With official figures having revealed that qualifications from the Council for Awards in Care, Health and Education (Cache) featured among the most popular for FE loans, Marc Ozholl discusses the awarding organisation’s success.

As the awarding organisation synonymous with quality in the childcare sector, we were delighted to learn that three of our qualifications appeared in the top ten most popular 24+ loan-funded qualifications.

We pride ourselves on offering a portfolio of qualifications that meet the diverse needs of the care sector, so it was especially pleasing that Cache qualifications, which cover the care of children and young people from birth to age 19 in a wide range of settings, from nurseries to residential care homes to school classrooms, were among the most popular loan-funded qualifications.

The introduction of 24+ loans was widely predicted to lead to a dramatic fall in the number of adult learners undertaking vocational qualifications.

With increased rigour and responsiveness demanded by government, we took up the challenge of ensuring a highly-skilled, appropriately-qualified workforce continued to offer the highest standards of care for children and young people.

This has certainly not been an easy task.

Despite the vital importance of the provision of high-quality childcare, the sector remains among the lowest paid of all employment sectors.

With a lack of funding available for learners aged 24 and above, who traditionally make up the majority of the childcare workforce, and in the absence of a national advertising campaign for 24+ loans, we continued our long-standing tradition of providing a personalised service to Cache centres.

The introduction of 24+ loans was widely predicted to lead to a dramatic fall in the number of adult learners undertaking vocational qualifications

Our regional team visited providers to explain the benefits and opportunities 24+ loans brought, while our funding team supported customers in understanding the detail around loans, providing regular guidance and updates about loans policy.

In the midst of government austerity measures, reticence from learners to take out a loan was expected. With the cost of living increasing, studying for a qualification could have been considered an unjustifiable luxury.

However, once we informed providers of the key points from the loans policy, including that loans wouldn’t need to be paid back until learners were earning over £21,000-a-year and that repayments would be minimal due to the low pay of the sector, they were better-equipped to advise and guide learners about the feasibility of studying a qualification. Our strong relationships with care departments within providers allowed us to communicate pertinent information directly to those who advise learners.

Starting with the NNEB in 1945, Cache qualifications and assessment methods have been designed by early years experts, with input from employers, providers and learners, to ensure they instil the knowledge and skills required to provide the highest quality care for children and young people.

It has been well-publicised that careers advice in schools often fails to promote vocational education as a high quality route for younger learners, so it is especially pleasing that adult learners, who are more likely to base their decisions on quality and affordability, choose Cache as their preferred provider.

As unemployment in the UK remains high, it is a testament to the quality of our qualifications that learners see Cache as the standard to aspire to, and continue to study towards a career in childcare despite the low pay and lack of funding available.

A significant number of adult learners studying childcare qualifications return to work after a break, often after starting a family of their own. As a registered charity our objective has always been to ensure all children and young people are given the highest quality care to give them the best possible start in life.

Where can colleges and independent learning providers look as government funding cuts bite, asks David Hughes.

It says something about public sector funding when a 20 per cent cut in funding is met with a certain amount of relief.

The long-anticipated Skills Funding Statement (SFS) 2013-2016 raised a number of emotions and issues for me.

The initial relief came because the headline cut to the adult skills budget of 20 per cent was no greater than had been announced in last year’s spending review and we had feared it would be worse.

I was concerned enough by the noises about further cuts to FE and widening participation funding in higher education that I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister, as did others. My plea was a simple one. I urged him to secure opportunities for adults to progress through learning, all the way from entry-level literacy and numeracy to higher education and beyond, throughout their lives. It seems that he listened to us and the cuts were not extended even further.

The fact remains, though, that this cut is still profoundly and extremely challenging to colleges and independent learning providers.

The blatant fact is there has been a reduction in the adult skills budget from £2.8bn in 2010-11 to £2.0bn in 2015-16 even before inflation is taken into account. Two other vital budgets, for offender learning and community learning, may have been ‘protected’ but have not had inflationary rises for many years. There is growth, of course, in the advanced level learning loans budget, which provides some opportunity in a new ‘market’ for many colleges and providers.

I am seeing signs that some colleges are being creative and more commercial in how they deal with the cuts

Overall, the funding challenge to the range of provision is enormous even though there is a good deal of enthusiasm in the words of the SFS about the breadth and range of priorities required. The list of priorities is impressive, but it raises questions about how achievable it is with the funding available.

At the most simple level, the priorities include basic skills, traineeships, programmes for the unemployed, apprenticeships and higher-level skills; and it is hard not to argue with those.

At a time of economic recovery, when having a workforce with the right skills is what employers are crying out for, it is absolutely essential that there is the right kind of opportunities for adults to learn and retrain at times and in places that are convenient for them.

My concern is whether any individual college or provider can offer the complete range to adults in their locality. Will individual choices by institutions, made in the right spirit and sensible for them really add up in every locality in the country? Those decisions on what to cut and what to keep are devil and deep blue sea decisions and gaps will occur.

Colleges and providers may feel that they have no choice but to cut courses as public subsidy is cut. I am seeing signs, though, that some colleges are being creative and more commercial in how they deal with the cuts.

That creativity and commercialism is surely what is needed to develop new markets and to attract payments from employers and learners, particularly for short courses and those that support people’s careers and their professional development. There is also a latent market for individuals to invest more in their own learning. Not just for enhancing their career prospects, but for leisure learning too.

Attracting employer and learner payments for learning is not easy, and to do so at a time of enormous challenge makes it even tougher. But unless it happens across the country, I fear that we will lose so many vital opportunities for people to learn and for employers to get the skilled workforces they need. The social, community, family, economic impacts of this will be profound.

That’s why I am so keen to see colleges and providers use the loans budget and other opportunities to stimulate (or tap into a demand for?) learning; this must happen to halt the decline in opportunities for adults to learn and to benefit from their learning.

The Institute for Learning has been looking at how teachers have been getting on with the requirements of the new study programmes. Shane Chowen presents the findings.

This week, many students will return to study their final term of the first full year of 16 to 19 study programmes, which were introduced in September 2013 to ensure that all 16 to 19-year-olds in full or part-time education would follow a study programme tailored to their individual needs, and to their education and employment goals.

Over the past few months, the Institute for Learning (IfL) has engaged with teachers and trainers across the country to find out how new approaches to planning and delivery are supporting the delivery of study programmes, as part of a project funded by the Department for Education (DfE).

While it is too early to say for sure what really works and what does not, our initial findings are showing some common themes and challenges.

Teachers and trainers recognise that collaborative working across curriculum teams is key to successful planning and delivery of study programmes. In particular, practitioners are keen to do more to develop joint schemes of work, aligning as far as possible learning objectives between the curriculum for subject qualifications and the English and maths curricula.

On paper this sounds relatively straightforward, but we have discovered that on the ground this is much more difficult to implement in practice.

For a start, some subjects naturally lend themselves to certain elements of the English and maths curricula. But being able to successfully embed English and maths into your lessons requires a level of confidence and creative skill, and some teachers feel that they have not been given the support and development they need.

We found examples where institutional barriers, such as timetabling, meant that subject teachers found it too difficult even to meet English and maths specialists to discuss the progress of their learners and work creatively together to align learning objectives and session plans.

Where it was clear that managers were on top of the acute challenges brought about by the introduction of study programmes, teachers and trainers have been engaged in innovative approaches to planning and delivery, such as focused professional development on behaviour management; multiple and advanced initial assessment methods; and providing resource to offer one-to-one support for learners who need it.

The introduction of study programmes also provides greater opportunities for teachers and trainers to share ideas and methods; discuss the progress of individual learners; and discuss strategies for employer engagement in planning, delivery and assessment.

One particular example that stands out in my mind was a college that had timetabled ‘teacher talks’ every week, bringing practitioners from across curriculum areas to discuss specifically the impacts of introducing certain tasks, activities and pedagogical approaches.

The introduction of compulsory English and maths qualifications, and GCSEs in particular, is another of those things that sounds easy on paper. The reality for a teacher can be very different when face-to-face with learners who left school with the assumption they would never have to sit a maths exam again.

Where teachers and trainers do encounter disengagement with English and maths, they are finding creative ways of confronting learners’ fears with an approach that I unofficially call ‘stealth teaching’ or, as one IfL member put it, ‘Don’t call it maths’.

Teachers and trainers are skilfully working together to ‘make everything functional,’ using things such as business-like project work and multimedia campaigns to deliver authentic English and maths learning with very visible and practical uses.

IfL found significant differences among teachers and trainers relating to their responsibilities for employer engagement, ranging from organising ‘boot camp’ events providing learners with intensive interview experience; to organising open evenings to showcase students’ work; and actively visiting and managing relationships with local employers.

I believe that this exercise has again highlighted the importance of continuing professional development (CPD) and the value of teachers and trainers collaborating with their colleagues and with peers in other institutions, to share their learning of what works and to develop their practice, for the benefit of their learners.

What an interesting few weeks it has been since the funding agencies released details about priorities for next year and our funding agreements.

Without a shadow of doubt up and down the land the collective wringing of principals’ hands will be taking place.

What to do with less? That is the question of the moment and while some colleges are going all out for sometimes risky alternative income streams and growth, many are managing contraction of staff and, dare I say it, the curriculum offer itself.

Which begs the question about learner choice — what of the humble learner, those for whom we exist and serve?

Then, of course, while we’re all living with less we’re also expected to deliver higher standards and quality or we will be in the Ofsted naughty books, too.

Waiting in the wings is Dr David Collins, the FE Commissioner, and his team of trusty advisers ready to catch you when you fall, or not as the case may be.

So what has been achieved by the introduction of the role of FE Commissioner?

Has there been a miraculous turnaround of a failing college? Has the intervention had a positive impact on learners? Or is it simply another layer of bureaucracy to an already heavily burdened sector groaning under the sheer weight and volume of audits, inspections and accreditations.

Perhaps if the sector were to be more commercial and truly market and customer-driven we should be less regulated rather than further regulated by the likes of the FE Commissioner and allowed to get on with the job of educating and training rather than the constant looking over the shoulder we currently have?

Which leads me to another point — it would appear we have a crisis in the sector now and for the future. Simply put, where is the next generation of leaders ?

I work hard in my own college to foster a culture of ambition for younger staff members who have the determination and energy we so badly need in what is a very demanding role.

But so many are put off by the thought of the journey through management
into leadership roles. The chances appear limited to many of them and
the journey simply does not appeal. Why is that?

Part of the problem is the lack of a really well thought-out and developed programme similar to the Learning and Skills Improvement Service senior leaders and aspiring principals programmes which, sadly, has now withered on the vine.

The sector does need to sort this problem out quickly in my view or we will have our very own self-made skills shortage and be found wanting.

Maybe Dr Collins could and should advise young Mr Hancock to switch the focus of the commissioner’s role away from the punitive reactionary model and toward a supportive, and enriching role that enables colleges to develop, flourish and grow.

Come on Dr Collins, you know you want to.

With the FE loans having launched a year ago, Mike Cooper looks at how the system is bedding in and why previously-unwilling providers might want to re-evaluate their thinking on what is a potential income stream.

Quietly, the new round of online applications for 24+ advanced learning loans has opened.

Learners aged over 23 meeting eligibility criteria, taking eligible level three and four courses, can get funding for 2014/15 course fees in similar ways to higher education loans.

As with the university context, there’s controversy over the principle and the practice.

Nevertheless, FE loans are now an established system, probably for the foreseeable future (even if it’s changeable, as when apprenticeships were dropped from the scheme earlier this year).

But some providers and learners still need to come to terms with greater learner self-funding.

Skills Funding Agency (SFA) figures for 2013/14, as of late January, suggest that provider engagement with the FE Loans policy and practicalities has been patchy.

Analysis of SFA’s combined loans ‘facility’ and ring-fenced bursary funding, shows totals for this year ranging from £7.14m to £5.5k.

Among more than a thousand providers listed, that’s an average of about £276.5k.

Without the near 25 per cent of providers who have no loans allocation at all, the average is near £363k.

Providers felt they should bide their time, and may even have hoped that FE loans might ‘go away’

As a proportion of these providers’ total 2013/14 SFA funding, that averages around 16 per cent. These are significant figures.

The intriguing aspect may be the ‘patchiness’. Are those providers with no current loans funding in that position because they offer no appropriate courses, or have no such learners? Or is it their choice? If it’s the latter, then the absence of this income stream seems potentially problematic — both for the organisation and the learners whom they serve. After all, loans funding can’t be vired — it’s a potential ‘use it or lose it’ income stream. If providers decided not to engage in the first year, will that now change?

Policy Consortium colleague Carolyn Medlin was involved in the joint SFA/Learning and Skills Improvement Service (LSIS) initial support programme in 2012/13, with more than 1,000 participants.

She saw providers who felt they should bide their time, and may even have hoped that FE loans might ‘go away’.

Certainly, some that she recalls from those occasions do not appear on the SFA’s 2013-14 spreadsheet.

One problem for providers entering the loans arena from scratch for this new phase is that external support is now far more restricted.

Subsidised workshops and consultancy through the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)/SFA ended last summer.

True, some resources produced for them can still be found. My own experience working on later LSIS and National Institute of Adult Continuing Education loans support initiatives suggests that they won’t be adequate or sufficient, however.

As if to underscore this point, some of the providers with the largest loans funding in 2013/14 were ones that engaged most actively with support activities, last year.

Finally, three recent publications shed further intriguing light on the FE loans situation.

First, the March 2014 BIS update shows a total of around 60,000 loan applications to date from level three/four learners, for courses other than apprenticeships — 40,000 of those for courses other than access to higher education, such as QCF diplomas and certificates.

Next, the latest BIS research report in this field (No. 159: Tracking the impact of 24+ advanced learning loans) explored levels of awareness, knowledge, understanding and ‘intent’ about loans among providers, employers and learners in 2013.

The results are complex, but support the idea that some providers may still be losing out on the potential benefits which loans could bring, in terms of learners, learning and funding.

Finally, a current BIS consultation looks at proposals to deal with the clash between the current HE loans system and Islamic principles on loans. One established Muslim approach (‘takaful’) is otherwise recognisable as being like credit unions and mutual societies — a proposal that may better open up HE to observant Muslims.

But is such an approach applicable only to higher education loans and Muslim learners? Perhaps there are lessons there for FE, and all learners and communities.

It is perhaps not surprising that when FE Week and the Policy Consortium invited staff across the sector to highlight the issues that really concerned them they should paint a rather troubling picture.

More than a thousand people responded to the opportunity to record what worried them most about the state of FE, and their comments make disturbing reading. It would be wrong however, to dismiss these concerns as just an inevitable consequence of allowing hard-pressed staff to let off steam — there are clear patterns in these responses which deserve serious attention.

One headline finding is the extremely high level of concern about institutional funding, common across all subsectors.

It is revealing that the highest degree of concern is among the most senior staff — those best-placed to see what is going on and perhaps what further cuts are just around the corner.

With protection being given to pre-16 school budgets, cuts in the Department for Education inevitably focus on 16 to 19-year-olds despite their already being less well-resourced than those in earlier years. With university teaching largely funded through student fees, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills funding cuts also focus on the FE sector, and with apprenticeships given priority everything else is under threat. Staff are fearful of the future for their learners and their institutions and perhaps rightly so.

Another message that comes through strongly is concern over the pace of change, whether in funding mechanisms, curriculum content or institutional arrangements. Staff report that they have not had time to assimilate one set of changes when another is upon them, giving nothing time to bed down or to settle in.

In most cases this is not hostility to specific innovations as such. There is little criticism of fundamental changes such as the move to study programmes or the new priority given to English and maths for example. What comes across is the sheer frustration of not being given a chance to get on and do a good job before the rules change yet again.

Two specific changes stand out as exceptions to this rule. Proposals to transfer apprenticeship funding to employers attracted serious criticism in a series of comments from those in training providers but also from staff in colleges. Staff echoed concerns made by many national organisations about the potential impact on the engagement of small and medium-sized enterprises with the apprenticeship programme.

Transferring funding for those with high level needs to local authorities raised similar fears for both college staff and those in independent specialist providers, sometimes linked with fears about the reduction in funding levels for learners with disabilities more generally. In both cases staff concern is focussed around a move away from established arrangements that are understood and work tolerably well to a new system that in their view threatens to destabilise provision and restrict opportunities for learners.

Several respondents were very sceptical of the inspectorate’s independence from government and the centralist influence on both inspection findings and inspection priorities. Inconsistency was also felt to be operating at a local level where individual inspectors were seen as having individual agendas leading to considerable variability.

The inspection framework and its operation were often felt to ignore the context in which individual providers were working in.

This applied to the type of provider (college, independent learning provider, etc), provision (especially LLDD/SEN) and also in addressing deficits that were perceived as the responsibility of schools rather than FE.

Finally, many comments suggest that FE staff do not see government sponsored changes to the sector as wholly legitimate; initiatives are described as politically inspired and respondents talked frequently of political ‘interference’ or ‘meddling’. There is not so much a sense of partnership between internal and external stakeholders as of the sector being ‘used’ by politicians for their own, often short term and extrinsic ends.

If political leaders are to secure sector support to take forward the reforms they believe in they will need to make far greater efforts to convince staff that they are motivated by a genuine desire to improve outcomes for learners, rather than just indulging in change for its own sake.

Click here to read about The Great FE and skills survey