With the outlook for Functional Skills very different to just a few months ago, Charlotte Bosworth makes the case for the qualification as a viable alternative to the GCSE.

If you cast your mind back to July and the written ministerial statement about post-16 English and maths, the writing was on the wall for Functional Skills with the seemingly endless march towards GCSEs for all.

But roll on a few months, past a reshuffle and through party conference season and the news is a little more positive.

In recent weeks, in print, in person and on platform, the new Skills Minister Nick Boles has spoken more positively about the importance of Functional Skills and, most critically, about the importance of an alternative for those learners who struggle with the way the GCSE is constructed and assessed. I, for one, greatly welcome this change of approach.

There is no doubt that attaining a minimum level of English and maths skills should be a core priority.

However, there isn’t one fixed route to achieving this goal. I advocate a more holistic approach to gaining these skills.

While direct English and maths teaching works for some learners, many are more likely to achieve these skills when they are learned and absorbed within a context.

When the government was calling for GCSEs for all, I spoke of the need for a vocational modular GCSE alternative that could be offered to those where the traditional GCSE is not the appropriate route to take.

Whether we have a vocational GCSE or Functional Skills, we must ensure that we use the format of assessment that is most appropriate to assess the skills required

Whether we have a vocational GCSE or Functional Skills, we must ensure that we use the format of assessment that is most appropriate to assess the skills required.

Back in 2006, the National Research and Development Centre published a research report that found vocational courses that embedded the delivery of literacy, language and numeracy had more positive outcomes than those programmes that delivered them separately.

Embedded courses had higher retention, higher success rates and higher rates of achievement in literacy and numeracy qualifications.

So why have we been drawn to GCSEs? One perspective, even one voiced by the minister at the FE Week / OCR fringe event at the Conservative Party conference, is that employers understand GCSEs.

I challenge that assertion. The GCSE brand has been in circulation long enough for employers to have heard of it and have a vague appreciation of the skills that the qualification brings.

How many times have you heard someone ask what O-levels a person has? It still happens and we’ve had GCSEs in one form or another since the late 1980s. The issue for Functional Skills is that it is still relatively new and it was introduced following a range of other initiatives that have broadly similar names: basic skills, key skills, core skills, essential skills, etc.

In her correspondence with the Minister, Ofqual chief regulator Glenys Stacey acknowledges that it takes “some years for qualification titles to become understood and trusted”.

On the topic of potential reforms, she refers to that tricky balance between change and stability and suggests that minor reforms could be enacted over a two to three-year period.

I urge caution on the need for reform or re-branding. Functional Skills and other more tailored programmes of English and maths might just need more time, more communication to the general public about their purpose and a full retreat from previous recommendations that GCSE is the only accepted qualification.

The need for good levels of English and maths skills is not just a skills issue, it’s an economic imperative.

The GCSE is, and always will be, an important qualification. However, they do not themselves provide the contextualisation and problem-solving skills that are often required in the workplace. It’s for this reason that Functional Skills is so important. I hope that this government and the government we have from May onwards remembers this.

More debate is needed about the future of the Qualifications and Credit Framework (QCF) in the face of plans by Ofqual to abolish it, says Graham Hasting-Evans.

we agree that change is necessary, but reliance on the General Conditions of Recognition (GCoR) as a replacement for an employer-recognised framework is inadequate to meet the needs of our economy and will, in our view, undermine public confidence.

We believe what’s needed is a robust and consistent national qualifications framework for England, in effect an ‘ENQF’ (or revised QCF) for all vocational qualifications, including apprenticeships, which has the support of employers from all sectors of the economy.

Employers we’ve spoken with were completely unaware of these proposals. Employers, employees and also learners looking for employment, are the real ‘clients’ and therefore must have an input in any changes.

The case to withdraw the QCF is not evidenced by Ofqual’s research and appears to misunderstand the QCF in several places

Employers have told us they want a robust national framework that they, their employees and learners can have confidence in. They don’t see or understand the relevance of using the GCoR, or its place in apprenticeships.

Reliance solely on the GCoR could mean multiple ‘Qualification Frameworks’, which will further confuse and bewilder employers, employees, learners and training providers and result in a lack of confidence.

Employers value unit learning, as do learners, who have difficulty with or cannot commit the time for large qualifications. The consultation fails to understand the value of unit/modular/credit learning from the ‘real’ client’s point of view.

Further concern is that the QCF proposals and the guided learning hours (GLH) proposals for 16 to 17-years-olds don’t provide clear measurement for the size of qualification that covers all age groups — despite the fact that many essential qualifications such as employability skills, including literacy and numeracy, cover a wide age range from school aged learners to adults.

The current ‘common measure’ of the size of a qualification is taken as ‘credit’ and used for adult funding. With some awarding organisations electing to stay with ‘credit’ and others not, it’s unclear what will happen to adult funding if ‘credit’ is no longer the universal common measure. GLH proposals only cover 16 to 17-year-olds and don’t give a comprehensive answer for all age groups.

A common measure is an essential component of a national framework. An agreed ‘size’ of qualifications and units/modules which can be applied regardless of whether they’re delivered by traditional classroom techniques or by e-learning is what’s needed.

We believe the case to withdraw the QCF is not evidenced by Ofqual’s research and appears to misunderstand the QCF in several places.

For example, there’s no evidence to show that the large number of qualifications on the QCF is due to the design. In our view, this problem stems from the large number of awarding organisations recognised by Ofqual.

There are international concerns too. Many developed and developing countries have established or are establishing their ‘NQF’ based on many of the current UK principles. The changes will mean we’ll be out of step with many other major economies.

UK learner qualifications may not be recognised outside the UK, which could have a detrimental effect on people with UK qualifications just when they’re trying to compete internationally for jobs. It would also be a major step backwards and potentially discredit the UK’s technical and vocational education and training (TVet) system and qualifications.

The lack of a UK framework could disadvantage UK awarding organisations in bidding for international work. Without an ‘ENQF’/revised ‘QCF’, other countries could consider that the UK system is ‘second rate’, therefore undermining the UK government’s aim of encouraging UK awarding organisations to work internationally.

Under Europe’s EQF the UK has an obligation to be able to relate its national qualification framework to the EQF structure. It’s not clear in the proposals how Ofqual intends this to work, nor if the proposals in fact contravene the UK’s treaty obligations.

What is clear is that a full debate is needed with employers, across all sectors, employees and learners on what is the best way forward.

Kirsty Donnelly was one of a number of witnesses to give evidence to the House of Commons Education Select Committee on 16 to 19 apprenticeships and traineeships this month. She outlines her evidence and explains what she wanted the committee to make of her views.

I recently gave evidence to the House of Commons Education Select Committee during a lively session on apprenticeships and traineeships for 16 to 19-year-olds.

I gave them three recommendations about how to strengthen skills in the UK, but did they take them to heart? Well, we won’t know until their report comes out, but if adopted, they’ll pave the way for a much stronger system.

Firstly, don’t ditch Trailblazers — but let’s make them stronger.

Over the past couple of years, the apprenticeship system has come on in leaps and bounds. They are now available in a variety of sectors and at higher levels, meaning young people have more choices and more opportunities. But there is always room for improvement, which is something the Trailblazers are certainly pushing.

So far, they have made good headway. That’s why we need to keep the apprenticeships Trailblazers intact.

They have tremendous potential — but they need to be more aligned. For example, we need to see minimum standards for quality assurance and moderation across all industries.

And awarding organisations must be involved as early as possible when it comes to developing assessment strategies — while preventing new entrants from entering the market to deliver assessment services without demonstrating robust quality assurance processes and regulation.

Finally, we need to be careful not to label all work-based training as apprenticeships. While there are some level two apprenticeships that certainly merit the ‘apprenticeship’ tag, for some this is not the case. In these instances, they would be more effective as a vocational traineeship, or as a vocational course that leads into an apprenticeship at a higher level.

Secondly, don’t forget traineeships.

While there are some level two apprenticeships that certainly merit the ‘apprenticeship’ tag, for some this is not the case

But although traineeships are distinct and separate to apprenticeships — we must remember that they are a stepping-stone to an apprenticeship — that doesn’t mean that they should be of a lesser quality.

They provide fantastic preparation, but they need to be refocused in two ways, so they can work more effectively with full-time post-16 vocational education.

For a start, trainees on a year-long level two pre-apprenticeship programme should be treated as employees.

And also traineeships should prepare young people for employment, by making sure that high-quality vocational training is part of the programme. Only then will they be a true route to progression.

Thirdly, stop the change for change’s sake.

My final message to the committee was about the need for coherence, consistency and stability in the skills and employment system.

City & Guilds’ recent Sense and Instability report looked at the last three decades of policy in this area. No one in our sector will be surprised to hear that change has been extensive.

We’ve seen 61 Secretaries of State responsible for skills policy, 13 major Acts of Parliament, the responsibility for policy flipping between departments — or being shared between departments — 10 times since the 1980s.

How does that compare to academic education? There have been 18 ministers in charge of schools policy over the same period, and 16 in charge of higher education. So much change has left its mark on our skills system.

If we want a high-quality, highly-valued system, we have to learn the lessons of the past and stop change for change’s sake.

Looking forward it’s fantastic that the committee is making vocational education a priority, and I’m eager to see what happens next. It’s also encouraging to see apprenticeships and traineeships being a firm fixture on the political agenda.

However, there are still other areas that need to be addressed alongside this. For example, there are still widespread concerns about the lack of effective careers advice and guidance for young people, and we know more needs to be done to provide young people with high-quality work experience opportunities so they are better-prepared to find employment.

Apprenticeships and traineeships are just one piece of the puzzle — an incredibly important piece of course — but only by exploring the bigger picture will we truly see a long-lasting difference.

Learners have been discussing key policy directions for the NUS. Joe Vinson discusses what’s been on the agenda and what happens next.

The NUS held its annual Zone Conference in Harrogate earlier this month. The event is an important part of our policy formation process and an opportunity for students from across the country to come together to discuss the issues which will form motions to NUS’s National Conference in April.

The NUS splits its work in to five separate ‘zones’. In Harrogate, students from the further and higher education zones were brought together to discuss vocational education.

It was the first time that the FE and higher education zones had come together to debate and form policy which concerns the whole tertiary sector. This was because we wanted to be more joined up in our policy formation this year and to talk about vocational provision across schools, colleges and universities.

In picking vocational education as a key theme we recognised that skills and the future of technical education are at the fore of current political debate.

Vocational qualifications have never been more important to the economy and to students. They deliver the trained, talented employees businesses are crying out for and ensure young people have the skills needed to succeed in education and work.

We wanted to give students the opportunity to voice their opinions on how vocational education is delivered and provide their experiences of studying in academic or vocational settings.

On the first day of the conference students were divided in to four areas of vocational education — teaching and learning, gender and access, tensions between vocational and academic education and the space in which vocational education is delivered.

Within these sub groups we talked about issues such as the impact of class structures and the perceived social stigma around technical courses and qualifications. We also used practical methods to think about the space in which academic and vocational education courses are delivered.

Students modelled their ideal learning environments and were encouraged to consider in what type of setting they can learn best.

All these discussions will eventually feed in to the motions which go to NUS’s National Conference and also inform the work which takes places throughout the year.

Aside from the vocational education key theme, FE delegates attended workshops on issues such as the quality of teaching and learning, careers information advice and guidance, sex and relationships education and the general election.

Students explored the different methods of teaching across the FE sector and particularly focused on the use of technology in the classroom and the proportion of learning which should be delivered via technology

The session on teaching and learning asked students to think about their own good and bad experiences in the classroom. The students explored the different methods of teaching across the FE sector and particularly focused on the use of technology in the classroom and the proportion of learning which should be delivered via technology.

The conference also held a session for all delegates on NUS’s general election strategy and the hub which has recently been launched to help students’ unions form their local election strategies.

The ‘New Deal for the next generation’ manifesto outlines three key areas that students are most affected by, with ten policy ‘asks’ under each area.

The FE asks include a call for political parties to commit to a new education maintenance allowance, a call for the AS-level to be retained in its current form and a recommendation for statutory careers guidance to be stronger and for careers education to be embedded in the curriculum.

We have seen cut after cut after cut for the FE sector over the last few years and we want to make students a force too powerful to be ignored.

This is why it is so vital that FE students get registered to vote, get mobilised and demand from all the major parties that FE is properly invested in.

Competition, finance and government support are just three of the factors to have played a part in the process of Lincoln College Group opening two sites in Saudi Arabia this summer, explains Simon Plummer.

Like many other FE colleges The Lincoln College Group has been operating internationally for some time following a traditional model of attracting students to study in the UK on a range of EFL, A-level and business foundation courses.

With many of our students drawn from China and Hong Kong we have had to respond and counter the fluctuating, and increasingly stringent, student visa requirements and increased competition from boarding schools, which competitively market their more traditional routes to university.

These challenges led us to think differently about how we engaged internationally and in essence we have moved from a model of attracting students to the UK to one where we now also export our educational expertise.

We recognised that the curriculum was simply one of a number of strands of expertise that exists within The Lincoln College Group with export potential

In its most fundamental form we have developed formal links with institutions overseas, sharing our UK-generated curriculum materials and methodology. This is complemented by the short deployment or lengthier secondment of UK staff overseas.

Assisting in the delivery of specialist modules, they also contribute to the training of the local staff to deliver our curriculum structure and develop teaching techniques.

We recognised that the curriculum was simply one of a number of strands of expertise that exists within The Lincoln College Group with export potential. As with many successful FE colleges, expertise in project management, human resources, marketing, finance, ICT, facilities and student services are all potential commodities.

There is a wide range of channels through which international opportunities are promoted, although very often the assessment of the validity of these opportunities is difficult and rightly many fail through sound governance and due diligence.

In the case of Saudi Arabia, UK Trade & Investment (UKTI) first made us aware of the extensive reform of vocational education that was taking place in the Kingdom. This UK Government endorsement, combined with the global search being undertaken by the Saudi ministry, provided a high level of assurance over the integrity, longevity and reality of this opportunity.

The ambitious procurement timeline, and the potential of the opportunity, determined that a dedicated full-time resource and associated budget was allocated to the bid qualification and submission process. This investment, endorsed by the board, was wholly at risk if unsuccessful, but aligned with the wider strategy of the board to seek out more diverse income streams and indeed a legitimate investment of surpluses made from our existing international work.

The initial brokerage of UKTI led to our direct dialogue with the Colleges of Excellence, the Saudi procurement body, with presentations in London combined with the requirement to submit early expressions of interest and organisational data to qualify for subsequent stages. Our progression through these stages resulted in more detailed briefing sessions in London, as well as Riyadh, and the hosting of a Saudi delegation in Lincoln.

Our journey started in September last year, with final bid submission in late December and contract award in March. Provided with brand new purpose-built campuses, the subsequent five months have seen us fully mobilise all equipment, furniture, staff and infrastructure, enabling two sites to open in late August. Our third will follow next year.

Appreciative of the financial restrictions of many UK colleges, the Saudi Arabian authorities provide us with an interest-free loan for capital expenditure and, as a measure of the continued UK Government support, various grants are available through UK Export & Finance.

Lincoln College International is a commercial subsidiary within the group and our expansion internationally may be seen by some as simply a commercial decision. The diversification of income streams is clearly an important consideration, but deeper benefits must also be recognised.

Although not naturally falling within the scope of Ofsted, this does not exclude the international presence being used as a powerful source of evidence. The opportunities for staff development and progression now take on a different dimension; the potential for student enrichment diversifies and ultimately the sharing of the very best practice and opportunities for idea incubation multiply.

The Sixth Form Colleges’ Association (SFCA) has produced its 2015 manifesto in the hope of influencing the political parties ahead of — and after — next year’s general election, explains James Kewin.

With a general election just sixth months away, the Sixth Form Colleges’ Association will today [Monday, November 17] officially launch its manifesto at its conference in Birmingham.

The manifesto makes seven recommendations to political parties on behalf of the 93 Sixth Form Colleges in England, that between them educate more than 158,000 young people.

Despite consistently delivering outstanding outcomes for learners, these are difficult times for many sixth form colleges.

There are a range of challenges facing the sector including funding cuts (on top of existing funding inequalities), curriculum reform (particularly the de-coupling of AS levels from A levels) and competition (the proliferation of new, better funded sixth forms).

The speed with which funding and curriculum reform has been introduced, has created a fourth major challenge — uncertainty. For example, information on the implementation of the new style A-levels or how the mixed-economy of old and new style qualifications will be treated in funding, accountability or inspection terms has still not been provided.

This uncertainty makes strategic planning very difficult. At a practical level, it is difficult to know what to include in prospectuses, or what to say to young people at open days.

And the end of funding protection in 2015/16 continues to loom large — at that point many sixth form colleges will hit the ground with a bump.

At the same time, sixth form colleges see the relentless rise of free school sixth form colleges and school/academy sixth forms — all better-funded, but on the whole delivering poorer outcomes for learners.

Despite being the most effective and efficient providers of sixth form education in the country, the sector feels — with some justification — that its face does not fit in policy terms.

The case for sixth form colleges is incredibly strong, but the past five years have seen brand (academy, free school) trump product (outcomes, value for money).

With that in mind, the manifesto contains a series of practical recommendations to ensure the continued success of students in sixth form colleges. We begin with curriculum.

It is difficult to find many organisations or institutions in the state sector that support the decoupling of AS-levels and A-levels — so our first recommendation is to reverse this change.

Teachers and leaders in practically every sixth form college believe that decoupling will make it more difficult for young people to progress to higher education or employment and will increase the risk of students dropping out of courses.

The sector feels — with some justification — that its face does not fit in policy terms

This reform is about as far away from evidence-based policy making as it is possible to get. A policy change would allow sixth form colleges to retain the AS/A-level link that has served students so well since the introduction of the Curriculum 2000 reforms.

Several of our recommendation relate to funding. For example, the current arrangements for funding students with high needs are chaotic and ineffective and need to be reformed.

We also urge the government to refund the VAT costs of sixth form colleges (as it does for schools and academies) — the present arrangements leave the average sixth form college with £335,000 less to spend on the education of its students each year.

The manifesto urges political parties to drop this learning tax and ensure that young people receive the same level of investment in their education, irrespective of where they choose to study. ‘Drop the learning tax’ will be a call politicians hear a lot between now and May.

And finally, the manifesto calls on the government to introduce a transparent and competitive process for establishing new institutions rather than favouring certain types of sixth form provider.

The obsession with creating small school, free school or academy sixth forms has poorly served many young people since 2010.

To ensure that sixth form colleges can continue to transform the life chances of young people, we are calling on all political parties to adopt the recommendations in
our manifesto.