After a year in office, Skills Minister Matthew Hancock provides an update on his four priorities for vocational education.

It’s one year since I spoke last at the Association of Colleges (AoC) annual conference.

I’d been a minister for about a month at that point, and I laid out my priorities for vocational education. They were easily summed up as my TASQ — that’s traineeships, apprenticeships, standards and qualifications.

One year on, they’re still the priority, and we’ve achieve a great deal in each area.

Traineeships were launched in August, for example.

The sector responded enthusiastically; more than 500 training providers have pledged to take on trainees, hundreds of companies of all sizes are interested in offering placements.

It is, in fact, one of my proudest achievements as a minister to have seen traineeships become a reality.

They started off as an idea — a way to combine work preparation, work experience, maths, and English. They’re now a programme delivering all those skills and more.

Across traineeships, apprenticeships, standards and qualifications, we’ve achieved a lot in the past 12 months

To make sure that traineeships provide the best possible training we have made an extra £20m available for young people over 19-years-old to take part, too.

The second of my priorities, the A, is apprenticeships.

It was my pleasure last month to launch the Future of Apprenticeships report alongside the Prime Minister at the Mini plant in Oxford.

Even the St Jude’s day storm couldn’t dampen enthusiasm for the new model.

The principle behind the new approach is simple: we want to drive up quality, and simplify the apprenticeship system.

The new standards, which are being crafted by trailblazers in important industrial sectors, will be available by the end of 2014.

They build on the work we’ve already done to improve the apprenticeship brand. We have more apprentices today than ever before, and will continue the good work to increase the 1.5 million new apprenticeship starts since 2010.

Standards are third on my list of priorities. That means raising standards across vocational training, with a particular focus on English and maths.

If we need any evidence this is an urgent task, just look at the OECD’s recent survey of adult skills. It made for grim reading. Out of 24 developed nations, England ranks 22nd for literacy and 21st for numeracy for 16 to 24-year-olds. More damning still is the fact that our young people, fresh from the education system, perform worse than their grandparents.

So we are raising literacy and numeracy standards wherever and whenever we can.

Of course, this includes FE colleges, where we know many who are yet to attain their maths and English GCSE pursue vocational courses.

To help them, we introduced a bursary scheme to attract the brightest and the best to teach English and maths in the FE sector. Talented graduates can access £20,000 when they choose teach in a college.

Which brings me to the Q of my priorities — qualifications.

This month UKCES published the Adult Vocational Qualification Review, which is the latest step to drive up the standards of vocational courses.

We are using this review to inform the decisions being made for a coherent, comprehensible skills system and I recommend that anyone who works in the sector should read it and take on board Nigel Whitehead’s views.

So across traineeships, apprenticeships, standards and qualifications, we’ve achieved a lot in the past 12 months.

They remain my priorities. Just as important, the big picture is the same too — I want us to have a vocational education and skills system that is the envy of the world. That’s what I’m committed to. One year into the job, and with the AoC conference coming round again, it’s every bit as strong.

Mr Hancock is due to be speaking at the Association of Colleges’ conference on Tuesday, November 19, between 12.30 and 2pm in Hall One of Birmingham’s International Convention Centre.

Plenty of apprenticeship starts and a high public spend on training would suggest a wealth of hairdressers, but an employer survey has indicated a lack of trained staff. Michael Davis investigates the apparent “disconnect”.

Our company intranet recently saw a lively discussion about the acceptable price of a man’s haircut.

A rift sharper than a barber’s shears formed between gentlemen who felt £6 was the upper limit they were prepared to pay and those happy to shell out much more.

As well as offering a fascinating window into the coiffuring habits of staff at the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, hairdressing is often presented as way into a broader debate.

While technical experts worry about the finer points of supply and demand of skills in the UK labour market, the debate might be summed up with a single question — do colleges train too many hairdressers?

A range of statistics can be marshalled for both sides of the argument (with hairdressers’ associations firmly on the side you’d expect).

But look closely at the productivity and wage data for hairdressers and a couple of things stand out.

Hairdressers’ productivity is lower than other comparable jobs, and less than the average across the economy.

Their wages are similarly below average — less than half the median for all jobs, and falling. This low and apparently declining price suggests that the labour market is amply supplied with hairdressers.

There’s no doubt that learning to cut hair is popular. The associated frameworks consistently fall within the top ten in terms of apprenticeship starts, and the public spend is consequently high.

Why, then, does the UK Employer Skills Survey — the most comprehensive survey of its kind — tell us that more than one-in-three vacancies in the sector were hard to fill for “skills reasons”? This is more than twice the rate of similar vacancies economy-wide.

The only plausible reason is that there’s a disconnect between the skills taught by providers and the needs of hair and beauty employers. And that disconnect, in turn, fuels the low wages of hairdressers.

The commission has long argued that the solution to such mismatches is for much closer cooperation between providers and employers on courses and qualifications.

This would be a mutually beneficial arrangement for all involved. In his much-anticipated review of adult vocational qualifications, published last week, our commissioner Nigel Whitehead argued exactly this.

Rigorous, recognised and relevant vocational qualifications can transform lives and livelihoods. They can empower individuals to invest in their future. And they can grow the pop-up shop of today into the high-street retailer of tomorrow.

The review aspired for a system that places employers and employees at its heart, putting employers and employees first as key beneficiaries, and building a system that delivers business growth for employers and career progression for individuals.

Business gain by being able to hire employees with skills closely aligned to their roles from day one. Colleges and providers would do better in a system moving toward market provision of skills by being able to demonstrate positive outcomes for their students.

Learners are able to demonstrate the skills that businesses need, and thus command higher wages.

For the government, employers leading the design of qualifications would be of direct benefit to the public purse. The result of courses designed to meet business need would be a more efficient system, better employment outcomes, and higher productivity for those in work.

I share the view expressed by Doug Richard in his recent review of apprenticeships. The government should invest in skills in order to secure benefits for wider society: to provide a ladder into meaningful employment; to improve the quality of our workforce; and, to fulfil its obligation to young people to prepare them for a lifetime of employment.

This should bring us to question how the best interests of students, businesses, and government can be aligned.

Do that, and vexed questions around whether colleges train too many or too few hairdressers become obsolete.

Michael Davis, chief executive,
UK Commission for Employment and Skills

Mr Davis is due to be speaking at the Association of Colleges’ conference on Wednesday, November 20, at 4pm in Hall One of Birmingham’s International Convention Centre.

With government spending on adult skills set to fall over the coming years, Mark Corney tries to find a way through the narrowing funding options.

The very existence of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) sharpens up the competition for resources between adult skills and higher education.

The highly-respected Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) projects that BIS funding of ‘non-investment’ spending on adult skills will fall by 61 per cent in 2017/18 compared to 2014/15. This is equivalent to a 55 per cent cash cut.

Importantly, loan expenditure for fees and maintenance do not count as BIS resource spending. It is treated as non-cash expenditure. Consequently, the focus of the 55 per cent cash cut is on grant funding.

In 2014/15, grant spending by the Skills Funding Agency – excluding European Social Fund money – will be about £3bn. By 2017/18, it could be cut by £1.6bn.

The estimate is based on five assumptions.

First, the next government, whatever its complexion, will not raise taxes or cut welfare above current plans to 2017/18.

Second, NHS, overseas aid and pre-16 schools funding is assumed to be protected by inflation.

Fee loans of up to £9,000 have not deterred our brightest 18 to 24-year-olds from entering full-time higher education

Third, BIS will face a real terms cut in spending of 2 per cent in 2016/17 and 2017/18 in line with every other department or area of public spending including 16 to 19 education and training.

Fourth, the £4bn science and research budget will be protected in cash terms given its contribution to growth.

And fifth, the number of full-time entrants into undergraduate higher education will be maintained at around 350,000 — with fee loans of £9,000 and maintenance loans and grants of up to £7,000 available per student — on the grounds that full-time education is preferable to youth unemployment.

Clearly, projected cuts of £1.6bn to the adult skills budget contextualise the exam question for the Richard Review: find a mechanism that puts downward pressure on prices so that more apprentices can be funded for less.

But just as there are priorities in higher education, such as science and research, there are priorities in adult skills, such as apprenticeships.

The problem is protecting adult apprenticeship grant spending of £0.65bn only adds pressure to find the entire £1.6bn from the remaining grant budgets, namely adult FE (£1.6bn), employer ownership (£0.1bn), community learning (£0.2bn), adult learner support (£0.2bn), the national careers service (£0.1bn) and skills and infrastructure budgets (£0.2bn) although the last in the list has taken a hit to protect front-line provision in 2015/16.

Importantly, however, there is little room left for turning grant funding into loan funding in the world of adult FE fees.

A key rule is that expected loan repayments to the Treasury must be more than 30 per cent.

Estimated repayments for fee-loans for 24+ Level 3/4 qualifications are 60 per cent.

A possible option would be to turn the £300m of grant funding for 19 to 24 Level 3/4 qualifications into fee loans (although there is no maintenance support for this group of FE students unlike their higher education counterparts).

But the remaining £1.3bn adult FE budget which is used to support basic skills and Level 1/2 provision could not be turned into loans. This is because expected repayments to the Treasury are bound to be much less than 30 per cent. By comparison, significant room remains for turning grant funding into loan funding in the higher education sector.

Every full-time undergraduate student is entitled to a maintenance loan. In addition, maintenance grants are paid to students from families with gross income of less £42,620. This will cost the Treasury £1.55bn in 2014/15.

The IFS mentions the option of turning maintenance grants into loans. To do so, would prevent the cuts of £1.6bn to adult FE at a stroke.

Fee loans of up to £9,000 have not deterred our brightest 18 to 24-year-olds from entering full-time higher education. Turning maintenance grants into loans would still leave the same level of cash in the hands of the poorest students and the loans would remain income contingent.

Such a move also opens-up the possibility of turning grant funding for 19 to 24 Level 3/4 courses into fee loans, with BIS redirecting the £300m saved to provide maintenance loans. The result would at least be a degree of equity between full-time university and FE college students.

Mark Corney, independent policy consultant

Career Colleges will set their 14-year-old learners off on the path of a career with the aim of getting them into a job anywhere from the ages of 16 to 19, explains Ruth Gilbert.

As a previous college principal who has spent the last ten years working on quality improvement and business turnaround in FE, I know that there is no single approach or solution to the provision of appropriate and inspirational vocational education.

We are operating in an education system with many different options for parents and learners to navigate.

Grades and league tables play a huge part in decisions on which institution is chosen by parents of young people.

However, I believe FE could and should more strongly emphasise outcomes for learners in terms of work and progression to higher education. We know that success on a course is not a ticket to success in work and life.

In the UK, employers in a variety of industries tell us that graduates and job applicants completing FE are ill-prepared for the world of work.

Employers will be the driving force behind this unique and highly innovative model
of education

We have one million young people unemployed and yet we have vacancies across a wide range of industries and employers, with some significant growth and work opportunities.

This is a situation that needs to be addressed and is the inspiration behind Lord Baker’s vision for a new type of education for 14 to 19-year-olds.

Starting on a career path at the age of 14, just as they do in Germany, Austria and the Netherlands, gives learners a headstart in preparing for the world of work. In these countries, youth unemployment is much lower and vocational education is far more respected.

This vision formed the basis for a new charity, the Career Colleges Trust which is supported by trustees from the Edge Foundation, Helping Hands, City & Guilds, OCR and Pearson.

The chairman is Luke Johnson, the serial entrepreneur, best known for putting Pizza Express on the map, previous chairman of Channel 4, and a range of businesses past and present in hospitality and catering, including Patisserie Valerie, Gail’s and Giraffe.

Specialist industry involvement is intrinsic to the Career College vision.

While FE colleges will establish their own Career Colleges, employers will be the driving force behind this unique and highly innovative model of education, ensuring that learners are prepared for the world of work, with skills to match the needs of the labour market.

Industry partners will play a major part in the design and delivery of the curriculum. FE colleges are the ideal partner and sponsor for these new institutions as they already have strong vocational expertise and can provide access to specialist facilities, strong infrastructure, enrichment and support services. The Career Colleges Trust will support FE colleges with best practice in curriculum planning and delivery, IT infrastructure, student tracking and support systems.

Career College specialisms will cover a range of sectors, including catering, hospitality, tourism, finance and insurance, health and care, cultural and creative arts, and construction.

Students will still study traditional academic subjects, including maths, English and science, alongside these vocational and industry specialisms.

Integral to the curriculum will be practical opportunities to develop the social skills and commercial acumen to prepare the young people for employment and self-employment.

The first Career College is expected to open in September, in Oldham. It will be a digital and creative Career College.

That will soon be followed by the Bromley Food & Enterprise Career College, because hospitality is the third largest sector for jobs in South East London.

There are many more proposals for a variety of Career Colleges around the country.

We hope that within four years, we will have 40 Career Colleges open, supporting at least 25,000 young people; to broaden their horizons and prepare them for work.

The over-arching goal for a Career College is that every young person when they leave at either 16 or 19 will be in work, training or education. I am confident that this will happen and that Career Colleges will help to raise esteem of vocational education in general.

Ruth Gilbert, chief executive,
Career Colleges Trust

How do you judge whether apprentices are truly prepared to qualify, and who decides? Iain Macdonald puts the case for an independent body.

Much has been said about apprenticeships over the last year and the debate came to a head last month with publication of the government’s Future of Apprenticeships in England: Implementation Plan.

What has been particularly heartening is the recognition that employers are central to the process and require more certainty that the apprenticeships they are offered are fit for purpose.

Building on the recommendations of the Richard Review, the government’s plan calls for apprentices to undertake an independent assessment of competence at the end of their training, where the industry determines appropriateness.

Coming from an industry where health and safety procedures are vitally important and operatives often work alone and unsupervised with hazardous equipment and procedures, this is something I fully endorse.

By placing the delivery of assessments in the hands of an impartial, industry-led body, employers eliminate the risk of commercial and other interests diluting the rigour of the assessment process

The assessment process that has applied to the electrotechnical industry since 1985 provides proof that the candidate is ready, willing and capable of applying what they have learned during their training in a set of structured assessment exercises intended to provide as near to a real-world scenario as possible before they finally qualify.

Such final assessments should be determined by industry and our experience has shown should preferably be delivered by an independent, non-profit organisation to ensure employers have access to an effective, neutral advocate in the development and maintenance of assessment standards.

The apprentice’s chosen industry should take the lead in determining the content, length and nature of the assessment exercises.

And employers should be demanding that the candidates demonstrate skills at qualification which they can deploy to the advantage of those that are sponsoring their training.

There would be three benefits to adopting this approach.

First, it would allow the companies from within an industry to agree the core competencies they need from their employees at qualification.

In turn, this would ensure the apprenticeship and the final assessment are broadly centred on developing and testing those competencies.

And finally, it would provide employers with a structure for developing their apprentice’s skills on site and a fair degree of certainty that once they have passed the final assessment, their trainee is truly work-ready.

But what about administering the assessment? I mentioned the need for an independent, not-for-profit custodian, created to represent the industry, and this is something I believe is crucial.

By placing the delivery of assessments in the hands of an impartial, industry-led body, employers eliminate the risk of commercial and other interests diluting the rigour of the assessment process.

Putting control of final assessments in the hands of training providers and FE colleges and others with a commercial interest in the outcome would not work as they will always be vulnerable to assertions that they have a conflict of interest.

If final assessments are conducted independently of training delivery then all parties to the apprenticeship can focus on developing and delivering a high quality apprenticeship experience capable of meeting the industry’s benchmarks and providing a steady supply of trained professionals performing to industry standards.

This approach would ensure the apprenticeship system across all industries continues to deliver high quality candidates to industries which are in need of skills.

Apprenticeships would move a step nearer to closing the quality gap perceived by many employers and others, such as universities; employers would be confident that they have an apprenticeship system in place which delivers the skills they will need in the future; and training providers could be confident they are delivering quality training that meets the needs of employers and industry.

And, by making independent assessment a part of the process, we can help protect and develop confidence in the apprenticeship brand, which will have the additional benefit of enhancing credibility and encouraging more participation.

Iain Macdonald, chief executive, National Electrotechnical Training, the independent training charity for the UK electrical installation industry