Government reforms to apprenticeships go further than simply how the programme is funded and looked to include the introduction of a new grading system. Stewart Segal explains his concerns about these grading changes.

We raised a number of concerns about grading from the first recommendations following the 2012 report of Doug Richard.

While we welcome the fact the government has listened to concerns from employers, we along with providers believe the flexibility offered may not provide a full solution to the issue. There is a danger that allowing different approaches to grading will create some confusion.

Many of the published assessment strategies have very little detail of how the grading will be implemented. Many employers accept that the competence elements of the programme should not be graded. This will mean that the grading will be based on the knowledge elements of the standard, which cannot be right.

We recommended that the established skills competition tests could be used to promote mastery as these are standardised tests. Grading could be introduced once the new standards had been established for a reasonable period.

In the guidelines for trailblazers recently issued by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the government amended the guidance on grading within the new apprenticeship standards.

The initial guidance set out a requirement to grade apprenticeships using a fail, pass, merit and distinction structure.

The main reason given for introducing grading was to inspire apprentices to higher levels of skills and to recognise achievements. Although these are laudable aims, we do not believe that the current implementation of grades will deliver
these objectives.

Our view was that imposing this requirement goes against the principle of employer choice. We know many employers are not comfortable with the imposition of grades within the new apprenticeship standards, but have had to accept that this remains a government requirement. However the guidelines have been made more flexible.

The changes recently announced are acceptance that the structure can be fail, pass and distinction (rather than the four-level structure); not all elements need to be graded — some employers will not grade competence-based elements; and grading can be based on the end test only or cover formative assessments as well. The other change is that some exceptions have been made where no overall grade will be awarded and only some elements of the standards will be graded.

Although these changes are a response to concerns set out by us and also employers, they do not go far enough and we are still concerned by the implementation of grading. Our concerns were set out clearly in our response to the original proposals and they included grading will be very complex to introduce at the same time as introducing the new standards; having different grading structures (three or four levels of grades) in different standards will be very confusing; and, the details of how grading will be implemented in the new assessment strategies lack any detail.

We had further concerns that there is no detail of how there will be any standardisation or how apprentices will appeal any decisions; and that many standards will only grade knowledge-based elements which means that the competence-based elements will not be central to the grading of the standards.

Our recommendations therefore have been that employers should be given the option of whether to introduce grading. Many employers would choose the option of introducing the new standards and introduce grading once the standards have been established.

We are also concerned that grading will put the emphasis on the knowledge elements. Many employers have said that competence elements of the standard can only be judged pass or fail. Either an apprentice is competent or not.

This will also make it difficult to ensure that the grading will be standardised across all types of working environments.

The choice for employers should also include the option of using the nationally-recognised skills tests. There are well-established skills tests in many sectors used by skills competitions. These tests are standardised and can be delivered in any working environment. These could be optional for employers and apprentices so that the apprenticeship standards are based on pass and fail and then there are options to take the skills tests to prove mastery.

Skills Minister Nick Boles told FE Week that he was willing to allow some apprenticeship to be graded as simply pass or fail, despite reforms seeming to have been heading in the direction of a pass, merit or distinction system. Iain Mackinnon explains why he welcomed the move.

he maritime sector has been one of those lobbying government to take a more flexible approach on grading, so we were delighted to see FE Week report that Skills Minister Nick Boles plans to do just that.

But is it a “U-turn,” or just good policy-making? Let me tell you more of the story, and let you decide.

As part-time Secretary of the Maritime Skills Alliance I was keen that the maritime sector bid to become a Trailblazer in Round Two.

I was concerned that none of the Round One Trailblazers was in an industry which was heavily regulated.

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency administers a worldwide convention which defines standards of competence for seafarers, and the results are widely accepted.

And even if they weren’t, they are the law. We needed to see “employer-led” read intelligently in the context of a heavily-regulated industry.

The maritime sector has, however, the huge advantage in Trailblazer terms that we have long worked to just the kind of standards of competence which Doug Richard recommended.

And because those standards are international, seafarers can use their certificates of competence to work anywhere in the world — a far bigger prize than a standard recognised only in England.

The sector is so heavily regulated because seafarers die every year. Last year was the safest 12 months ever for accidents at sea involving British seafarers, with just five fatalities — but that’s five too many, and we need constant vigilance to keep the number falling.

That’s why we were so concerned about the insistence by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) that apprenticeships must be graded.

The very strong belief of employers in the sector was that someone is either safe to be on board, or they are not. There can be no room for compromise, and no room for the sort of ambiguity which might creep in if one person was judged to be acceptable, and others more merit-worthy.

Mr Boles responded positively when we made our case to him, acknowledging our concerns and indicating that there was room for compromise.

We went back to him earlier this month, however, exasperated that over both grading and end-point assessment we were still being pushed towards an approach which employers — very emphatically — did not want.

We have a system which works for us, and one which fits the spirit of Mr Richard’s recommendation, but not the letter of the administrative requirements they have been translated into.

I know that we are not alone in our concerns, and certainly do not pretend that the maritime voice alone has led to the Minister shifting position.

We are not alone in our concerns, and certainly do not pretend that the maritime voice alone has led to the Minister shifting position

What’s happening here? BIS had the task of translating Mr Richard’s pretty broad-brush recommendations into administrative requirements. They chose an explicitly experimental approach, inviting groups of employers to be “Trailblazers” for the new system.

England is just small enough that policy-makers can get away with treating the whole country as a single entity, applying the same approach to everyone.

But if policy-makers dig in their toes too soon – usually to sound tough — they run the risk that their conclusions don’t fit all circumstances. With luck we get a Minister who listens when their tough stance bumps into unhelpful reality.

We have been particularly lucky to have three Skills Ministers in a row who listen. John Hayes set a fine example and then we had Matthew Hancock and now Mr Boles — two high flyers close to the government’s inner circle, with the personal and political self-confidence to shift their stance when they thought it justified.

We all want sensible policy-making where political leaders and their officials genuinely listen. Charles Clarke’s excellent new book, The Too Difficult Box, gives a number of examples where a little more humility earlier in the process would have made for better decisions.

So call this a “U-turn” if you want, but what really matters is that the government has listened to reasoned argument, and that we have a better policy.

The 157 Group’s latest report, Future Colleges, outlines four principles it wants those in power to adhere to in determining education policy, as Lynne Sedgmore explains.

At the 157 Group, we know about the excellent work that colleges, both our members and others, are doing every day across the country to enable learners to acquire the skills they need for successful working lives.

We also know about the demands of policymakers for provision to continually improve, and for us to respond to new initiatives, increased competition and seemingly unending change.

We know about all this, but we wanted to find out more about the scale of the college contribution to the skills agenda. What we discovered has led to the publication of our new report Future Colleges, in which we set our clearly not only what colleges have achieved, but what we believe they can do in the future if policymaking recognises their importance.

In six key areas, we set out how critical colleges are to our skills system how they have led the way in the resurgence of apprenticeships, are the leading providers of technician skills at levels three and four, how they deliver higher education designed to meet local employment needs and have been key to raising literacy and numeracy rates.

Colleges teach the majority of young people post-16, mainly in a vocational context, and act as recruitment hubs for employers, securing meaningful work experience, implementing targeted programmes for unemployed people, and supporting routes into learning and job progression for adults.

It is colleges, rather than any other form of new institution, that should be trusted to lead the future development of our skills system

Given this track record, we argue strongly that it is colleges, rather than any other form of new institution, that should be trusted to lead the future development of our skills system.

We describe a future where every community in the country has a well-respected and trusted college which is at the centre of collaboration in the local skills system, a leader and innovator in high-level technical education, a hub of workforce development for all employers and the focus for community cohesion, personal development and enterprise strategies.

We know that colleges have the leadership to be able to achieve this level of influence and importance — many are already in this position. But we are convinced that our national approach to policymaking has hindered rather than helped the many achievements to date.

For all the talk of ‘freedom and flexibility’, we hear all too often that the detailed implementation of policy delivers quite the opposite effect, that funding rules change in ways that make it hard to deliver responsive local solutions, and that, all too often, it feels as though provision is dictated by a set of system-wide diktats, which remove, rather than promote, autonomy.

And we know that there remains much inequity in the system — leaving colleges, schools and universities judged by widely differing measures and systems, and creating perverse behavioural incentives that affect the provision of careers education, among other things.

So we are using our vision to call upon a future government to also play its part, and to commit to four key principles in education policy making. The first is stable structures — refraining from further changes to structures and institutions and from imposing more top down delivery initiatives on the skills system.

The second is equal treatment — in ensuring both funding and accountability treats all learners’ experiences as individual, whether they be in school, college, university or employment; and the third is the freedom to innovate — for local college, community and business leaders to devise and deliver solutions.

The fourth is durable funding — a stable financial settlement within which to plan.

We hope that these are key principles that all in the sector can champion.

With only seven months to go to the next general election, we know that there will be many policy changes suggested. We will support those that can be tested against our four principles. And we hope, in this way, to help to create a long-term future for our vitally important skills system.

With the General Election soon coming around we are all hearing the word ‘vote’ over and over again.

But what I want to know is how young people are franchised to represent their views on education and skills in two ways.

The first as the electorate affected directly by future changes in government and the second as young people not wanting those changes.

My observation since working in college is that there is no product in a box offering the perfect student voice environment for young people.

There are pockets of best practice of course, but for many the term “student voice” sparks more feelings of dread than inspiration.

Dread because it can be seen as a tick box exercise for Ofsted.

What we really need to do, and fast, is get involved, engaged and motivated to talk to, champion and implement the thoughts and ideas of young people in colleges.

There are too many white papers and think pieces telling us what will happen yet not working with the very customer (student) to better understand their views on the education and skills landscape.

When we vote we look at the manifesto, the pledges, the promises, the policies. When students vote with their feet to come to college they should equally be able to understand the offering and to realise their ambitions through robust feedback mechanisms, to get them just where they need to be.

I’ve been toying with the idea of setting up my own youth think tank for a while. I guess I should practice what I preach and ask the young people if they think this would have any worth

I was a sixth former myself and still regret to this day that I did not go to the local college — an opportunity to broaden my horizons.

I was a product of inefficiency — the only student in the A2 French class. And I’m sure I had many things to say about this experience yet nobody actually bothered to ask, then again a student voice works both ways — students themselves must be vocal in their desires, evaluations and observations.

So with the General Election around the corner I’d like us to take the opportunity to lobby for ensuring two things — firstly, that we all take the student voice seriously and secondly, that we engage our students to vote in the election.

I’ve been toying with the idea of setting up my own youth think tank for a while. I guess I should practice what I preach and ask the young people if they think this would have any worth.

So with all of this in mind I’d really like to reinforce how important it is that we colleges listen seriously to what our students want from us.

How many senior managers take the time to interact with the students? Do we all understand the student journey? How many of us get out on the “shop floor” to learn what truly happens in the classroom?

Look at what happens on Undercover Boss and the benefits that has when you endeavour to understand how your organisation runs, from every perspective.

I had the privilege recently of students undertaking a marketing module as part of their studies visiting my marketing department to ask questions and I really enjoyed getting back to the “basics” and interacting with them in this way.

When you’re in a business support role it’s so easy to forget why you’re in the role and what the overall purpose is.

If we want the students to vote with their feet and come to colleges given all of the competition that’s out there, and we want to secure our reputation, we must start paying even more attention to our customers.