Don’t let the FE title fool you — higher education is far from the sole preserve of universities, despite what a government review by Sir Andrew Witty seems to be saying, explains Jack Carney.

In spring this year Sir Andrew Witty, chief executive of GlaxoSmithKline and Chancellor of the University of Nottingham, was asked by government to carry out an independent review of the role higher education plays in economic growth and regeneration.

He was tasked with looking specifically at a higher education infrastructure that could deliver the government’s Industrial Strategy.

In the summer, the preliminary findings and emerging themes of the Witty Review (“Universities and their communities: enabling economic growth”) were published.

Disappointingly, the report was exclusively concerned with the contribution of universities rather than all institutions that offer higher education.

The Manchester College, a member of the 157 Group, was surprised by the omission of any mention of higher education within FE, the higher education route chosen by almost 50,000 learners a year.

This was a missed opportunity to show the truly unique and positive offer to both learners and employers from higher education in FE and took the initiative to submit a response to the review’s preliminary findings.

We have a voice too, and one that should be listened to in any debate on economic growth and industrial strategy”

The delivery of the government’s Industrial Strategy is a fundamental part of the Witty Review, yet there is no account taken of the key role that our sector already plays in employability and working with businesses — when it comes to engaging with employers locally and enabling economic growth, FE colleges have no equal.

The review’s preliminary findings see a central role for research-based universities in leading the strategy, with a growing distinction between these and the teaching universities, which Sir Andrew appears to have seen becoming increasingly private sector.

Sir Andrew looks at how universities can work with local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) and other local organisations that can drive economic growth, such as small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

And our sector is way ahead of the field in its ability to engage with SMEs, including at the higher education level.

The preliminary report also seems to point to a diminished role for LEPs in the delivery of the industrial strategy, in favour of research-based universities, which seems to be out of step with the government’s policy of channelling an increasing proportion of funding through LEPs.

There may well be ways in which LEPs can be improved and adopt best practices, but what they need is our support and active involvement to ensure that there is joined-up thinking between local need and local solutions.

Could there not be, for example, an highly productive relationship in which universities play the role of economic research partners of councils alongside FE colleges, who are experienced in community engagement, employer links and innovative delivery, all of which support the LEP local regeneration agenda?

The fact is that the higher education sector is an extremely broad and varied one, and the Industrial Strategy’s chances of success are reliant on all parts of it, not just the very top
in terms of academic research, vital though that is.

Research universities, teaching universities, university business schools and higher education provision in FE colleges all have a role to play.

The preliminary findings of the Witty Review have raised a number of questions, and the concerns from our sector are certainly not the only ones that have been expressed: universities have their own issues, and these are all important debating points.

But we have a voice too, and one that should be listened to in any debate on economic growth and industrial strategy.

We firmly believe that it is up to us — our sector must take the initiative and widen the debate to make sure the FE voice is heard.

Jack Carney, principal, Manchester College

 

 

Schools weren’t the only ones frowned upon by Ofsted when it assessed careers guidance. The National Careers Service came in for criticism too and also needs careful consideration, says Stephan Jungnitz.

If you’re working in the commercial sector, perhaps the quickest way to your P45 and the dole queue is to encourage potential customers to go and shop elsewhere.

Colleges and schools compete not just with each other for post-16 students, but with training providers, apprenticeships and the jobs market.

At a time of steep reductions in funding, is it realistic to expect providers to encourage potential students to look elsewhere?

Isn’t it obvious that an independently-funded careers service is needed?

The government’s attempts to ensure all young people have independent careers guidance are woefully inadequate, as Ofsted’s recent report “Going in the right direction – careers guidance in school” concluded.

While its report was critical of provision in schools generally, there was also strident criticism of the National Careers Service (NCS) and its web-based service.

Ofsted’s report suggested the NCS website failed to strike a chord with young people, which isn’t surprising if you’ve looked at it.

If you try to find providers, most schools and sixth form colleges are absent, as are many large FE colleges.

If you search for maths in Cambridge you’ll be presented with courses at the university and FE college mixed in with opportunities in Darlington, Grimsby, Macclesfield and Stockport.

The government has taken the criticism of the website on board in its action plan, pledging to “reshape and reprioritise what is available for young people, schools and employers” and to “explore opportunities to make sure careers professionals and school staff are made aware of resources”.

However, this is a sticking plaster that does not address the crux of the problem.

Replacing personal Connexions advisers with a website clearly is not working. This is a national experiment in careers guidance that is failing.

It might be worth reflecting upon how the current sorry state of affairs has developed.

Connexions was set up in 2000 to provide a national careers service.

It employed staff to give impartial guidance to young people.

Staff had expertise, and there was no pressure to recommend any particular choice post-16.

However, services did vary substantially in quality.

Instead of addressing these shortcomings Connexions was replaced and many of its services discontinued as funding ceased.

When directed by government to focus largely on those students most at risk, Connexions lost the ability to provide proper careers support to all students.

Ofsted reported in 2010 that students in schools with a sixth form were too often unaware of the range of courses and opportunities offered elsewhere, and recommended that all year 11 students receive impartial advice about options.

Of the £105m funding for the NCS last year, most came from the Department for Business Innovation and Skills and the Ministry of Justice prompting a headline in the national media that read ‘More job cash for jailbirds than kids.’

The Department for Education contributes a paltry five per cent of the budget.

There really should be resources made available nationally for independent careers advice for young people, and in particular for face-to-face discussions with an independent adviser.

It simply is not realistic to assume that schools will be able to do this.

This is a national experiment in careers guidance that is failing“

Helpfully, Ofsted published another report in March where it may have identified some resources.

In Local Accountability in Colleges it reported that ‘planning for new sixth forms has not always been sufficiently well-aligned to demand and demographics in the local area’.

It seems that resources are being frittered away on superfluous new provision when they could be used to fund good careers advice for young people.

 Stephan Jungnitz, colleges specialist, Association of School and College Leaders

The government has pledged to act over careers guidance problems in schools but, asks Martin Doel, is it going to do enough?

Not many of us can have been surprised by the conclusions of Ofsted’s report on careers advice, but that doesn’t make it any less of a concern. Nor does it mean the report should be ignored by ministers and officials at the Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills (BIS) and the Department for Education (DfE).

For those of us across the education world who warned government in 2011 that the careers advice clauses in the then-Education Bill were weak and ill thought through, we can now see the results.

Schools are under a statutory duty to secure advice from a careers service dominated by funding from the government department concerned with adult skills — BIS.

But some schools are not securing independent advice at all.

The law isn’t ideal, but changing legislation is time-consuming and often difficult so we need remedies now.

Let’s be frank about this, the DfE contribution to the NCS has been extremely disappointing”

Ofsted produced some very sensible recommendations, some of which were accepted immediately by DfE, including the need to update the statutory guidance.

But I fear that, yet again, we are going to take a few tiny steps towards assuring good guidance when what we actually need is a step change.

That is why we have launched a campaign, entitled Careers Guidance: Guaranteed, with four simple aims.

They surround firstly, inspection. Ofsted should inspect and report on the quality of careers guidance and on whether staff delivering that advice are qualified.

This would be an improvement on the new Ofsted handbook which states only that inspectors should check, “how well leaders and managers ensure that the curriculum provides timely independent information, advice and guidance to assist pupils on their next steps in training, education or employment”.

We think this could be much stronger and the provision of careers advice should be a limiting grade.

Secondly, we want to see local career

‘hubs’. Colleges, job centres and local councils should work together to ensure there is such a hub in every area.

Everyone should then know where they can go to get advice about local career options and available courses.

We also want sign-posting to the National Careers Service (NCS).

All colleges and schools should have a widget on their websites linking to the NCS website, making it as easy as possible for young people to find their way online.

But even this is essentially a 20th Century answer to the problem. We also need to think of cleverer ways of using internet search engines for a wiki generation.

Our fourth aim is the most difficult to achieve politically because it involves money. But let’s be frank about this, the DfE contribution to the NCS has been extremely disappointing.

In 2012/13, Michael Gove’s DfE gave £4.7m to the NCS, compared to £85m from BIS, £14m from the Ministry of Justice and £1.5m from the Department for Work and Pensions.

As an organisation seeking to influence Government we are, of course, very aware of the challenging public funding situation and the fact that DfE is focusing on school funding, often to the detriment of funding for the education of 16 to 18-year-olds.

So, it is not without some hesitation, but absolute certainty of its value, that I state our fourth aim as for DfE to match-fund BIS with regard the NCS.

The NCS will be able to provide a better service to school pupils, ensuring fewer end up not in education, employment, or training; and that fewer drop out of education at the age of 17 after poor choices at 15 or 16. It could also be that more that more pupils become apprentices.

Simply asking keen employers to speak to classes of 14 and 15-year-olds will help widen some horizons, but will not by itself address systemic problems in ensuring careers guidance: guaranteed.

 

Martin Doel, chief executive, Association of Colleges