Another year, another construction report on future skills. And what does this one say about further education? ‘Construction and its associated professions need to work harder to engage and excite future generations to seek a career in the industry.’
Common parlance, but we must dig deeper to look at the practicalities of how this might work.
Attracting young people to apprenticeships and persuading businesses to employ them has been a conundrum stretching back over decades, certainly across the 27 years I’ve been involved in high-level skills development.
The Building the Future commission’s new report highlights areas of concern, and they’re worth repeating. First, that construction’s reputation is a barrier; The best and the brightest only turn to it as a last resort. Second, career path silos needlessly block progression; greater collaboration would help everyone. Third, getting a foothold in various professions is prohibitively costly; earn-as-you learn should be rolled out more broadly.
The report’s key recommendations for education and skills are as follows:
An audit of all educational standards (including apprenticeships) to ensure they are fit for purpose.
A long-term project to ensure flexible routes into all aspects of the built environment, with new cross-industry qualifications to facilitate greater movement of workers.
A government strategy for vocational education lasting up to two decades.
Noble intentions, but at the moment there is not a lot of stability in the educational sector, little appetite for collaboration in parliament, and anyway we ought to be focusing on finessing the basics over a shorter timescale.
Employers, particularly those of smaller companies, are often unaware of what’s involved if they want to take on an apprentice. Instead of ministers imposing solutions from above, I suggest that they consider helping colleges now to become the go-to place for finding out.
FE should be font of information for students and employers
What do I mean by this? Simply that silo learning is ingrained in the educational sector; they offer an apprenticeship in this, a diploma in that, and any employer requiring a concoction of skills wouldn’t know where to turn.
The answer is to make the FE network itself the font of information so that when they engage in a conversation about cross-skill qualifications, an employer can trust an educator’s advice. Flexibility is the keyword.
I wholeheartedly agree, for instance, with the recent observations in FE Week by Graham Hasting-Evans, chief executive of NOCN Group. He says that our skills system, designed for larger programmes such as apprenticeships and T levels, is not suitable for the dynamic and ever-changing situation of green skills and digital innovation.
As the UK heads towards net zero, there will be job opportunities in construction that we haven’t even considered yet and education needs to be fleet-of-foot to accommodate them.
So why not start by putting educators firmly at the heart of construction recruitment by persuading employers to make use of the variety of resources at a college’s disposal? A small change in attitude, and a big step for construction recruitment.
But our education system is like a jigsaw with two-thirds of the pieces already in place. It would be madness to break up what’s there and start again because the finished picture isn’t perfect. Instead, we must add pieces to make the picture clearer.
So with further education. We should be building on all the good work of those who guide young people towards fulfilling construction careers. Make colleges not just a place of learning and a hub for careers advice for young people, but a centre of advice for employers too – a knowledge and skills exchange.
Most of all, ministers must work with education leaders now rather than redirecting all their resources into sweeping audits lasting decades. These recommendations are perfectly well-intentioned, but in the end the real solutions will be incremental and ground-up. The best thing ministers can do is facilitate a way of systematizing that – for construction, and all the other sectors struggling to fill workforce gaps.
The digital landscape in education is an ever-changing entity that is being shaped by technological advancements and cultural shifts. What we think of as ‘cool tech toys’ today, like virtual reality (VR) and artificial intelligence (AI), are becoming as essential to learning as books and pencils.
In the further education classroom, the role of technology has long since become pivotal in shaping the teaching and learning experiences of educators and students. But with the number of emerging technologies and the rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI), we have come a long way in a very short time in what feels like a whole new transformation of our work.
Over the past 12 months, I have been exploring and utilising AI in different ways in the classroom and have seamlessly incorporated it into my everyday teaching practices. Leveraging a range of tools to help me organise, plan and teach my students has not only changed the way I teach, it also underscores the immense potential AI holds for the whole sector.
Bringing simple ideas to life
At the heart of my approach is Scribble Diffusion, a powerful tool catering to my Level 1 students studying English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) and foundation courses. Through this platform, students are encouraged to sketch a drawing and provide a prompt, showcasing how powerful generative AI is and how it brings their concepts to life.
For example, the students were tasked with sharing a word to develop a narrative. This was further developed through Scribble Diffusion as a photo story. As a result, it not only boosted their confidence but also put their language and creative skills to the test, stimulating creativity and nurturing a deeper understanding of visual representation.
Fostering innovation and creativity
As a games design tutor, I have found the use of Leonardo AI helpful in fostering creativity and problem-solving skills among my Level 2 and 3 students, enhancing their ability to develop innovative and engaging game concepts. This free, token-based generative AI tool is versatile across various vocational courses, demonstrating its potential to cultivate a wide array of skills.
I have also been utilising Quizalize which has become my go-to resource for creating engaging quizzes – particularly useful for new starter/student activities or session recaps. The integration of ChatGPT within Quizalize has helped me streamline the quiz creation process, showcasing the collaborative potential between educators and AI to enhance teaching methodologies.
Streamlining processes for efficiency
Another area I have been exploring is TeacherMatic, which has rapidly become an essential tool to streamline my workload. By automating routine tasks and providing easy access to educational resources, it has allowed me to focus more on instructional activities and student interaction.
However, while it holds promise in reducing the burden on educators and has the potential to become effective if developed further, its widespread integration across educational institutions is yet to be fully realised. Gillian Keegan may be pinning her hopes on AI to reduce workload, but there is a long way to go to make this a reality.
In addition to all these tools, I have of course also invested in ChatGPT 4. Its personalised prompts feature sets it apart from the free version. Customisation will be significant in maximising AI’s effectiveness in the classroom and meeting diverse needs, but the cost implication is certainly something policy makers need to be aware of.
Soft skills are vital in our day-to-day interactions and perhaps even more so in the working world. As a result, I have recently explored an app called Body Swaps for soft skills training. This innovative tool utilises VR to simulate interviews, providing individuals with a unique opportunity to refine their interpersonal skills.
AI has revolutionised the way I work, making my teaching more personalised, efficient, and responsive, both in my day-to-day activities with students and in how I plan lessons. It has helped me facilitate seamless communication and resource sharing among my peers and students, fostering a community of continuous learning and professional development.
All of which is truly beneficial for early adopters like me. (And there’s no reason you can’t become one too very quickly, no matter how inexperienced you feel.) The challenge now is to make this revolution systemic.
A parent of one of my FE students once demanded to know why we were ‘forcing’ his son to continue studying maths and English at college alongside his vocational subject.
What I said to him then very much remains the case today: every young person needs these skills to reach their full potential. Whatever their ambition or aspiration, developing confidence in these core subjects will make a monumental difference students’ ability to achieve career and life goals.
FE colleges have a huge responsibility here, often needing to completely re-engage and re-motivate young people who feel very negatively towards continued study of maths and English. Many feel like they’ve spent years failing at school, have low confidence and little interest in lessons.
There is also the issue of timing. For students joining us in September, it’s extremely difficult to retake exams with us at the first possible opportunity in November. This is due to the complexity and the cost of re-registering them, as well as not having the time to properly assess learning needs or get the information we need from their old schools.
Some young learners will be able to return to their school to resit in November, but this is dependent on the school’s policy. The result is that most young people moving into college needing to resit their exams will have to wait a whole year, having to focus on maths and/or English study alongside their vocational programme. Maintaining interest and motivation during this period is not easy and requires huge buy-in from students and their families, as well as talented and committed tutors.
Other difficulties include not having easy access to the data we need to ascertain where students’ knowledge gaps are. We run our own diagnostics, but exam board feedback sits with the schools and unless you can get it from them, GDPR makes it challenging to obtain.
This is not good enough, and measures must be taken to address it
For all these reasons, resit success at colleges is understandably limited, which is evident in the outcomes. This year, just 16 per cent of students re-taking GCSE maths passed with at least a grade 4, and 26 per cent for English – some 5 per cent down on pre-pandemic levels.
This is not good enough, and measures must be taken to address it. At LSEC, we are starting to see real progress in our outcomes in spite of the challenges the sector faces. We have implemented a range of tactics focused on supporting students.
Central to our approach is targeted and personalised learning. We use diagnostics to see where knowledge gaps exist and focus our teaching heavily on these. Using the awarding organisation’s result analysis tool helps us identify areas learners find most challenging so we can tailor teaching to their needs.
The Covid recovery fund has also given us the opportunity to provide additional tuition and workshops, immersing learners in study and providing exceptional support.
And, importantly, we use our most experienced teachers, who are briefed and trained by our director of English and maths to ensure the highest quality of teaching and learning.
But what the sector needs is more flexibility in terms of when to enter students for resits and appreciation of the associated costs. For example, could there be an entitlement for students to resit at school if they so wish?
Alternatively, could students resit their exams at college, but remain registered at their school (or even dual-rolled)? This would take the logistical issue of resits away from schools, while maintaining accountability.
A third option would be a later re-take, in January or February. This would give colleges time to assess students’ needs and get all the necessary arrangements in place, including access to school-held data. In turn, this would facilitate more targeted teaching, the implementation of additional support where needed – and a faster road to exams.
The importance of ensuring every learner gains a qualification in maths and English is paramount and I support it unequivocally. But it’s clear outcomes need to improve, and while colleges can do a lot, they could do so much more with a little more flexibility to operate.
From bot exam markers to snooping surveillance tech, we look at some of the most eye-catching technology on sale to educators at this year’s ed tech Bett conference, as the regulatory world rushes to catch up with AI advances.
Bringing exam marking into the AI age
The makers of an AI tool which marks both handwritten and typed exam papers and provides detailed feedback, claim it will “revolutionise” how exams are marked.
Vision Marker is the brainchild of father-son duo Barry Lambert, a chief examiner who has written over 50 GCSE papers, and Dr James Lambert, a machine learning boff who previously ran an algorithmic hedge fund.
The pair are marketing their tool as a “co-pilot” for marking rather than a complete teacher-less solution. Dr Lambert claimed to be unaware of any regulations prohibiting the use of an AI tool as a sole exam marker.
However, Ofqual said this is “not allowed”, although “awarding organisations may decide that AI can support the marking process”.
The Lamberts claim their tool is capable of co-marking all 420 million questions submitted each summer for key stage two and GCSE maths and English papers.
James and Barry Lambert
Vision Marker is currently being used in 25 schools to co-mark such practice papers, and the Lamberts are working with exam boards as well as some multi academy trusts and higher education institutions around using their services in the future. However, they won’t reveal which ones.
AQA’s chief executive Colin Hughes said in November that his organisation was interested in the potential for AI to mark exams, describing it as being “very easy” to have “machines marking human markers”. But “public confidence” was stopping them from doing so.
Other AI-powered marking tools coming onto the market include Blees AI, based in Canada and London, Graide, a University of Birmingham spinout with a new platform for marking essays and reports for universities, and KEATH.ai, a platform developed by University of Surrey researchers.
But Dr Lambert claims Vision Marker is distinctive because it can mark handwritten exams, even noting where words are scribbled out, and in the quality of its feedback, which can come with “varying levels of encouragement”.
Dr Lambert believes this feedback could prove invaluable in showing college students retaking their maths and English GCSEs where they are going wrong. “The time pressures mean feedback is never given at exam level. But detailed feedback is essential for student development.”
While manual marking takes weeks to complete, which Dr Lambert claims “delays result to students and hinders their outcomes”, Vision Marker could deliver exam results “in a couple of hours out to the entire nation”.
He claims their tool has proven itself to be “more accurate than [human] markers”, who are “prone to error making in these highly repetitive tasks”.
Teachers use exam marking to top up their wages each summer, with AQA paying between £500 and £1,000 per exam. Some may be alarmed at the prospect of being replaced by AI. But Dr Lambert claims they are “paid below minimum wage for what they do” and that their tool “turns markers into moderators” as they “use the [learner] feedback to agree or disagree with our system.”
He believes this means their technology will not be subject to the “black box effect” currently concerning the central banking market, in which it can be hard to understand how a particular AI model arrived at its conclusion.
“It’s the regulator’s dream rather than their nightmare because we have a fully auditable process of how and why marks are awarded.”
Halo Smart Sensor
Surveillance sensors
Schools and colleges are using surveillance equipment to crack down on vaping, bullying and rowdiness in hidden areas, such as toilet blocks.
Companies are selling sensors to schools and colleges that can detect not just nicotine and THC, but also listen out for keywords and “noise incidents”.
Triton’s 3D sense pro and HALO Smart Sensors, made by the US company IPVideo (owned by Motorola Solutions), both actively listen for pre-programmed words through a machine learning algorithm. The sensor triggers an alert sent to staff members when they are heard.
The 3D Sense Pro sensor has 10 built-in keywords (such as ‘help me’ and ‘stop it’) it detects, and leaders can also choose ten “customisable” keywords it can listen out for. One company selling the 3D Sense Pro, Emergency Protection, described on its website how keywords and phrases were “constantly added through OTA [over-the-air] updates”. Similarly, Halo smart sensors come pre-loaded with five keyword phrases and educators can request to include others.
After the AI learns different pronunciations of new keywords, the software is updated so these words can be detected by all Halo sensors in schools and colleges nationwide, said Jon Glover, a manager at Halo sensor seller Millgate.
Kay Firth-Butterfield, a lawyer specialising in AI, said parents and young people should be contacted and asked for their consent first before this technology is rolled out.
But a sales representative for Schoolwatch, a UK seller of the 3D Sense Pro, said users did not need to get permission from parents to use the sensors, because they were not storing or collecting any personal information. The devices can integrate with CCTV too.
When activated by a vaping sensor, the cameras can capture every student leaving the bathroom.
Schoolwatch’s website describes the algorithm as “actively listening” to pupils.
The Halo 3C-PC version can even count the number of people in a room.
Madeleine Stone, senior advocacy officer for Big Brother Watch, said that “secretly monitoring bathrooms is a gross violation of privacy and would make students and parents deeply uncomfortable.
“No [education provider] should consider spying on private conversations and doing so is highly likely to be unlawful. This misguided surveillance poses a clear safeguarding risk and should be allowed nowhere near UK schools.”
FE Week put the spying concern to Schoolwatch’s managing director Andrew Jenkins. He said they had had “many conversations” at Bett about this issue, with “the main worry” being whether verbal exchanges were live monitored or recorded.
“The answer is no … when triggered, staff will receive an alert via SMS, push notification, and email. Nothing is saved, nothing is recorded, and nothing can be reviewed.”
Halo Smart Sensor screen showing its capabilities
A Triton spokesperson said: “The aim is to provide an additional layer of security against threats like bullying or sexual assault in these areas, reinforcing a safe environment. It’s important to communicate to students and educators that the system is designed to enhance safety, not to monitor everyday conversations.”
The 3D sense pro model, which includes the keyword and noise detector functions, are the most expensive (£999) and least popular sensor model that Schoolwatch sells. It has sold nine of these to schools, which Jenkins said are “focussed on stopping vaping not audio detection” while Millgate has sold 30 to 40 Halo Sensors to schools and colleges.
The number of young people using vapes has tripled in the last three years, with concern growing over the use of vapes laced with THC. Last year, East Surrey College was handed a ‘requires improvement’ rating over “poor behaviour” which included students vaping in the building.
A student at one college last year wrote on an online forum, the Student Room, how his college toilet vaping had set off a fire alarm and caused everyone to be evacuated. They said that on their level two construction course, vaping had “basically become the cultural norm”.
Meanwhile, on social media, students describe ways to outsmart the sensors by blowing smoke away from them and covering them in plastic wrap.
But some sensors use AI which recognises when it is being compromised and acts on it in hostile ways. IPVideo’s website says Halo sensors’ speaker and light can be programmed to “blink or shriek” when it is being tampered with.
A representative for Millgate said because the “AI technology” gets “used to its surroundings”, the sensor would send an alert if a student “tried to spray deodorant on it” to “mask” their vaping.
Halo sensors can send alerts when noise gets above a specific volume, and detect gunshots and explosions.
IPVideo’s website suggests educators can install them in locker room, classrooms and dorm rooms as well as bathrooms.
St Joseph’s College in Stoke-on-Trent placed Halo Sensors in two toilet blocks in September. After deputy headteacher Charlotte Slattery said they became “very active in the first few weeks”, it installed five others elsewhere. The school were “more interested” in the vaping alert than the sensor’s keyword and noise detection features, although they use those too.
A recent report in the LA Times found that in the US, the sensors are not always effective.
Michael Allman, a board member at California’s San Dieguito Union High School District, said that “in a way”, a pilot programme had been “too successful as the sensors went off so frequently, administrators felt it was useless to review security footage each time”.
At the Coppell Independent School District in Texas, sensors are part of a prevention strategy in which students can receive $50 for reporting vaping by peers. “They were turning each other in right and left,” said Jennifer Villines, the district’s director of student and staff services.
AI robot tutor
Murray Morrison, founder of Tassomai
The learning platform Tassomai claims it’s new virtual tutor, Mai, can do almost anything that a human tutor does, but for a fraction of the cost.
Its founder, Murray Morrison, believes that one day soon, AI like his will do away with the need for tutors altogether, while levelling the education playing field in the process.
Mai uses a trained version of OpenAI’s GPT3.5 to chat to learners, in the same way that an on-demand human tutor would guide them with their homework.
Since January, Mai has been made available to all the 600 secondary schools in England that use Tassomai’s assessment platform.
Other companies in the formative assessment space include Oxford-based Educake which provides homework and revision, and the Canadian software company Showbie’s classroom assessment tool, Seneca.
All Mai’s conversations are recorded and stored by Tassomai.
Morrison admits there have been “lots of hiccups” in teaching Mai how to tutor, as large language models are “not as clever as you want them to be”.
“The art comes in training it to do the right thing…it’s certainly not just a plug in and play process.”
Last month, the delivery firm DPD had to disable part of its AI online chatbot after a customer was able to make it swear and write a haiku about how useless the company is.
Mai has been programmed to keep conversations “relevant and appropriate” to students’ Tassomai quizzes, using a moderation system whereby spamming, persistent inappropriate comments or questions from users are flagged. Those users have their access limited or blocked.
When asked by a learner recently if Mai had any “cheat codes”, the bot responded: “Haha. I wish I had cheat codes for learning, but unfortunately, there aren’t any shortcuts when it comes to gaining knowledge.”
And there are other ethical quandaries that have had to be considered. One school with a conservative Christian ethos insisted upon Mai not being able to teach some aspects of biology.
Morrison describes such instances as causing a “real dilemma” for companies like his.
“What if we were asked to write content for the Florida School Board, and they don’t want us to say that evolution is true? That’s a whole other conversation.”
There is also the issue of “half-truths or untruths” in the current GCSE curriculum which Mai is trained to guide learners on.
Morrison sees what is being taught by one exam board about “human-caused climate change” as “hedging its bets”.
Morrison believes AI is rapidly becoming more sophisticated. It is “not beyond the reach of AI” to be able to replace tutors altogether within the next two years. “When tutoring is as expensive and inconvenient as it is, there’s an opening there.”
Concurrent Job: Various non-executive director roles
Interesting fact: A few years ago, Ruby participated in the Milton Keynes’ version of Strictly Come Dancing. After four months of intensive dance training with a professional partner, Ruby went on to win the competition and raise £10,000 for charity.
Dan Beale
Director of Partnerships, FEA
Start date: January 2024
Previous Job: HMI Further Education and Skills, Ofsted
Interesting fact: Dan was previously a national standard swimmer and today volunteers at a local swimming club helping young swimmers to develop their skills and confidence in the water
Shaun Hope
Principal & CEO, Bishop Auckland College Group
Start date: February 2024
Previous Job: Vice Principal – Curriculum and Standards, Hartlepool College of Further Education
Interesting fact: A former professional footballer, Shaun spent three seasons at Coventry City from 1999 to 2002, playing against Premier League and England regulars including Joe Cole, Jermain Defoe and current Middlesbrough FC head coach Michael Carrick
Concurrent Job: Principal and Chief Executive, Northern Regional College, Northern Ireland
Interesting fact: Mel is a keen cyclist and joined his staff to complete sponsored cycles between the Campuses (100 miles) to raise funds for local charities
Martin Rennison
Director of Business Growth and Employer Partnerships, North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire College
Start date: January 2024
Previous Job: Interim Director of Business Development Solihull College and University Centre
Interesting fact: When not working, Martin is a fully qualified FA coach and the chairman of his local football club, Barton Rovers JFC
A government-sponsored construction giant is facing a potential clawback of almost £17 million after an apprenticeships data blunder.
The Construction Industry Training Board’s (CITB) accounts for last year revealed it had set aside £10.9 million due to “non-compliance” with the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s funding rules for the academic years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21.
But, its newly published financial statements for 2022-23 reveal this liability has ballooned by over 50 per cent to potentially £15.2 million between 2018 and 2020, while a further £1.6 million is being paid back for 2020-21.
The executive non-departmental public body, which has been chaired by former ESFA chief executive Peter Lauener since 2018, was found to have “issues with records management” and couldn’t evidence various funding claims.
CITB’s latest accounts state, however, that it is “very confident” that the final clawback position will be “much lower” than the potential liability pot it has set aside.
The body expects the matter to conclude by the end of March 2024.
A CITB spokesperson said: “We are currently working with the ESFA to finalise audits of historic CITB provision. We included a conservative provision in the 22/23 accounts but expect the final figure to be much lower given the work we have in hand.
“Over the last 18 months, we have been driving forward a comprehensive transformation of our training operations, including improvements to compliance as well as curriculum quality. That programme is delivering real results at pace.
“Our most recent external assurance work gives us confidence that current arrangements are robust, and that these issues are historic in nature.”
The CITB, sponsored by the Department for Education, has historically been one of the largest providers of construction apprenticeships. However, apprentice numbers have dropped dramatically in recent years.
It was visited by Ofsted last year which resulted in it dropping from ‘outstanding’ to ‘requires improvement’ in May 2023.
The watchdog’s latest report revealed it has stepped away from its troubled subcontracted provision after finding ineffective oversight, with inspectors stating that leaders “focus too heavily on contract compliance and not on the quality of education”.
CITB confirmed at the time it was winding down its subcontracted delivery, which it was undertaking with 24 partners in areas such as carpentry and joinery, construction skills and bricklaying.
The organisation said the decision was linked to government policy in 2021, which demanded providers in FE significantly reduce their subcontracted provision after scandals and cases of poor oversight were brought to light.
Ofsted’s previous report on CITB from 2017 showed it had 9,000 apprentices on its books, but the report from May 2023 showed just 629.
Lauener, meanwhile, has been chair of CITB since 2018 and will serve his term until 2026.
More recently, Lauener, who is also chair of the Student Loans Company, stepped down as chair of college giant NCG (formerly known as Newcastle College) three years earlier than planned for “personal reasons”.
NCG is also locked in a £9 million funding clawback dispute with the ESFA, due to alleged 16 to 19 and adult education budget funding claim errors between 2018/19 and 2020/21 – the first three years of Lauener’s term as chair.
Four in ten 16-year-olds did not achieve good passes in their GCSE English and maths last year. Most of them must continue studying English and maths during their 16-to-18 education as part of the resit policy. Yet despite the volume of students affected by this policy, we still know surprisingly little about how effective it is at improving outcomes and addressing inequalities.
Continued study of English and maths makes sense. Literacy and numeracy strongly correlate with later outcomes like wages, health and life satisfaction. Providing further opportunities to develop these skills during the 16-to-18 phase is imperative, especially for students who are struggling at the end of their GCSEs and have had fewer opportunities growing up.
The recently announced Advanced British Standard (ABS) places great emphasis on strengthening these skills, with all students required to take English and maths until they are 18. However, what the ABS will mean for students not achieving a good pass at 16 remains uncertain and is a key topic in the ABS consultation document.
Currently, what should be a positive opportunity to develop worthwhile skills has been variously described as ‘endless resit failure”, a ‘demoralising resit cycle’ and a ‘dispiriting cycle of resits’. But an upcoming election and discussions around the ABS present a real opportunity to ambitiously redefine our approach for these learners.
We found that an overwhelming majority enrol in GCSE resits (80-85 per cent), even though this is only a requirement for those who score a grade 3 in their GCSE exams. Alternatives like functional skills qualifications (FSQs) barely get a look in. This is driven by a range of factors, including brand recognition, staffing shortages, funding implications and criticisms around the reformed FSQs.
Our most vulnerable learners are ostensibly going backwards under this policy
However, achievement levels in GCSE resits are low. In 2022/23, only one-quarter of students passed their English GCSE resit and fewer than one in six passed their maths resit. Disadvantaged students and those with special education needs fare particularly badly, being 30 to 40 per cent less likely to pass on average. Alternative level 2 qualifications (mostly FSQs) have pass rates that are around four times larger, and the disadvantage gaps are much smaller.
When we look at the difference between grades achieved at 16 and grades achieved during 16-18 education, there are trends of extremely low progress on average and negative progress scores for disadvantaged students and students with SEN. This implies that our most vulnerable learners, who are in most need of support, are ostensibly going backwards under the resit policy (though, of course, they don’t lose their original GCSE grade).
The majority do not make progress, and those who do are overwhelmingly students with higher prior attainment and lower levels of disadvantage. Clearly, the current policy is not working.
One possible solution is to develop new programmes that focus on developing the core literacy and numeracy skills young people need. This could involve combining approaches from GCSEs and FSQs as well as weaving in new material and teaching methods.
These programmes should be designed to avoid the stigma associated with less academic/more functional alternatives to GCSEs. We know many students take GCSEs because they are better recognised and hold greater value with stakeholders, including parents and employers.
We could achieve this by replacing existing options with level 2 maths and English qualifications that can be taken with either an academic or functional focus, but both branded as ABS modules. This would allow students to take a programme of study that best aligns with their needs and aspirations while reducing the sharp distinction between academic and technical qualifications that currently exists.
We are at a crossroads. The ABS and surrounding policy discussions offer us a chance to provide much greater opportunities to students who are currently required to resit. We cannot let this opportunity slip to ensure every learner can progress towards the numeracy and literacy skills they need.
A Leicestershire college group is being propped up with emergency funding after the FE Commissioner flagged an insolvency risk, as governors admit they “took their eye off the ball” following a “turbulent” post-merger period.
The SMB Group was handed a government warning notice last July after “serious cash flow pressures” came to light. FE Commissioner Shelagh Legrave is now deploying her team of national leaders of FE and governance to help its recovery.
Staff restructuring is also underway, although it is not clear how many jobs are at risk.
The SMB Group was formed shortly before the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 through the joining of Brooksby Melton College and Stephenson College. Quality at both colleges pre-merger was judged by Ofsted as ‘good’ and the financial health of the newly merged college was also good.
In a report published last week, Legrave said a downward trend in student numbers has continued since the merger and made a large dent in income.
There was also a “significant” increase in pay and non-pay costs in 2022/23, which will result in a “substantial operating loss”. SMB recorded a £3.6 million deficit last year, but this year’s accounts are yet to be published.
Bailout funding for an undisclosed amount from the Department for Education is being used so that the college can continue its day-to-day running. Governors have even been told to “ensure they understand” their responsibilities including the provisions of the insolvency regime.
Legrave said early indicators for this academic year point to a “more positive” 16 to 19 student intake, though the college is anticipating another year of substantial losses even after taking account of the recent uplift in 16 to 19 funding rates.
“Work is underway to finalise a recovery plan which will need to demonstrate a credible path to financial sustainability and identify solutions to the impending cash shortfall”, the FE Commissioner added.
To balance the books the college has embarked on a “substantial cost reduction programme” that has involved closing most of the Melton campus and relocation of most provision to the Brooksby campus.
Quality of education has meanwhile suffered since the merger after Ofsted downgraded the group to ‘requires improvement’ last year.
Jane Wilson joined the college’s board in 2017 and became chair in 2022. She told Legrave that the merger, followed soon after by lockdown, had combined to distract the newly forming board and “cloud issues”.
She admitted that the board “took their eye off the ball” regarding income and wasn’t monitoring financial trends closely enough.
Other members said the financial issues were “foreseeable, but not foreseen” and referred to the board as being “relatively passive”.
Governors also told Legrave that post-merger, “a structure came about through attrition” and that the senior leadership team, formed by existing managers, “did not embed or prove effective”.
Chief executive Dawn Whitemore, who joined in 2018 and told the Melton Times in May 2022 the merger was a “lifesaver” for both colleges, revealed in Legrave’s report she had decided the “best way to move forward” was for her to focus on finance and for her deputy to focus on curriculum and quality.
She said she now recognised that this “wasn’t the right strategy” and that she “hadn’t secured the correct structure in place for leadership to be effective”.
Leadership of curriculum and quality was highlighted as particularly problematic, and several decisions of that post-merger period were identified as “concerning”.
A board member, for example, referred to the introduction of A-levels and running classes of three or four students as “worrying examples” and spoke of how the “feel” of the merged college was wrong.
Legrave said the board should now engage external advice from a turnaround specialist to “stress-test key aspects of the recovery plan and cashflow forecast to give assurance that the forward projections are robust and credible”.
A spokesperson for the college group told FE Week: “SMB College Group recognises the challenges currently facing the education sector, which is impacting a number of colleges across both the region and the wider nation.
“We are continuing to work in partnership with the Department for Education, the FE Commissioner team and other key advisors, and have already scoped and agreed a single improvement plan, which currently is progressing well with key milestones all on track.
“We currently have no debt as a college and have not yet agreed to the final support required. Our governors, executive team and our employees are all committed to ensuring our students remain at the heart of all of our decisions.”
