With allegations of shoddy practice, revelations of low pay and little training for apprentices, along with concerns about limited government cash being spent on ‘leisure’ courses, Ian Nash questions whether the FE and skills sector has moved on at all in the last 20 years.

he National Audit Office (NAO) review of the Education Funding Agency’s work in its first 18 months is unlikely to make happy reading for the government when published.

Concerns are understood to run far deeper than the alleged £20m overpaid to private training providers last year.

The issue is less about the agency’s approach than whether reforms required by ministers are fit for purpose. Indeed, sources suggest a benign view of the agency.

The question is whether this is symptomatic of a deeper malaise — are other things going wrong in FE and skills?

Without being unduly pessimistic, there is a horrible sense of déjà vu — a danger of repeating mistakes made by the Tories post-1992 Further and Higher Education Act, and Labour in its third term. And ministers need to take stock if not action to avoid this.

First, we have allegations of shoddy practice at training provider Elmfield, highlighted on BBC Newsnight.

Second, while ministers launched the Richard Review of Apprenticeships and promised immediate improvements, with only new starts counting as apprenticeships, what do we find? The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills [BIS] report Apprenticeship Pay Survey 2012: Research Findings shows 29 per cent of apprentices on less than the minimum wage.

It also shows 20 per cent receiving neither on or off-the-job training, 30 per cent having no off-the-job learning and 70 per cent having worked for their existing employer for a year before taking up the apprenticeship. The survey reports little or no improvement on the past.

Third, there is a rerun of the row over distinctions between funding recreational and work-skills training emerging.

Beyond what is defined as ‘skills’ or ‘leisure’ what happens when the money runs out and we still lack essential skills?”

An FE Week report suggested 24+ advanced learning loans were being taken out for courses outside limits of skills training envisaged by ministers.

While Bicton College insisted its horticulture course was about reskilling and was not just leisure-focused, others privately admit there are deep problems in defining courses either way.

Fourth, beyond the question of what is appropriately defined as being for ‘skills’ or ‘leisure’ what happens when the money runs out and we still lack essential skills?

Funding constraint after funding constraint (such as the demand-led element) has fallen foul here over two decades. What appears to be happening is that those least in need of loans are most likely to take them, while the least skilled remain least skilled.

Fifth, we now have much confusion over where funding is actually going and the suggestion that apprenticeship courses for 16 to 19-year-olds could carry fees while money appears to be being diverted to post-19 training.

Again, this emerged out of an FE Week webinar and story.

Last week Skills Minister Matthew Hancock said there was £20m more for traineeships and BIS confirmed, “it would not apply to 16 to 18-year-olds”. But, as FE Week editor Nick Linford, pointed out, “There is no separate pot for 19+ traineeships. So it disappears?”

Among quite a few college leaders I subsequently spoke to the confusion is leading to deep cynicism as they say ministers and the Skills Funding Agency “are taking it out with one hand and putting it back with the other” without any clear means of tracking apparent spending or being accountable for where the money does or doesn’t go.

Again, we have been here before with Tories and Labour massaging figures and double-accounting.

The alarm bells are not ringing as yet, but there is a need for a clear and measured response by ministers before they do, particularly as the deepest austerity cuts are yet to come.

Ian Nash is a partner in Nash & Jones Partnership and a member of
the Policy Consortium

 

 

With Skills Minister Matthew Hancock wanting the 24+ Advanced Learning Loan System used to fund courses with a “direct line of sight to work,” FE Week reported how loans were paying for apparently leisure-focussed courses. Among them was a level three certificate in horticulture that was for less than four hours a week. The report was wrong to say such a course might be leisure-focussed, according to David Henley.

I am sorry to say the FE Week piece (‘New Loans being used for Leisure’) is a classic illustration of the prejudice and lack of understanding that, unfortunately, is often directed at land-based qualifications.

At Bicton College we are proud of the real difference we make to people’s lives, providing new skills and work-related qualifications across a wide range of land-based industries.

Last year our work was inspected by Ofsted and we were graded as good in all fields [including headline and sub fields] and over 80 per cent of our students progress on to careers or additional training leading to their chosen profession. I would suggest this is a statistic that many colleges or training providers would be delighted with.

My main contention with the FE Week piece is that to suggest that the land-based courses cited are akin to leisure subjects is misinformed at best and, frankly, insulting at worst.

The horticulture industry is big business, contributing an estimated £9bn to the UK economy each year (Horticulture Matters, RHS report, 2013).

The industry needs an estimated 11,000 new entrants in the next decade to satisfy skills needs within the sector.

Well-trained horticulturalists can and do earn good money in landscape design, grounds and gardens maintenance, crop production, plant breeding and in the South West are in as much demand as a good plumber.

Our course supports people who are in the industry or want to get in to it and it provides the practical skills necessary to do the job — it is not designed for people to have fun, although, as with any good course, students do enjoy it.

Similarly, the slur directed at creative craft courses is also misdirected and obviously carelessly made.

Like all colleges, we don’t make the rules regarding fundable qualifications or loans.We just follow them to provide all our learners with the best opportunities that we can”

We support adult students, often women returners, whose creative talents are released and inspired by our passionate teachers.

Many go on to start their own businesses and make a worthwhile contribution to the rural economy.

The current students have multiple motivations, but the skills they are learning are valued by people living and working in the rural economy.

Like all colleges, we don’t make the rules regarding fundable qualifications or loans.

We just follow them to provide all our learners with the best opportunities that we can. Although early days, our initial small allocation for loans has been exceeded and we expect that demand for loans will continue to increase as learners assess the benefit of achieving a career change or increasing their employability versus the cost of the loan.

And we don’t discriminate. We cater for young and mature learners alike, men and women, and the vast majority of our learners across all subjects progress into useful careers.

As a final point, [FE Week editor] Nick Linford’s tweet seems to imply that the article was prompted by a throwaway remark made by a principal in a meeting of colleges. Without being rude, one would think that serious journalism would warrant a little more careful research.

David Henley, principal, Bicton College in Devon

 

 

Further education featured prominently among the policy proposals outlined by the three main political parties at the recent conferences. However, Lynne Sedgmore believes nothing was said on a number of key sector issues.

The annual conference season has come to an end and aspects of FE featured strongly on their agendas.

We heard about free school meals from the Liberal Democrats and “earn or learn” policies from the Tories.

But on other aspects, there was a worrying silence.

As the political world gears up for the next election, it is important to reflect on where the last few weeks really leave us.

The 157 Group has published its own manifesto for FE and skills, calling for a shared vision, more stability in policy and funding and greater equity across the provider spectrum.

It seems clear, from comparisons with other education and training systems, that these three are prerequisites for success, and we trust that others across the sector will feel able to back our call.

There are signs we might see a less turbulent environment.

As the political world gears up for the next election, it is important to reflect on where the last few weeks really leave us”

Conference discussions seem to reflect a growing consensus around some key policy themes — that traineeships and apprenticeships are the basis of successful vocational education and direct funding of employers will engage more of them in the system.

It is also agreed English and maths are essential for everyone.

There is some comfort to be taken in the implication that a bedding down of current reforms will be given space by all three main parties.

We would suggest, however, there is something missing.

We have long argued colleges play a pivotal role in the skills system, yet none of the emerging manifestos recognise that. We are clear that full-time vocational education is valuable for many, but it is largely ignored.

We think it is important for employers to be engaged on a strategic level, but they shouldn’t be bogged down in the detail of funding.

Colleges are responding to policy initiatives with gusto — for example by ensuring university technical colleges, studio schools and the like are successful, so they can serve as the engine rooms of employer ownership pilots and work hard to make a success of advanced learning loans.

However, this vital role — of the college as a valuable public asset — must be better acknowledged.

It is also revealing to look at what was not discussed during the season.

There was no challenge from any corner to the school reform agenda, nor any dissent from the push to give local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) more authority at local level.

There were no hints of a rethink on FE loans and no suspicion at all that structure of any of the government bodies for our sector (the split between the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, for instance) would be reviewed.

So, given all of that, I see an opportunity for colleges to be more vocal about how they are leading the way.

The 157 Group will continue to champion colleges for their strategic leadership within localities and their contribution to economic growth.

We will continue to press for true equity in the way all providers of post-14 education and training are held accountable, and, indeed, for that system to be increasingly sector-driven and owned.

With all the major parties agreed on some key policy elements, colleges will want to demonstrate their ability to lead the skills agenda by showing practically how to implement them.

Headline-grabbing announcements, whether on free meals or the possible loss of benefits or apprenticeships in exchange for foreign skilled workers, are not what is critical. Good working relationships with LEPs for example are.

Lynne Sedgmore,
executive director of the 157 Group

 

 

Learning for Life is the Liberal Democrats’ policy paper for education and skills. Lady Brinton explains some of its key points.

The Liberal Democrats believe education and skills are critical for both individual opportunity and the overall economic performance of the country.

Our new policy on this, which was recently passed at our conference, confirms our commitment to ending the twin track vocational/academic divide, and ensuring everyone has access to excellent education and training that is right for them, with clearly signposted pathways to different types and levels of learning.

Young people must get the best impartial information, advice and guidance on the options available, so we propose a streamlined and independent system to help students make the right choices, not just from 13, but starting in primary school.

Year 6 pupils should have a taste of FE and higher education, to give them a passion for their future lives before they transfer to secondary school.

We proposed free college meals for students up to 18 and want to extend the pupil premium in to FE for those receiving free lunches.

The student premium will allow a college to provide specific support for students, for both learning support and appropriate grants, to cover the costs of specific equipment and books.

These students will also be eligible for free or subsidised travel for those starting a full-time course before their 18th birthday.

We want all students up to 18 years old to continue to study literacy/numeracy, even if they have a GCSE at A* to C.

We propose a cross-party commission to review the funding of re-skilling and lifelong learning”

For those who find GCSEs difficult, we need more tailored literacy/numeracy courses to support their wider courses. This will mean more tutors will have to be trained and more tailored courses developed.

We believe unemployment should not be an option for 18 to 24-year-olds. We want a real focus of resources and energy on people from this age group who struggle to gain qualifications or sustainable jobs.

We will combine the funding spent on this group from the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the youth justice system to provide them with individualised, concentrated and positive options in training, employment and support.

Never again should a student be pulled off a course with a key qualification by a Job Centre Plus adviser who decided it was time for them to have an interview, or a short term work contract.

We want to expand the number of quality apprenticeships and traineeships and want a real focus on small and medium-sized enterprises increasing the number of apprentices they take on.

We also want to expand the number of full-time two-year foundation degrees or HNDs in science, technology, engineering and maths subjects.

We expect much of this to be delivered in FE colleges as in the past.

Liberal Democrats see learning extending throughout life.

For those aged over 25, we want to see free tuition for a first level two, and income contingent loans for a first level three or four covering the full fee costs, and the full write-off of all fee level three loans for access courses where an adult progresses into higher education.

We propose a cross-party commission to review the funding of re-skilling and lifelong learning to look at arrangements for employer, individual and state contributions to training and arrangements for individual saving for learning, along with the possible creation of lifelong learning accounts.

Learning for Life recognises the excellence that exists in the FE sector, and we believe also develops that further and will bring true parity of esteem, giving every student a chance to get on in life.

Lady Brinton chair of the Liberal Democrats’ education and skills policy working group

With government policy dictating that learners must work towards maths qualifications, new measures are needed to make sure there will be teachers in FE, explains Charlie Stripp.

When I tell friends I work for an organisation that supports maths teachers, it quickly becomes clear to me most of them have an image limited to that of their secondary school teacher.

They do not seem to realise maths teaching — arguably the most important maths teaching — goes on in primary schools as well.

There isn’t much recognition either that the FE sector also houses teachers who help students master the maths they need to confidently manipulate numbers that lie at the heart of engineering, business, computer programming and every other life pursuit.

Maths is hardly an optional extra in any modern society.

So, I welcome the requirement that, from this autumn, all those students who have not yet reached the GCSE grade C benchmark will have to continue studying the subject and work towards the goal of getting that GCSE.

I also recognise the scale of what this change implies.

It will mean an additional 200,000-plus post-16 students with maths on their timetables, most of whom will be taught in FE.

This is not far short of a revolution in post-16 education.

And, of course, the crucial, immediate knock-on effect is the demand it is creating for more staff in FE capable of teaching GCSE maths.

We don’t yet know exactly how many teachers will need to be recruited, or re-trained to meet this demand.

But early estimates are around the 1,000-mark.

Students re-sitting GCSE maths have often failed it more than once“

So at the National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics, we are happy to support the FE sector in meeting this challenge.

We’ve already been working with the Department for Education, and 20 FE colleges, to develop materials to help existing teachers boost their current skills to allow them to teach GCSE maths.

These materials are at the heart of a continuing professional development programme, which will be starting soon, aimed principally at teachers of numeracy and functional skills, or teachers of other numerate/technical subjects, such as engineering or economics.

Over a six-month period, participants in this programme will have six days’ face-to-face training, interspersed with personal, college-based tasks.

Throughout our preparatory work, we’ve tried to be sensitive to the expectations and prior experiences of the students these teachers will encounter.

Students re-sitting GCSE maths have often failed it more than once.

The last thing they need is more of the same, but faster.

Ideally, re-sitting will support them in understanding maths, so that they can use it effectively in their everyday life and work, rather than fearing it.

But who will run this continuing professional development programme?

Who will train, or re-train, this new, enhanced workforce?

Well, this is our bread and butter. We exist in large part to nurture, develop and support the professional development specialists who help all maths teachers augment their teaching skills throughout their careers.

So, we are running a course tailored for people with a maths-specific professional development role within FE, to equip them to lead the programme for groups of college-based teachers.

Along with the Centres for Excellence in Teacher Training, we are urgently talking to colleges to identify around 60 people to take part in the first of these “primer” courses.

I don’t pretend the FE workforce can be transformed overnight, but by the end of this academic year, we hope we will have played our part in making substantial progress.

Charlie Stripp, director of the National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics

 

 

Figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development put England and Northern Ireland behind for numeracy and literacy, but they should not detract from policies already dealing with the issue, argues Martin Doel.

his week’s report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on adult skills has had a big impact.

It prompted front page headlines, ministerial interviews and outraged leader columns in broadsheet newspapers.

The story that England and Northern Ireland has millions of adults with poor skills and that over 55-year-olds do better than under the 25-year-olds in this latest international test is compelling — shocking even — because it suggests there’s been no education progress for 30 years.

Yet again we’re outclassed by the Japanese and the Finns. But is that really the case?

This survey of adult skills is a major enterprise which has involved testing 170,000 adults across 20 countries in a project lasting three years.

No-one would want to argue with the thoroughness with which the research was put together, but I think care needs to be taken about over-interpreting the results.

OECD’s weighty documents and data-rich presentations make some serious and compelling arguments for change, but they build these arguments on the basis of a one-hour test. Some 5,000 adults in England took the test, including people who now live here but were educated elsewhere.

Yet again we’re outclassed by the Japanese and the Finns. But is that really the case?“

Everyone taking the test was given three marks — for literacy, numeracy and problem solving — which range from 150 to 350 in all the countries which participated.

The average scores for most countries and most age groups in England clustered around the 260 to 280 mark.

The age, class and education gaps in England that OECD identifies and deplores are real, but it’s also important not to exaggerate.

This is one set of key skills tests. We can and should do better, but we also need to stick with a course of action and avoid panic and any kind of knee-jerk reaction or political jockeying.OECD is a serious-minded, research-focused organisation with a mission.

Through its reports, tests and data, the OECD wishes to persuade governments and societies to set ambitious targets, link education and work, collect good data, foster lifetime learning and ensure no-one is left behind.

I don’t think any of us working in FE would argue with any of these ambitions.

OECD recommendations accompany their reports and the presentations and are familiar because they’re widely accepted across OECD’s member countries and because, by and large, they’re right.

For example, they call for targeted spending, especially for those who are disadvantaged, strong engagement between institutions and employers, good use of skills in the workplace and a culture of lifelong learning. These are things the Association of Colleges has long supported.

This week’s report shines an uncomfortable spotlight on the English and maths skills of the population.

These are areas of acknowledged weakness. In fact, the government has already introduced a policy that students who do not achieve a C grade at GCSE in maths and English will have to continue to study those subjects.

Schools and colleges need to continue to work on core English and maths skills, while we should all listen to OECD’s suggestion that learning is everyone’s business and relatively fewer adults here keep learning than elsewhere.

Our collective task in response is to continue the improvements to teaching, teacher training, assessment and student engagement that will make the difference.

Martin Doel, chief executive of the Association of Colleges