MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 461

Yultan Mellor

Principal Consultant, Further Education, Peridot Partners

Start date: April 2024

Previous Job: Principal & Chief Executive, Northern College

Interesting fact: Yultan loves 6.30am circuit classes at the gym so much that even though she though she’d retired last year she continued going along. Now she’s back to work she doesn’t need to build back up to those early mornings!

Danny Metters

Principal and CEO, Bishop Burton College

Start date: August 2024

Previous Job: Principal, East Riding College and Scarborough TEC College

Interesting fact: Danny’s career in animal welfare and education began when, aged 16, he rescued 96 ferrets. When a local rescue centre closed, he and a friend rented an allotment to house the ferrets, rehoming them all over four years – and feeding them with help from a local butcher donating all their scraps.

Paul Warner

Director of Strategy, Skills and Education Group

Start date: May 2024

Previous Job: Director of Strategy and Business Development, Association of Employment and Learning Providers

Interesting fact: Paul has always been deeply involved in performing arts, having been a semi-pro musician in a former life. He writes and produces film and theatre scores and soundtracks from a self-built studio in Essex and recently became an award-winning director of theatre productions.

Mayoral pledges: Burnham plans ‘halls of apprentice’ for Greater Manchester

Andy Burnham, the newly re-elected mayor of Greater Manchester, has pledged to pilot student hall-style accommodation for apprentices within the next four years.

The idea is to create “halls of apprentice” to help young people move across the region to take up training opportunities.

In his manifesto, Burnham said he was “serious” about giving academic and technical education pathways “equal” footing, including in the accommodation that is available to learners.

Although details of how the plan will work remain limited, the Labour mayor said he would collaborate on it with “colleagues in the co-operative sector”.

He added: “The ability to live independently at 18 should be available to all young people, regardless of which path they are on.”

Burnham’s office did not respond to requests for further details at the time of going to press.

Land-based colleges, which tend to be in rural locations, often provide residential accommodation for their students and apprentices.

The Universities and Colleges Admissions Service said other training providers could provide accommodation for apprentices in halls of residence, although this was “not common”.

It is understood that Burnham’s idea, if rolled out, would be the first halls of residence of its type offered by a city-region.

Burnham’s detailed skills mandate

Aside from the lack of detail on his pledge, Burnham’s manifesto on skills is the most detailed of any of the 10 mayors elected on May 2.

The mayor – who has led the authority since 2017 – said that from September this year, students in year 9 in Greater Manchester should be able to enrol on T Levels using a “central applications system”.

This is part of Greater Manchester’s “baccalaureate” technical education pathway – dubbed the Mbacc – which encourages learners to study a set of core GCSEs before progressing to technical post-16 qualifications such as T Levels, BTECs or apprenticeships.

They would then move on to employment, a degree apprenticeship or a higher technical qualification.

Burnham has pledged that by 2030, all students in year 11 who want to pursue technical options will be able to apply on the Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s careers website.

He has called Mbacc the UK’s “first integrated employer-driven technical education system”.

He has also pledged to set a “big and visible” target for the number of apprenticeship starts for each year between 2025 and 2030.

What have other mayors pledged for skills?

A key pledge from mayors of larger regions has been to lobby the government for more freedom in spending post-16 skills funding.

Currently, significant amounts of money handed to devolved authorities is ringfenced for initiatives such as Skills Bootcamps and Free Courses for Jobs.

Steve Rotheram, the mayor of Liverpool City Region, said he would push the government for a “trailblazer” devolution deal similar to that agreed with Greater Manchester and the West Midlands.

Burnham and Rotheram have also said they wanted to see “more devolved use” of apprenticeship levy funds to ensure they were spent locally.

Despite being in control of England’s largest devolved skills budget – more than £320 million – Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, made limited reference to adult education and training in his manifesto.

Khan, who promised to “continue” supporting Londoners with free basic courses, did not respond to requests for comment.

Other notable pledges from regional mayors include a “West Yorkshire Promise” to every resident with a “soft skills” accreditation in communication, teamwork and problem-solving.

Kim McGuinness, the mayor of the newly formed North East devolved region, pledged to build a “green energy and engineering super academy” that would train at least 1,000 people a year.

However, neither mayor’s teams offered further details when approached by FE Week.

An impossible promise?

West Midlands mayor Richard Parker, who now oversees England’s second-largest devolved adult education budget, made skills a priority during his campaign.

This included pledging to guarantee an apprenticeship to every young person in the region who wanted one.

However, he has not yet been able to share with FE Week any further details of how this would be possible.

Since winning, Parker has repeated his pledge to “overhaul the skills agenda” in the region as part of a plan to ensure local businesses can fill their skills gaps.

His comments about West Midlands Combined Authority’s performance on skills under previous mayor Andy Street prompted a defensive tweet from a former senior member of Street’s team.

Clare Boden Hatton, who was director of operations in employment and skills from 2022 to 2024, said: “There is always more that can be done. But to imply this hasn’t been happening underestimates the work of our colleagues and providers in [the West Midlands].”

EPA on trial: DfE to test alternative apprenticeship assessments

Training providers and employers could soon be allowed to assess their own apprentices under plans being drawn up by the Department for Education, FE Week understands.

Officials are planning to test several alternatives to the current end-point assessment (EPA) model in a quest to improve apprenticeship achievement rates and reduce costs and administrative burdens.

Organisations involved in the department’s “expert apprenticeship training provider” group are expected to be allowed to flex EPA requirements in a trial that could begin this summer term. 

FE Week understands several options will be tested across selected apprenticeship standards. 

In one, training providers themselves would carry out part of the EPA, rather than the whole process being done by an independent end-point assessment organisation (EPAO). 

If enacted, this could relieve some of the assessor shortages reported by EPAOs, but could also raise concerns about the reliability of assessments.

Other options on the table are to transfer the assessment of “behaviours” from EPAOs to employers, and to cut the size of EPAs by removing the need for all knowledge, skills and behaviours to be assessed.

A trial like this was hinted at by Robert Halfon, the former skills minister, earlier this year. In his letter to the apprenticeship sector in March, he said his department would “identify further options to improve the assessment model, making it more efficient for the whole sector”.

Since 2017, apprentices have had to pass an EPA to fully achieve their apprenticeship.

EPAs are currently carried out by regulated EPAOs with reference to the assessment plans for each apprenticeship approved the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education. 

FE Week understands officials are concerned about the impact of the cost, complexity and the restricted capacity of EPAOs on apprenticeship completion and achievement rates. 

As it stands, 45.7 per cent of students do not fully achieve their apprenticeships. Drop-outs have funding and accountability implications for training providers, even if apprentices leave with qualifications but no EPA.

A number, not disclosed by the department, of apprentices with expert training providers are expected to be in scope for the EPA trial.

DfE would not reveal if it had a target number for apprentices who would take part in the pilot, or confirm which apprenticeship standards would be included.

The department did confirm to FE Week that apprenticeship EPA was under review to ensure that it was proportionate and effective for apprentices and employers. It said it wanted to remove unnecessary bureaucracy while retaining quality and ensuring occupational competence.

But it would not confirm any details relating to the trial, who would be involved, or what its success measures would be.

This is not the first suggestion that training providers could take more ownership of assessment. 

The Association of Colleges last month said its members should be allowed to carry out their own apprenticeship EPAs, removing the need for colleges to contract with EPAOs altogether. 

John McNamara, interim chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies, said it was “always good to review existing systems and processes”, but added, “we should remember the significant benefits of independent EPA in driving up quality outcomes for apprentices and employers”.

Allowing providers to assess their own apprentices was labelled “high-risk” by another assessment expert. 

Graham Hasting-Evans, chief executive of NOCN, which is an EPAO for multiple apprenticeship standards likely to be in scope in this trial, told FE Week he had “considerable concerns over option one” and thought it was “too high a risk”.

He said there were “merits” to the “possibility [of] combining” some of the other options.

“If new [EPA] arrangements are to work well, we need sensible flexibility in the standards to match the needs of SMEs and the different parts of the country,” Hasting-Evans added.

DfE said it would consider a range of evidence and feedback in determining any longer-term changes to its EPA approach. 

Ofsted slates US firm with £5m DfE bootcamps contract

A US firm that enticed the Department for Education into handing over £5 million to deliver skills bootcamp training despite having no employees in England has been censured by Ofsted.

edX Boot Camps (UK) Limited, a subsidiary of American education technologies giant 2U, has put more than 2,000 adults through a front-end web development bootcamp in just 18 months.

Sessions are delivered online after the working day, and the organisation of job interviews, which are supposed to be a guaranteed feature of the training scheme, are outsourced to recruitment firms.

In a report published this week, Ofsted slammed the company after finding out how few participants in the bootcamps entered work, and how many dropped out after experiencing a lack of personal teaching. The watchdog also found the company ignored its safeguarding responsibilities.

Inspectors said edX leaders had taught “bootcamps” online in America and drew on this knowledge and expertise to plan courses in front-end web development in England, which were intended to fill skills gaps in the digital sector.

However, leaders “underestimated the challenges that this would pose, particularly in teaching courses over fewer weeks than those to which they were accustomed”.

Skills bootcamps in England last up to 16 weeks, whereas the versions offered in America can be longer. For example, a cybersecurity bootcamp offered at the University of Connecticut by edX International lasted for 24 weeks. 

“Very few” of edX UK’s learners who do pass their courses then attend the job interviews set up for them, inspectors found. Leaders and managers blamed this on learners not taking up the “self-guided careers support available to them”.

Whistle was blown last year

Ofsted’s report ruled that edX was making “insufficient progress” – the lowest possible judgment for an early monitoring visit – in two of the three areas inspected.

FE Week understands that edX was reported to the DfE by a whistleblower last year amid fears over the treatment of students and the safety of public funds after its US overseers allegedly reneged on promises to employ England-based coaches to deliver the contract.

It was also alleged that 2U management was not concerned about edX UK student outcomes as they would make a profit on the contract even if no bootcamp participant moved on to a job.

2U has hit the headlines over the past year as reports surfaced of its mounting financial trouble. The company published an article titled “setting the record straight” on its website last month, denying it was on the verge of an imminent shutdown.

The DfE has the power to suspend learner recruitment and payments to skills bootcamps providers that are found making “insufficient progress” by Ofsted.

The department declined to comment on what action, if any, it will take against edX. It also refused to defend its decision to hand a multi-million-pound contract to the company.

At the time of going to press, edX was recruiting for upcoming bootcamp programmes in the UK.

The government’s “list of skills bootcamp providers” states that edX delivers its courses in partnership with the University of Birmingham, although there is no mention of this relationship in Ofsted’s report.

A University of Birmingham spokesperson declined to comment on Ofsted’s concerns, but said: “We are committed to ensuring our students receive a high-quality educational experience across all modes of delivery and levels of study, including our portfolio of short courses for adult learners and apprenticeship programmes, which are monitored by Ofsted.”

One size does not fit all

Skills bootcamps were launched as a government-funded programme in 2020 as part of then-chancellor Rishi Sunak’s attempts to train more adults in areas of national skills shortage, such as construction, manufacturing and digital.

Over half a billion pounds has been committed to the intensive courses that are studied at levels 3 to 5, last between 12 and 16 weeks, are free to participants, and end with a guaranteed job interview.

There has been concern about oversight of the programme, given that much funding was initially handed to commercial firms outside of scope for Ofsted inspections.

There were over 55,000 starts on skills bootcamps across England between 2021 and 2023, according to latest government data.

2U bought what was then known as Trilogy Education Services for a reported $750 million in 2019.

It changed Trilogy’s name to edX Boot Camps (UK) Limited in October 2022 after securing a £4.8 million skills bootcamps contract with the DfE that month. The name change also came after 2U bought most of edX, a virtual class service created by Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for a reported $800 million.

edX Boot Camps (UK) Limited’s accounts filed with Companies House show it has zero employees. There is also no working email address or phone number on the company’s website.

Ofsted did find that edX instructors and teaching assistants use “high-quality resources, which the curriculum development team updates very frequently, to teach learners current industry knowledge and up-to-date coding skills”.

However, instructors do not assess learners’ prior knowledge and skills thoroughly at the start of their courses. They teach all groups of learners the same content, and dedicate the same amount of time to each topic. This had led to students with no prior skills in writing code to struggle to keep up with the requirements of the web design course.

To date, the proportion of learners who pass their courses is “low”, according to Ofsted’s report.

Leaders and managers “do not have sufficient oversight of the progress that learners make”, nor do they “scrutinise delays in the submission of work to identify learners who may be falling behind with their studies, so that they can support them and prevent them from leaving before the end of the course”.

The DfE originally ruled that Ofsted did not need to inspect skills bootcamps because the department itself monitored performance throughout the contract duration, and providers have to provide evidence that training will be high quality for their bid to be successful.

It reversed this decision in late 2022 after a “thematic survey” by Ofsted flagged inconsistent quality of training and poor oversight of contract delivery.

edX and 2U did not respond at the time of going to press.

DfE ‘must increase support’ for AP school leavers entering FE

The children’s commissioner has called on the government to fund a “graduated stepdown programme of support” for year 11 pupils leaving alternative provision (AP). 

The recommendation comes amid concern that specialist schools lack the resources to help young people in AP to make the transition to post-16 education.

Dame Rachel de Souza also said government should fund students who need to repeat year 11 after arriving in AP late or having their GCSEs disrupted.

A poll of young people carried out by Opinium for de Souza’s office found only 53 per cent of children receiving AP were confident they would get the education they wanted, compared with 74 per cent of children as a whole.

There was a similar gap when respondents were asked whether they thought they would learn the skills needed for a good job (52 per cent vs 72 per cent) and whether they thought they would have a job they were happy with (50 per cent vs 67 per cent).

AP leaders said they needed to support young people for a period after they left school “to ensure that they sustained a positive destination”, but that this support was “difficult to provide”.

Settings “are only funded for the children on-roll, and often do not have the capacity to provide additional support to previous year 11s”, the report warned.

In response, the government should fund alternative providers to “offer a graduated stepdown programme of support for all year 11 leavers and, where necessary, provide an opportunity to resit the final year of AP for some learners who have had a disrupted key stage 4”.

As part of its AP funding review, DfE should look at how it can provide “ringfenced funding for the work AP schools do to support their children to transition to positive post-16 destinations”. 

The review “should look at how to create a limited number of post-16 placements for children who have had a disrupted key stage 4, who have entered AP very late in year 11 or who have been unable to access education during their exam years”.

These placements “should enable children to resit their final year in AP and to study the qualifications they need for post-16 pathways”. 

The review should also look at how to finance careers advisers, work experience and an “extended support programme for all children transitioning from AP to a post-16 destination”. 

Ministers should also review accountability measures, to “ensure they capture the extent to which AP leavers secure and sustain positive post-16 destinations”.

De Souza said her research showed children in AP were “deeply ambitious” and saw getting a good job or career as a priority. “However, often they are not given the support they need to succeed… These children are every bit as ambitious as other children. It is up to us as adults to match that ambition.”

A damning Ofsted and Care Quality Commission report in February found AP was in “desperate need of reform” amid “systemic issues” that led to “inconsistent outcomes”.

De Souza’s report called on DfE to develop an AP workforce strategy and train AP teachers to become personal, social, health and economic specialists. She also said the AP taskforce programme, which provides wraparound support for children in AP in 21 areas, should be rolled out nationally.

Why we joined the Research College Group – and you should too

As far back as 1996, the question was being already asked: why is research invisible in further education? In his seminal article, Geoffrey Elliott identified specific barriers, including the absence of a research tradition, undervaluing the links between research and practice, an unsupportive climate, and the absence of a model for research in our varied sector.

As Catherine Gray explained in these pages two weeks ago, many further education organisations do now value the links between research and practice in FE, rejecting more school-focused research in favour of practitioner-inquiry which is better suited to the breadth and complexity of FE.

And as Andrew Morris pointed out last week, the existing climate is largely now much more supportive. The LSRN is proving to be more and more popular. Practitioner research is supported by the ETF and AoC through various initiatives. And we now have a Research College Group (RCG) too.

Both articles have helped me reflect on our own journey at Solihull College & University Centre. In particular, joining the RCG (a collective of further education providers with a broad commitment to research in FE and the development of a strong model to assure its quality) has been instrumental.

Historically, there has always been a rich history of research at Solihull. Some of that has been practitioner inquiry (often towards professional qualifications, including initial teacher education). However, it also includes joint practice projects with higher education colleagues, and participating in research projects which explore FE practice.

With the founding of our university centre in 2015, research became more visible with the launch of our HE journal and annual conference. This began the process of making research more visible as colleagues were encouraged to share with others.

At that time, there was still a disconnect; Many of our staff working in the college would not necessarily have access to either the conference or the journal, even if they were researching themselves.

It’s a perfect example of the sector meeting its own needs

That’s when I began to realise that part of the problem was the lack of visibility (in that research wasn’t being shared) rather than a lack of research itself. For example, my first practitioner-inquiry in 2006 was part of an undergraduate qualification which had been funded by the college, and yet I hadn’t shared what I’d learned – even within my own team.

To bridge that disconnect and enable research to be recognised and shared across the whole college, we ran our first #FEResearchmeet in 2019, to share the good practice which already existed, but also to start creating a culture of celebration of research across the college. 

The following year brought Covid lockdowns and, unable to meet in person for our second #FEResearchmeet, we went online and ran it virtually. This led us to working with more practitioners across the sector and, in 2020, Solihull College & University Centre joined forces with other further education organisations to found the Research College Group, led by Sam Jones (the founder of FEResearchmeet).

This has been a key decision in our journey to recognising the importance of research in our sector, and especially towards providing a model for how to do, share and implement it in ways that suit our subjects, settings and contexts.

The RCG seeks to break down barriers, with the explicit purpose of developing the expertise, capacity, quality and publication of research from within further education. This puts us in a unique position to work outside the boundaries of our own organisations by working together across projects.

We will shortly be publishing two such projects: one is small-scale and practice-focused to look at how an idea which sprang up in one college could be tested in another; the other is a project across all the member colleges collecting data around the digital pedagogies adopted in response to the Covid lockdowns.

Andrew Morris is right: FE research cannot be sustained on practitioner commitment alone. But nor can it become systematic if colleges are working alone. We need a wider culture of research in every college, and for that we must work together.

The Research College Group is a perfect example of the sector creating its own infrastructure to meet its needs and the needs of its staff and learners. Come and join us!

Why every teacher needs a hinterland – and everyone benefits from it

Teachers are really quite an extraordinary bunch of people. Some of those I work with have joined the profession late, often after years in industry or the private sector. They bring with them a world of experience and a lifetime of learning that’s invaluable.

Then again, occasionally a teacher leaves the profession and word comes back to us of what they’re up to. High salary. Responsibility. Thriving. Sometimes there are reports suggesting ex-teachers are much in demand elsewhere, or that the soft skills teachers have will help them in other paths in life. We’re clearly a pretty impressive lot, even if many people haven’t quite cottoned on yet or think they could do a better job.

But what I find most impressive is what teachers get up to outside of the classroom and the college. When I was a trainee, I recall an experienced teacher taking me aside and advising me with all the seriousness he could muster: ‘Have a hinterland.’ And this is what I think makes teachers so impressive. 

I work with teachers who are musicians, scooting away at the end of the day to a rehearsal and coming back from a weekend recording. I have colleagues who are comedians, spending evenings on a stage making people laugh. Much as I do unwittingly in the classroom, I sometimes think. Others write. Poems, novels, stories, plays, histories.

Some have side hustles. I know church wardens, councillors, chess champions. I have teacher colleagues who have fostered dozens of children over the decades.

These people have rich and varied hinterlands. And the reason I love this is because teaching is a craft and an art that, done well, should involve your whole person. We bring all we are to all we do, and students benefit from our wider experiences.

Recently my college began a new programme where every teacher was asked to dip into their hinterland, pull something out and share it. Students signed up for these extra activities, which were properly timetabled.

Some got to go horse riding. Some learned magnificent opening gambits in chess. Some wrote poems. Some wrote songs. Some learned a few phrases in a new language. Some read great world literature and discussed it. Some painted or drew.

Teaching can consume your whole life if you let it. We mustn’t

In this way, our students gained fresh experiences and enhanced their cultural capital. They got to taste new things they would otherwise never know about. Teachers got to show off their expertise in fields far from their subject areas and the whole encounter was profoundly different from that of the normal classroom lesson.

If we are doing more than teaching to an exam but are really trying to teach the whole person, then this must be important. 

It is interesting what this exercise has revealed. First is the value of the humanities, arts and sports. The h-art-s. Or hearts. Generations of students have lived in a world where STEM was king. If you want a lucrative career, if you want to be where it’s happening, then STEM is where you need to be, they’re told.

But most of our activities, and the ones that were most popular, tended to be humanities, arts or sports based. It is these that give our lives colour and shape and meaning. It is the humanities and arts that help us to handle the big questions of existence. Surely we haven’t forgotten how much the arts kept us all sane during Covid lockdowns. 

The second thing it revealed was something sadder. On first hearing of the scheme, some teachers felt burdened by the extra demand. But the actual experience was positive.

Still, I have had conversations even recently with colleagues who have decided to go part-time in order to have more balance in their lives, especially when they have young families or are towards the end of their career.

Teaching is a profession that can consume your whole life if you let it. We mustn’t. My old mentor was right. You have to have a hinterland. It’s from there that the inspiration comes and the rivers of life flow.

Retreat there as often as you can. You will benefit. Everyone will. 

An evidence-based approach to equality, diversity and inclusion

Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) is a priority across the whole education and skills sector, but we’ve found that the key to progress and enabling culture change is understanding local circumstances by looking closely at the evidence.

When we started looking at our learner population, we knew our profile would be diverse. Approximately one-third of our offer is ESOL-based and we have good provision for learners with different learning abilities.

However, when we looked closely at attainment data through a more nuanced EDI focus, achievement gaps became clear, including with our cohort of African learners and in some curriculum areas, such as creative industries. Understanding the data allowed us to develop targeted approaches that have helped address these gaps.

We’ve also looked carefully at our staff data, in terms of representation and whether all voices are being heard. We examined the roles we have, the bands for those roles, access to CPD, and progression and promotion. In doing so, our links to the local authority were helpful; We were able to join its annual staff survey, which provided us with baseline information.

That enabled honest, in-depth conversations with staff across the board about ambitions, aspirations and contributions, beyond those who are always involved. This was mutually beneficial and contributes to our recruitment, training and retention.

That activity also informs our Staff Engagement Group. The group had already been established, but the data allowed us to be more precise in ensuring that it reflected the staff body. As a result, the group is now in a position where it is committed to leading conversations with other colleagues to establish what needs to be different from a staff perspective and identify clear actions and indicators to ensure those actions are achieved.

How to share information of this nature with staff needs careful consideration because it isn’t always plain sailing. It needs to be based on an understanding of organisational culture among leaders. We have a very open culture and good levels of trust, partly because of the work we had previously done on our inclusion agenda and the CPD opportunities it had included.

Sharing information of this nature isn’t always plain sailing

That context allowed us to be honest and acknowledge that our starting position wasn’t good enough and that we needed staff help to change it. That was helpful. It made it clear that we all needed to work together to improve all aspects of inclusion and secured buy-in.

It has also aided our recruitment and retention. We’ve employed some creative approaches in this arena for some time, taking on volunteers to provide opportunities for local residents and identifying talent in our learner body to transition into teaching. Equipped with our new insight, we’ve been able to recruit staff who reflect the demographics and experiences of our learners in a range of roles.

The staff buy-in we’d secured was crucial. Particular individuals came forward to lead on this, helping to ensure we supported the growth of individuals within the organisation. That work has built on our long-held commitment to professional development, which manifests itself through things like supporting individuals to undertake initial teacher education and our use of the Education and Training Foundation’s professional standards to encourage progression.

The work with staff is viewed positively by learners, who see themselves represented in the staff body and understand that we are serious about inclusion. At a meeting of our Learner Forum, one individual told us they had initially thought their positive experience was because they were treated specially as a wheelchair user; Seeing what the organisation had done for others made them realise that it was actually our ethos, and they genuinely had a voice.

The work is never done, of course. We need to keep listening to staff and learners and refreshing our approach. The intelligence we gain from our links with the local authority and connections with the voluntary sector, as well as the local knowledge and language skills of current staff and volunteers, will continue to be vital.

Being open and responsive to change is part and parcel of what we do, and that ability and willingness to pivot around EDI is integral to our wider mission.

We mustn’t set a precedent that undermines the value of apprenticeships and training

Whether it is allowing individuals to enhance their personal skillsets and careers, meeting the needs of businesses across the country or acting as a driver for social mobility, apprenticeships and wider training offerings are crucial to creating a country that works for everyone.

However, it is important that the training which leads to qualifications is fully regulated and consistent, driving standards which will help provide a platform for the workforce of tomorrow.

For these reasons, I have fundamental concerns about a government consultation which is currently being staged around the early years sector.

The proposed changes would create an experience-based progression route that would essentially allow staff working in nurseries for as little as six months and with a Level 2 qualification to be deemed qualified at Level 3 if a colleague felt they were worthy of it.

What’s more, that assessment could come from a colleague who themselves has very little experience. Such is the value we place on having thorough checks, here at Realise, our assessors require at least three years’ experience after achieving a full and relevant Level 3 qualification to be eligible for their role, as well as having a Level 3 assessor award and a teaching qualification.

Considering the ongoing recruitment and retention crisis in the early years sector – not to mention the enhanced demand for nursery places currently filtering through the system following the dramatic expansion in government-funded childcare – it is encouraging to see innovative ways are being looked at to drive new recruits into the sector and increase the number of qualified staff.

However, we must ensure – as with all sectors – that any training process is both thorough and regulated.

The current position in early years is that practitioners must have full and relevant qualifications. This is both vital to the learner’s career development and the overall success of the sector.

Let’s not allow flexibility to threaten quality and regulation

Under the new proposals, a practitioner’s existing knowledge, skills and experience would be assessed against the Level 3 early years educator criteria in order to take the experience-based route.

The practitioner would need to have Level 2 English and Paediatric First Aid qualifications and must also have worked in the sector for a minimum timeframe – suggested to be as low as six months – before they can be considered to be counted in the Level 3 ratios.

The staff member making a decision on their colleague’s experienced-based route status would be required to hold a Level 3 qualification themselves and could have been working in an early years setting for as little as six months.

The timeframes here would be a real concern because six months isn’t a long time for someone to be working in the sector to be making a judgement on a colleague’s competency.

While the new recruit is likely to have a qualification from another sector, there are concerns that by not engaging in an official Level 3 qualification in early years, they will be missing skills in vital areas including child development, legislation and regulation, and safeguarding for babies.

The other issue is that the competency judgments don’t pass from one nursery to another; If a practitioner moves on, they may be deemed Level 3-qualified in one nursery – but not another.

There is certainly a place for shorter training programmes than the traditional apprenticeship route. Adult education programmes implemented by combined authorities across the country are making a genuine difference, particularly for those who are currently unemployed or in low-wage jobs.

We’ve also seen shorter courses work very successfully, ranging from our apprenticeship accelerator Skills Bootcamps in early years, to training bus drivers in 16 weeks through our Route to Success programme.

But all of those courses have an additional context and are supplemented by further training and assessment either before or after.

My significant concern around the early years proposals in the current consultation is the lack of regulation and consistency it could bring, as well as undermining the incredible efforts many learners produce to secure qualifications.

More flexible and adaptable approaches to training are vital to engage learners and businesses. But let’s not allow flexibility to threaten quality and regulation.

Learners pushing themselves to the limits to secure official qualifications deserve more.