ago that FE Week seemed the lone voice drawing public attention to falling numbers of 16 to 18 apprenticeships starts while overall figures rocketed.
Thankfully, that teenage trend appears to have been in arrest since the third quarter of last academic year.
Unfortunately, we are now witnessing falling numbers overall — due to a decline in 19+ starts and, in the main, the 25+ age group.
But what is interesting here, and what the Skills Minister’s apprentice FE loans excuse does not take into account, is that these falls were not limited to levels three and above (those to which FE loans applied).
The failed FE loans experiment most certainly affected 25+ apprentice numbers at these levels — but why also the fall in level two?
These intermediate apprenticeship starts for the 19+ age group fell provisionally by 3 per cent to 200,200 last academic year. It was a 5 per cent fall for 25+ to 104,200.
Could the reason be that there were incorrect assumptions that 24-plus FE loans also applied to level two apprenticeships?
With the quality of advice and guidance again the source of criticism this week (see page seven), it’s a conclusion we might just have to consider while thinking seriously about the wisdom of further funding reforms for apprenticeships.
Jim Proudfoot looks at Ofqual plans for accreditation requirements.
In order for a qualification to be offered in England it must have been accepted onto the Register of Regulated Qualifications to show that it is of a required standard and fit for purpose.
Until now all these qualifications have had an “accreditation requirement”.
This means they have been individually reviewed against the General Conditions of Recognition and also against any other appropriate criteria before being accredited.
This requirement will be lifted next month.
The accreditation requirement will continue to apply to some qualifications, with Ofqual specifying A-levels and GCSEs.
Other curriculum-based qualifications and probably NVQs and qualifications aimed at apprenticeships, those deemed important enough to fund, may be specified at a later date. In fact they may not lose it at all.
Ofqual has not highlighted these qualifications and they may well keep their accreditation requirement. It has cleverly been left open. Each awarding organisation (AO) will be informed about specific qualifications and it may be that one AO has a requirement and another does not for the same qualifications.
It will not be as straightforward as it sounds.
Meanwhile, the rest will go through automatically to the register when submitted by an AO on RITS, the IT system used by the regulators as a portal to the register, but this does not mean any less scrutiny or care will apply.
Ofqual is also consulting on Guided Learning Hours (GLH) as well as the current arrangements for the QCF (Qualifications and Credit Framework).
A major outcome of these initiatives for AOs will be the significant increase in their workload just to ensure that all qualifications remain compliant with the conditions and other relevant criteria. This may also be exacerbated by a change to RITS itself and any potential risk rating that Ofqual applies. The content and structure of the vast majority of their qualifications will not change at all. It will affect funding.
It may be that one awarding organisation has an accreditation requirement and another does not for the same qualifications
There is considerable pressure on AOs already who are still getting used to the new system introduced by Ofqual in October 2010. It is not obvious where the breakdown in communication is. The number of recognised AOs has grown from 25 to almost 180 ranging from the very large to those with only a few qualifications — all vary in how they operate but all react in a similar way to the effects of change and to costs and funding.
Communication and clarity are the issues.
Regulations and other criteria are fairly high-level by nature otherwise they would be unworkable. The MOT certificate confirms a car is roadworthy but, legally, only applies to the time and day it is issued. It is the responsibility of the owner to maintain it or they will forfeit the right to use the road. The same applies to AOs and their qualifications.
Different messages come from different organisations at different times and rumours abound.
Ofqual has been the guardian of standards of qualifications in various guises over the years but it is led by government initiatives. Although it has a certain amount of autonomy it has to report to Parliament and implement what has been decreed.
Qualifications are the intellectual currency that indicate our potential to others and open doors of opportunity. They are also one way of measuring our own abilities and helping us achieve our goals.
There is a danger they will be undermined or devalued by risk taking and, as with the banking crisis, it will be those who can least afford to be given a chance to prove themselves who will pay the price.
A qualification is not an end in itself. It is the responsibility of the individual to use it as they see fit.
Ministers take advice from a range of experts before making a decision. Advice from groups who are not in regular communication with each other can be as detrimental as advice from one individual with nothing to compare it to.
Qualifications and curriculums are cyclical but the basics do not really go away, only the packaging changes.
While we must remain vigilant, it is the practitioners who need support to ensure we remain competitive — success will regulate success.
As the Institute for Learning (IfL) enters the last few weeks of its existence, Dr Jean Kelly’s mood is a mixture of sadness and demob happiness.
Her desk in the open plan offices the IfL shares with dozens of other third sector organisations near Old Street is surrounded by boxes as all 14 members of staff prepare to move on to new things and transfer the IfL’s legacy to the Education and Training Foundation (ETF).
Kelly, aged 65, admits she didn’t always know her tenure as chief executive, which began in May after Toni Fazaeli retired, would be so short, but she’s happy with the organisation taking the reins.
Kelly with grand-daughter Anya Rich, aged two
“There was no way that financially we could keep going as we were,” she says, having witnessed membership numbers fall in the face of increasing fees in response to withdrawal of government funding
“My brief when I took over was to look for other ways that we could really continue to make a difference.
“We tried everything in theory to do that, and nothing really stacked up because what it would mean would have been a diminution of what we were.
“For us, what was important was that qualified teacher learning and skills status [QTLS] went forward. It was such a battle to get that equivalence between qualified teacher status [QTS] and QTLS, but when it came in in 2012, I mean, that was a terrific moment for all of us.”
Kelly (centre left) after her final exams, pictured in Holywell Street, Oxford, with friends
But while Kelly will be sad to leave professional life behind, she is looking forward to having time to do other things, including spending time with her two sons and three grandchildren and enjoying life in her native Charlton.
Growing up in South East London, Kelly attended Addey and Stanhope School, in Deptford, and, like countless others, she cites the hit and miss nature of her education as one of her reasons for going into teaching.
“I had fantastic, inspirational teachers, and some really poor teachers,” she tells me.
“I think they do scar you actually, in some way — you’ve got to be quite strong to get over it. And that stays with you, and it’s something that you can pass on to other people to show that not everybody can do it, and can do it well.”
After obtaining a certificate in education at St Gabriel’s Teacher Training College, in London, she taught in primary schools in the London boroughs of Bromley and Croydon while also studying with the Open University, an organisation she still enjoys a professional relationship with to this day.
But Kelly craved specialism, and at the age of 40 decided to defy convention by going to Oxford.
“It was daunting,” she says. “I saw an advert in the paper, and it said Harris Manchester College was opening its doors to mature students, so I thought: ‘If I’m going to go and do a degree, I want to see what it’s all about at Oxford’.
What I really
love about FE
is there’s always
an opportunity
to do something
else, something
different
“I turned up for the interview, and they thought I had come for a job as a cleaner. I had to fight to establish myself as somebody serious. And that’s what’s interesting, if you’re from a working class background, you are seen as dabbling, but I was totally serious.”
Leaving Oxford in 1992, Kelly returned to London with a fellowship at Queen Mary University where she lectured and received a PhD in 1997, and it was then that her long working relationship with FE began.
Initially managing the Cert Ed programme at Soundwell FE college in Bristol for two years, she returned to London again as manager of the BA/MA professional studies in education at Croydon College before moving on to policy roles with the Learning and Skills Development Agency and the Centre for Excellence in Leadership.
She says: “[IfL chair] Sue Crowley and I wrote an article years ago called Snakes and Ladders, and we said that in FE, your career is a bit like snakes and ladders. It’s not exactly planned, you go up and down, and you might move across or you might slide down somewhere else, and you start again.
Kelly and Europe Singh at a Centre for Excellence in Leadership event (CEL)
“It’s a bit of happenstance and being flexible. I think what I really love about FE is there’s always an opportunity to do something else, something different, and it always presents itself if you are willing to look and willing to take that chance — and I took the chances that came along. And that was really lucky for me.”
As IfL’s executive director for professional development between 2007 and 2014, Kelly presided over the highs and lows of the organisation, and laments the damage done by controversy over proposed membership fees several years ago.
“The damage that was done to us and our reputation in the preceding years was quite considerable,” she says. “It’s hard to come back from that and still get people enthused about what you are as an organisation.
“We’ve moved on and we’re through it, but it was bad. We were in the eye of a perfect storm that blew up around government, unions, employers, and we were kind of caught in the middle. And it was a shame, because we wanted to work with all of them, and to do that well, and it didn’t turn out
that way.
“And of course the real fallout from that was the deregulation of qualifications, of having to remain in good professional standing, of having to have QTLS. That’s a pity. That’s a real pity”
Kelly admits she hadn’t planned on retiring so soon, but decided after the plan to close the IfL was announced that it presented an opportunity “to do things I have always wanted to do”. The death of her trade unionist husband Brian last year was also a factor.
Whether it’s the comfort of impending retirement, or perhaps because she has always been quite outspoken, Dr Kelly is more than happy to share her views on the current government and its education policies.
“We were in the eye of a perfect storm that blew up around government, unions, employers”
“I don’t think the damage has really kicked in yet,” she warns.
“If there is a change of government in May, which I hope there will be, and if that change means going back to what has always been the bedrock of education in this country, then I think the damage could be contained, and it can be rectified. But if it goes on for years and years and years in this way, it could do untold damage.”
As our interview comes to an end, it’s obvious that Dr Kelly’s will not be a quiet retirement, although she insists she will not materialise in the offices of ETF chief executive David Russell.
She laughs when I suggest there might be a Greenwich Borough councillor or London Assembly member in her yet, but certainly doesn’t rule anything out.
Kelly aged five
She says: “I think if you don’t feel that whatever you are doing is making a difference, then I can’t see why you would want to carry on, to be honest. It’s important. It’s a social responsibility, it’s a human responsibility, so yes — I would like to do something like that, yes.
“I desperately want to write and go back and do some work with the Open University, and also the University of the Third Age.
“I am in discussions with the Ministry of Justice because I would quite like to be a magistrate, but apparently I’m too old. They have said I need to talk to the Lord Chancellor, so I am pursuing that.”
What is your favourite book, and why?
The Riverside by Chaucer. I spent more than five years reading every page of this for my PhD thesis and my teaching. I just love language and the history of language and that’s what Chaucer is all about
What is your pet hate?
Queue jumping. At airports, on buses, trains and in shops — in particular those people who do it pretending they haven’t noticed a queue at all
What do you do to switch off after work?
I go home, cook, watch Channel 4 news — I’m very good at putting things into perspective
If you could invite anyone, living or dead, to a dinner party who would it be?
Family. They always turn out to be the best parties after all
What did you want to be when you were growing up?
It sounds boring but I always, always wanted to be a teacher. I used to teach my teddies using a blackboard and easel and a range of chalks. My techniques improved over the years
Further education colleges have a vital role to play in bringing digital skills qualifications up to date to boost computer literacy, a group of Lords has heard.
The House of Lords digital skills committee heard the adult skills budget (ASB) was being spent on the “wrong sort of IT” from a panel of expert witnesses on Tuesday (October 14).
The committee, chaired by Lady Morgan of Huyton, is taking evidence on the digital capability of the nation.
Karen Price OBE, chief executive e-skills UK, the sector skills council for business and information technology, told the committee: “We need to look very seriously at the role of FE colleges and what they can contribute.”
The FE sector, she said, needed to offer short, focussed IT courses for those who wanted digital skills for their job but were not necessarily digital specialists.
But, she said: “The funding system currently works against it. We have an enormous adult skills budget and a lot of it is spent on IT but it’s the wrong sort of IT — it’s qualifications that are 10 years old and very out of date.
“Colleges’ offer is driven by where they can access funding, these qualifications and courses need repurposing.
“It’s not going to cost us any more money and then the amount of adult skills budget spent on it can be spent on relevant material that the market and the community need.”
The Office for National Statistics estimates 2.2m people in the UK have no technical skills, 10.8m have only social or “citizen” digital skills, 13.6m who have non-specialist IT work skills, and 2.9m “digital makers” work in technology-focussed roles.
Rachel Neaman, chief executive of Go ON UK, agreed digital skills qualifications needed constant updating to cover new technologies.
“The idea of setting a curriculum that’s going to last for five to ten years in the digital space is clearly no longer feasible,” she told the committee.
“At the moment the adult skills budget is just over 2bn and yet some qualifications are not relevant to today’s digital world —
those are not going to help us become a
digital nation.”
She added the UK needed to “face the fact that digital literacy has become the fourth pillar of literacy — you have reading, writing, arithmetic and then you have digital skills.”
Maggie Philbin, leader of the UK Skills Taskforce, said: “You don’t get to GCSE, A-level or apprenticeship and stop, learning has to go on otherwise it becomes out of date or obsolete.
“With digital skills… we need to be able to access training at any age no matter what your background… and FE is ideally placed
to do that.”
At previous a committee meeting last month, National Institute of Adult Continuing Education chief executive David Hughes said Local Enterprise Partnerships had made “patchy progress” in helping learners improve digital skills and needed more responsibility.
The committee continues to take evidence, with the next meeting due to take place on October 21.
Skills Minister Nick Boles has admitted to being “nervous” about proposed employer cash contributions towards apprenticeship training costs.
Addressing the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) autumn conference in Birmingham last week, Mr Boles acknowledged employers already contributed to their apprenticeship programmes in “a million ways”.
And he said he was still considering whether mandatory cash contributions would be a good idea.
He said the government was right to pilot its apprenticeship reforms, which include a requirement that employers pay one third of training and assessment costs, but said they would not necessarily work for all businesses.
He said: “I think we should all be honest and observe that the employers involved in delivering apprenticeships under that pilot are employers of a particular kind, a particular depth of resource and the apprenticeships involved are a particular kind of apprenticeship, they’re not necessarily absolutely typical.
“I would like every employer who is creating an apprenticeship to want to dig into their pockets to contribute in cash as well as in all of the other million ways employers do contribute, towards the success of that programme, but the question is, do you require it?
“I am nervous, I think, about the effect, particularly on all those employers which do not currently do apprenticeships, I am nervous about the idea of an obligation to put in cash.”
It comes after FE Week exclusively revealed earlier this month that Mr Boles had hinted at plans to scrap the contributions in his first interview since his appointment in July.
Mr Boles also admitted that the task of getting apprenticeship starts past the 3m mark by 2020, which was set for him by Prime Minister David Cameron in his speech to the Conservative Party Conference, had made his “stomach turn”.
He said the percentage of employers providing apprenticeships was still “tiny”, and added: “We don’t need 10 per cent or 15 per cent of employers doing apprenticeships, we need 40 per cent, 50 per cent, 60 per cent, and that is the really important challenge the Prime Minister has set me.
“It’s not so much the headline number of 3m, though it’s always good to have something which makes your stomach turn slightly as a challenge, it’s the idea that there should be a simple guidance given to every young person.”
He said he wanted young people to understand that apprenticeships and university are the two “gold-plated, gold-standard routes through life” and that government would do “anything in its power” to help people down one of them.
He used his speech to outline his belief in three “profound responsibilities” towards young people held by his generation, which he said had “created the world in which these youngsters are growing up”.
He said the government and providers needed to be honest about the fact that jobs increasingly demand a certain level of literacy and numeracy, and that promoting and boosting functional skills would play a part in that.
He added that young people needed to be “challenged and stretched” but not “mollycoddled”, and said that with this in mind the government had been right to cancel a “raft of qualifications which might have been quite fun to do and…easier and cheaper to teach, but actually provided very little value to the young people taking them”.
He added: “The third responsibility we have towards these young people is to guide them, to steer them, not to leave them stumbling around in the dark without adequate information on which to make the choices about their future lives.
“That’s why as a government we have much more to do on careers advice.”
His comments came after AELP chief executive Stewart Segal told delegates that independent learning providers were continuing to deliver valuable training despite cutbacks at government level.
He said: “There is no doubt that you, and we and the department have faced a lot of change, that’s quite fair. Budgets overall are decreasing, so the value for money issue is more important than ever.
“But within that, we should be pleased that many of the programmes which you deliver, those work-based programmes, those programmes which link with employers, are the ones which have high-priority apprenticeships, work experience within study programmes, traineeships, that’s all very positive.
“And you’re also at the forefront of delivering programmes for the unemployed, which currently gets core non-apprenticeship funding, and our view is that funding should be prioritised as well and programmes for
the unemployed should have a higher priority.”
AELP chair and Skills Training UK chief executive Martin Dunford used his speech to warn the conference that the main political parties were focusing on quantity over quality when it comes to apprenticeships.
He said: “Isn’t it fantastic to have all three parties talking about apprenticeships? They’ve finally got the message, but it’s all about millions, millions, millions. The way they get around the success rates is to say ‘the quality’s not good enough and it needs to be improved’.
“Well actually the success rate is higher than ever, the satisfaction rate is higher than ever, and it’s embarrassing to talk about that when you’re trying to change something that’s not broken.”
But he said he had received a positive response from the new minister.
He added: “In our meetings so far we have seen a very positive response to our ideas and concerns, quite surprising actually. The minister knows that we share the
key objectives for our sector, which is to deliver high quality programmes to meet the needs of individuals and employers.”
Third of employers in dark about their own apprentices
Almost a third of employers with apprentices did not know they were running government-backed programmes, a senior civil servant has admitted.
Jennifer Coupland (pictured), deputy director of the joint apprenticeship unit at the Departments for Education and Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, told the AELP
autumn conference that a recent survey of employers had presented some “grim” statistics.
Speaking after Skills Minister Nick Boles, she said: “It’s really heartening to see we are on track now for delivering 2m apprenticeship starts over this parliament. That’s amazing stuff, so you really do deserve a pat on the back. We also know the quality of those apprenticeships has been improving across the last four years.
“But if you do look under the bonnet, and I don’t want to rain on the minister’s very good presentation this morning, there are some grim facts as well.
“Our last employer survey showed that 29 per cent of employers who had apprentices were unaware of the fact they had an apprentice. They were training somebody, they were aware of that, but they didn’t know the government was paying for a full apprenticeship.
“We also know around a fifth of small firms are unable to find a framework which really does meet their needs, and as the minister has pointed out you’ve still got pretty low penetration into the numbers of employers offering apprenticeships. It’s hovering around the 10 per cent mark depending on how you measure.”
She added: “The reform plan was conceived as a way to address this sort of thing once and for all. To grow the quality and the quantity of apprenticeships, and we are going to do this by making it an employer-driven programme.”
Manifesto calls for investment to fill skills gap
Continued investment to fill the skills gap is a top priority in the newly-rewritten manifesto of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP).
The updated document, which sets out a wish-list for government after the 2015 general election, was unveiled at the organisation’s autumn conference, and puts investment at the core of its message.
The manifesto insists that “tackling growing skills shortages is key to sustaining the recovery,” and that investment is needed to make sure everyone reaches a minimum level of skill, with programmes for the unemployed focusing on early intervention and personalised delivery.
Other priorities for the AELP in its updated manifesto include the need to “grow the credibility of traineeships,” better access to information about the labour market and more integration between programmes and initiatives.
Stewart Segal (pictured), AELP chief executive, said: “Training providers will be encouraged that party leaders have placed apprenticeships among their highest priorities for the next parliament and I believe that growing the programme will not just make a big difference to people’s careers but will also make a significant contribution to answering employers’ skills needs as the economy continues to recover.
“However we have shown in AELP’s updated manifesto that other actions are also required to maximise the return and effectiveness of government investment in training in order to underpin a sustainable economic recovery and strengthen social inclusion.”
The manifesto sets out 10 key points for action, including a balanced curriculum in schools with a focus on basic skills and functional English and maths, access to high-quality careers guidance, government funding for basic employability skills
and competencies up to level two, better access to information about the labour market and training options and
high-quality apprenticeships and traineeships.
Other points include an insistence that apprenticeship reforms must not risk the disengagement of young people and smaller businesses, increased credibility for traineeships, more coherent procurement across government departments, an emphasis on the “important role” of local enterprise partnerships and the need for open and transparent funding.
Further education sector bodies have called for action after another academic criticised careers advice in England.
In a report written for the Sutton Trust, Professor Tristram Hooley of the University of Derby described statutory guidance issued by the government on careers advice as “weak” and called for the role of the National Careers Service (NCS) to be extended and its website reviewed.
The report, entitled Advancing Ambitions, is the second of its kind this year after Sir John Holman, Emeritus Professor at the University of York, said advice had “failed young people for generations” in his report entitled Good Careers Guidance, written for The Gatsby Foundation in April. It comes after the government passed the legal responsibility for careers advice on to schools in 2011, and earlier this year clarified statutory guidance to require schools to specifically promote vocational routes in their advice.
Professor Hooley said: “These changes have resulted in a major reorganisation of the delivery of career guidance in schools.
“Unfortunately this has not been monitored in any systematic way, and only limited attempts been made to measure the impacts of the changes. We need a much stronger NCS to support schools and colleges in delivering for young people.”
But Brian Lightman, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: “This report provides yet more evidence about the need for young people to have access to face-to-face guidance from a qualified careers professional. There is no need for any further reports about this matter. It is time for action.” Dr Mary Bousted, general secretary at the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said: “There is a limit to the amount of research about the weakness of careers advice which the government can ignore.”
A Department for Education spokesperson said: “We know there is much more to do and we are looking closely at how we can further strengthen the system to ensure that every child has access to the support they need to make the right choices at the right time.”
It has been a privilege to work for FE teachers and trainers as the IfL’s policy officer for the last three years.
My policy colleague Rachel Cooke and I have worked together, consulting IfL members and representing their views on a plethora of consultations involving more than 50,000 practitioners.
Often, these were in reaction to government or sector organisations and so, given the pace of change in FE and skills, we rarely had the opportunity to ask the questions we really wanted to ask.
In June, the IfL launched what was to be our final major member consultation — an omnibus survey for members and non-members to complete over the summer.
The questions were designed to provoke reflection and creativity, two things that IfL has long valued in the considered insights of teachers and trainers.
The survey, and consequently the report of the findings, had three main sections: questions about professionalism, professional identity and careers; questions about policy; and questions about continuing professional development.
We received more than 1,200 responses. One of the best things about working for IfL has been the ability to connect with practitioners across all parts of the FE and skills sector. This survey was no exception.
We had responses from teachers and trainers in the armed forces, public services and employer providers as well as FE colleges and independent training providers.
We wanted to be able to record the reflective perspective of practitioners on what it is about the job that gets them out of bed in the morning and what can be improved.
More than anything, it seems that the central motivation for teachers in FE and skills is the successful achievement and progression of learners.
Time and time again we saw phrases like “light-bulb moments,” “when students get it” and “when you see learners get where they wanted to go”.
In terms of improving the job, practitioners across the sector talked about redressing the balance between teaching and administrative duties.
Shane Chowen
Echoing the sentiments articulated by Education Secretary Nicky Morgan in her speech at the Conservative Party conference this year, teachers and trainers in our sector do not feel that enough time can be dedicated to planning and evaluation, thus potentially inhibiting creativity and innovation in the classroom.
Too many examples were presented of planning, reflection and professional development not being considered legitimate parts of the working week.
Careers advice and guidance is a big theme in our sector’s narrative, but how often do we invest attention to the career paths of our own people?
Our research highlights that most teachers and trainers see career progression in terms of becoming more advanced and experienced teaching professionals, rather than being ‘promoted’ to management positions.
Teachers and trainers in FE and skills are aspirational, and IfL research shines a light on the kinds of roles and activities — teaching, management, professional or academic — they consider in their career aspirations.
If an FE teacher or trainer were appointed as the minister responsible for the sector after the next general election, the lack of fair funding would be a key priority.
his finding comes from an open question inviting survey participants to list five things they would seek to achieve if they were the minister for FE and skills. Other priorities included reinstating requirements for teachers to undertake teacher training; ensuring school leavers had the right skills to progress to FE; and increasing freedoms and flexibilities for teachers by redressing workload issues.
Teachers and trainers also felt that their local labour markets were failing to provide good jobs for their learners; that the general public had become more aware of FE than previously; and that the current education and skills system was not sufficiently accessible for adults who need retraining.
I commend these findings to the sector as valuable insight for further development of pedagogy, policy, professionalism and professional development in our sector.
Pictured: a selection of the findings from the IfL report Pedagogy, policy and professionalism — its final survey
