Many employers will struggle to identify and purchase the best possible training packages for their apprentices and providers are best-placed to advise them, says Michael Woodgate.

The chancellor’s announcement that apprenticeship funding will be routed directly to employers is the latest in a long line of policies, proposals and initiatives based on the prevailing consensus that employers must “own the skills agenda”.

Whether it’s Labour’s latest policy proposals or the coalition’s response to the Richards report, “what employers want” is taken as the mandatory starting point for policy making.

Writing in FE Week recently, Michael Davis, chief executive of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES), claimed that the “only plausible reason” for reported hard-to-fill vacancies in the hairdressing sector was the disconnect between the training provided and the needs of employers.

In my experience, there is rarely only one plausible reason for anything and this is almost never the case in the complex area of learning and development.

This simplistic world-view assumes employer demand is articulated perfectly — all that is required is for training providers, learners and the government to respond.

But look at what it is that employers actually want and the situation is not so straightforward.

Employers want their organisations to thrive and to prosper.

This will require, among other things, people doing their jobs well.

The question is how best to ensure this happens.

An intelligent approach would see training and development as a part of good management rather than a substitute for it.

An intelligent approach would see training and development as a part of good management rather than a substitute for it

So the effectiveness of training procurement and the articulation of “employer demand” will depend on the workplace culture from which they originate.

There are some excellent employers who know how to get the best out of their people and buy training that adds value. They rarely suffer skills gaps or shortages.

At the same time, there are some pretty dreadful employers who blame everyone else for their shortcomings.

The vast majority are somewhere in the middle, wanting to do well but not always managing it.

I believe it would be a lot more constructive to acknowledge that this group needs support to improve their management of people, rather than simply pretend they are the fount of all knowledge.

What is the good of buying a “skills solution” without a clear idea of why it’s being bought, what represents value for money and how its success will be measured?

And how effective will this skills solution be without robust management to sustain whatever improvements have been derived from it?

It is an unwillingness to ask and answer these questions that leads to money being squandered on ineffective training.

When the money involved does not even belong to the employer but is the taxpayer’s, the risks of getting poor value are even greater. Who is best placed to provide this support?

Business Link has gone virtual and disappeared off the radar. Trade associations are very good at meeting immediate needs around compliance and legislation, but not so good at more thorny issues.

Most sector skills councils are too busy justifying their own existence to be of much use.

The most obvious answer is the learning provider, but through a different sort of relationship with their employer customers.

Too often, both parties are trapped in a retail, solution-based mind-set, when more in-depth analysis would expose the real issues behind the skills need.

The great risk of such an approach is that the actual “solution” does not lie with the products the provider is offering, hence the reason these conversations rarely take place.

A move to genuine partnership working between providers and employers, where employers see themselves as part of the skills system rather than just articulate customers, is essential if progress is to be made.

Michael Woodgate, Independent Skills Consultant

Turning up on time and being presentable are just two of the life lessons a good spell of work experience can reinforce (or indeed, enforce). Marina Gaze explains how they fit into the new 16 to 19 study programmes.

A couple of weeks back, I enjoyed a stimulating debate with college leaders on issues relating to work experience at the Association of Colleges conference.

Work experience is not compulsory for all learners, but it should be an important part of vocational programmes and we would consider it good practice if all on the academic route have opportunities to develop employability skills in the workplace.

This is why we believe it is important to offer some form of tailored work experience to all learners outside of college.

We understand that many learners have busy lives, some juggle employment as well as study.

However, learners joining the 16 to 19 study programmes, introduced from August this year, are expected to follow a learning programme that is tailored to their individual needs, education and employment goals.

These new arrangements allow for more time to be spent on work experience or non-qualification activities.

Tailored work experience, like this, will mean that learners are able to find work in the future that directly links to their study.

We have not developed specific guidance for the inspection of 16 to 19 study programmes as the Common Inspection Framework for FE and skills adequately covers all aspects of the programme.

However, inspectors do look at outcomes for learners in relation to the extent to which learners develop personal, social and employability skills.

Examples of these would be personal awareness, such as appearance, attitudes, behaviour and punctuality, problem solving skills, and the ability to work in teams.

Learners are expected to make a real contribution in the workplace and develop their skills

We also explore the extent to which learners develop awareness of customer and business needs, as well as the ability to communicate effectively, apply numeracy skills and use computers — all in the context of work.

Ofsted is very clear that where work experience is a planned aspect of a student’s 16 to 19 study programme, at least some of the placement should be external to the provider.

We are fully aware that provider-based working environments, and provider-based employers, such as college companies, can provide a good step-up for learners who need more intensive support and training to build their confidence and skills.

However, these opportunities should not be seen as a complete substitute for an external placement where the students work in an unfamiliar environment and where they are more likely to have to react to situations and circumstances that are new to them.

Learners should progress to external work experience placements at the earliest possibility, especially if work experience is a substantial part of their programme.

We are also fully aware that some learners develop good employability skills while on paid employment they have arranged privately.

Having discussed this with the Department for Education (DfE), we can confirm that this activity can be included as part of the 16 to 19 study programmes, but only if the provider is involved in the learner’s development.

For this to happen, the provider should, firstly, assess the workplace to check that the learner is working in a safe environment and, secondly, agree with the employer and learner realistic and relevant learning objectives linked to developing the learners’ employability skills.

The provider should also arrange for the learner’s progress to be assessed and for constructive feedback to be given.

Inspectors also explore the extent to which work experience provides purposeful work that offers challenge, and is relevant to the each learner’s study programme.

Learners are expected to make a real contribution in the workplace and develop their skills.

They should also have opportunities to apply practical work-related skills in English and maths in the context of work experience.

Above all, we expect leaders and managers to ensure that work experience is well-supervised and that learners obtain a genuine learning experience suited to their needs and, where applicable, their future career plans.

Marina Gaze, Her Majesty’s Inspector, deputy director for FE and skills, Ofsted

Helen Pettifor explains how the Education and Training Foundation hopes to serve the FE and skills sector with an online presence it hopes to develop further.

Like many other personal and professional activities, as the internet becomes more and more a part of our daily lives, the demand for online training and development as part of a blended approach to learning continues to grow.

People like e-learning because it gives them instant access to a wide range of current information, enabling them to supplement and build upon their face to face learning, personalise their approach to continuous professional development (CPD), and research specific areas of interest at their own pace.

This is particularly important to an organisation like the Education and Training Foundation which exists to enhance professionalism and drive up professional standards.

We need to know what works, what does not work and what could be improved as well as what people think we absolutely must keep and continue to develop

Professional learning lies at the heart of everything that the foundation sets out to deliver and achieve, and it naturally follows that the foundation should offer a range of online resources and web services that maintain teaching and learning excellence, enhance leadership and that contribute to the continuing professional development of people working in the sector.

Some of these services, such as the Excellence Gateway, Learning Environment and FE Advice service transferred to the foundation from the Learning and Skills Improvement Service and this transfer of services provides an opportunity for a review to make sure that what we offer continues to best meet sector needs and is as easily accessible to as wide a cross section of users and practitioners as possible.

We already know that each online service has a loyal community of users, and like the sector itself, the content on each different site is diverse with many specialist areas, collections and web domains, which are used differently by different people. But feedback has also shown that the range of resources available is not clearly understood by everyone, and that key useful content such as the English and Maths hub, up to date information about teaching qualifications, Commission on Adult Vocational Teaching and Learning case studies, management toolkits and free courses are not promoted as well as they could be.

Of course, to develop and promote the services in a way that meets sector needs, it is important that we continue to hear and understand the range of diverse and representative views.

We need to know what works, what does not work and what could be improved as well as what people think we absolutely must keep and continue to develop, and what is becoming less useful as our learning styles and opportunities evolve.

With this in mind, a sector-nominated project board and advisory group has been set up to develop options for consultation, and we have put a range of initiatives in place to ensure that we consult widely across the sector and gain views at every level.

We will ask users what improvements they would like to see, and our aim is to create a new service of demonstrable value to the sector and which enhances its reputation.

Lots of changes will be made as we move through the review process over the coming months, and we have committed to building on what works and what is valued by existing and potential service users.

Your voice matters and sharing your views need not be time-consuming — there are a variety of opportunities to get involved, either directly through short onsite surveys or indirectly through more detailed focus groups which will be led by the sector membership bodies. If you use any of the sites regularly, please do take the time to tell us what you think.

We hope that people will see quick wins as well as long term improvements following the review process, which will continue until March, when the transition to new services will begin.

Service will be maintained as normal while the review, consultation and transition to new services takes place. Please keep an eye on the foundation website for further information.

Helen Pettifor, interim lead for the digital estate, Education and Training Foundation

Colleges rated inadequate by Ofsted are given a chance to improve before their funding is withdrawn and it is unfair that independent training providers are not given the same opportunity, says Paul Warner.

The Skills Funding Agency’s (SFA) Approach to Intervention recently set out the process by which contracts held by providers rated inadequate by Ofsted will be handled.

In the case of FE colleges, the SFA will issue a notice of concern specifying remedies to be made to allow the contract to be retained. The FE commissioner will consider how such an improvement plan should be undertaken.

Only after a further review would the SFA even consider issuing a notice of withdrawal of funding.

But when it comes to independent training providers (ITPs), the assumption is that the contracts will be terminated in all but the most exceptional circumstances.

A satisfactory rating may have been missed by a narrow margin and the issues of concern could be resolved

The Education Funding Agency (EFA) has much the same policy and this is clearly iniquitous.

This “all or nothing” criteria for ITPs raises the quality stakes to a frighteningly high level, given that the imposition of an inadequate rating means summary contract termination.

The Association of Education and Learning Providers’ (AELP) position is that in any review of poor quality provision, the reasons for the poor inspection and the future of the learners and employers must be taken into account.

A satisfactory rating may have been missed by a narrow margin and the issues of concern could be resolved.

Consideration should also be given to the possible adverse impact of summary closure on the availability of provision in a given geographical or occupational area.

One reason given to AELP for this unequal treatment is that the legal relationship between the state and FE colleges allows for the leadership and governance of a college to be replaced if necessary, but replacing the owner of an ITP would not be practical.

This ignores the point that it may not be the leadership and governance that needs addressing. It could be the executive management team, the replacement or modification of which is equally possible in a college or an ITP.

The effect of summary closures can also be seen down supply chains, where a sub-contractor may well be forced to close despite the fact it is delivering quality provision.

While the SFA is reasonably aware of its supply chain coverage, the EFA does not have the details of its subcontracting arrangements.

In any case, neither gives it consideration when issuing summary contract terminations.

The AELP is aware of several examples of where good quality provision in a local authority area is adversely affected. In fact vital provision in their area has been closed down on this basis without reference to their views and an indication of the timescale when any replacement may be made available.

We should also remember that there are other reasons when this intervention is implemented such as audit issues.

Again the SFA and EFA should ensure they understand the full implications of implementing an immediate response which results in closure of provision.

We have seen an example recently where it has been accepted that the provider did not make any false claims. Unfortunately, the provision was closed long before the facts were established.

It has been a core policy of AELP since its formation to support the drive for high quality provision and our policy remains as strong as ever, but we need a balanced approach to the position where an established provider receives an inadequate rating.

This response must reflect the opportunity to turn that provision around as it does for FE colleges.

In some cases, a period of review and remedy would be a better response than immediate closure, so the solution provides the best result for learners and employers.

Intervention policies at both the SFA and EFA should reflect this and give all institutions rated inadequate an equal chance to submit realistic improvement plans, before contract termination is considered.

Paul Warner, director of employment and skill, Association of Employment and Learning Providers

How do you take industry expertise into the learning environment while retaining that practical, everyday sector knowledge? It’s an issue that has been looked at recently and Jenny Williams wants to hear from FE and skills providers where such issues have been overcome.

There has been much discussion in the last few weeks about ‘line of sight to work’ and ‘the two-way street’ — two of the key characteristics for excellent vocational teaching and learning identified earlier this year by the Commission on Adult Vocational Teaching and Learning (CAVTL) in its report, It’s about work.

The first National Vocational Education and Training Conference, also called It’s about work, which was held as part of the Skills Show in November, heard from Sir Charlie Mayfield, chairman of the John Lewis Partnership and the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, just how important vocational education and training (VET) will be “if we are to secure a structural economic recovery, rather than a cyclical rebound”.

We want to translate knowledge of existing effective practices and development work into shareable expertise

The language is resonating, and in so doing, creating a platform on which to raise the status, and further improve the quality and impact of VET.

Meanwhile, the Education and Training Foundation has been making a start on taking forward CAVTL’s recommendations. An early priority is Teach Too.

The idea of Teach Too is to encourage experts from industry to spend some time teaching their occupational expertise to others and to contribute to vocational curriculum development, while continuing to work.

In the other direction of the two-way street, it is also about enabling teachers and trainers to draw on up-to-date industry experience and in so doing to add value to employers’ businesses.

We know we are not starting from scratch, and that a number of Teach Too style arrangements already exist.

Our starting point, therefore, has been to call for the engagement of the education and training sector to identify and report on a good range of existing effective practices as a basis for further development work.

We want to translate knowledge of existing effective practices and development work into shareable expertise in transferring on-the-job learning to an off-the-job learning context and vice versa.

We have also launched an invitation to tender for a delivery partner to work with us on this and, working from practice to principles to help us design a national framework for Teach Too next year.

Teach Too is an early priority for the foundation’s vocational education and training strategy, together with programmes to support the introduction of traineeships, the implementation of reforms to apprenticeships, and professional development support to embed skills competitions practice.

Further programmes taking forward CAVTL’s recommendations on the two-way street, improving the distinctive practices of vocational teaching and learning, support for occupational updating and the use of learning technologies will follow early in 2014.

We will also be consulting on the longer term development of a national VET Centre which could act as a focal point for excellence and innovation in vocational teaching and learning.

As the author of the CAVTL report, it has been pleasing to hear its language being adopted. Our priority now at the foundation is to build on the interest in the CAVTL’s findings as a platform for action and innovation to support the further professional development of the vocational education and training workforce. As Frank McLoughlin has said, CAVTL saw “genuinely world-class provision in a whole range of settings”.

What was clear was that “the best vocational teaching and learning is a sophisticated process; it demands ‘dual professionals’ — teachers and trainers with occupational expertise and experience, who can combine this with excellent teaching and learning practice”.

The foundation’s task is to build on the expertise that already exists, to make it more visible and replicate it more widely for the benefit of learners and employers.

Jenny Williams, director of vocational education and training, Education and Training Foundation

Visit www.et-foundation.co.uk/our-priorities/vocational-education.html to find opportunities to work with the foundation on Teach Too. Short expressions of interest are invited by January 17. To bid for the opportunity to be the foundation’s delivery partner for Teach Too, visit the procurement page of the foundation website