Qualifications bodies have been in talks with Muslim groups over concerns the summer exams season could be affected by Ramadan.

The Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) is among those working to “reduce as far as possible the impact” of the month-long religious period, which is expected to fall in the key
academic months of June and July in three years’ time.

We will be working closely with Muslim groups on the setting of future timetables to reduce as far as possible the impact on those observing Ramadan

It could affect the exams season right up to 2023 prompting concerns — shared by the Muslim British Council (MCB) — about learners getting up before dawn to eat so they can observe daytime fasting.

There are fears that interrupted sleep could affect grades.

A spokesperson for the JCQ, which is responsible for timetabling A-level and GCSE exams, said: “We have met with Muslim groups to discuss the changing dates of Ramadan and how, over the coming years, it will increasingly clash with examinations.

“We will be working closely with Muslim groups on the setting of future timetables to reduce as far as possible the impact on those observing Ramadan.

“There are limitations on how flexible the timetables can be but, for example, we will review whether a balance of morning and afternoon slots or just morning slots are preferable for large entry subjects.”

Ramadan is the ninth month of the Islamic calendar and it changes every year depending on the position of the moon.

Shabnam Khan, secretary of the MCB’s education committee, said: “Muslims who are fasting will usually get up before dawn to have their breakfast — this does interrupt their sleeping patterns and educational centres and places of work are advised to be aware of some of the special aspects of a fast.”

She added: “In 2019 it is expected that the month of Ramadan will coincide fully with the end of year examination period.

“To help students reach their potential and to help educational centres in the UK as much as possible, the committee is working in consultation with various organizations including Ofqual, JCQ as well as with schools across the country … to assess this impact.”

A spokesperson for Ofqual, which last month invited the JCQ, MCB and education charity VIP Minds, to its offices in Coventry to explore the concerns, said it was the first time the issue of Ramadan falling on the exams season had been raised.

She said: “We recently invited JCQ, MCB and the charity VIP Minds to a meeting to discuss the issue of students fasting for Ramadan and examination timetables.

“Timetabling for GCE/GCSE examinations is the responsibility of JCQ and as a result of the recent meeting they are working with VIP Minds to look at the most effective timetabling for exams from 2016.

“We are also considering the impact of Ramadan on linear assessments as part of our equality analysis into the proposed GCSE reforms.”

Kwik Fit has come under fire from the National Union of Students (NUS) for running unpaid traineeships of up to 936 hours across five months.

An investigation by FE Week found the car servicing firm advertising “multiple” 16 to 18 vacancies “nationwide” on the government’s National Apprenticeship Service (NAS) website.

But the advert, which said trainees would do a “maximum of 39 hours a week Tuesday to Saturday” for up to 24 weeks, was removed this afternoon after FE Week started looking into the posts.

However, it reappeared just hours later with an added line saying simply “most weeks will be less”.

“Expecting young people to be unpaid in a traineeship of up to 39 hours a week for a five-month period is unacceptable,” said NUS vice president for FE Joe Vinson.

“Unfortunately, it’s likely that this is just one example of the many organisations across all industries.”

A spokesperson for Kwik Fit, which had a turnover of nearly £640m for the year ending March 2012, defended its traineeship scheme.

He told FE Week: “Participants will spend their entire period training and will never work unsupervised and we hope that people will actually complete their training modules more quickly than the maximum period allocated.

“Our hope is that they will become Kwik Fit apprentices but whatever they decide to do, they will be far more ready for work than when they started with us.”

All of the 120 traineeship vacancies offered by firms advertising on the NAS website as of Tuesday were unpaid.

However, Kwik Fit was the only firm asking for more than 35 hours a week as part of their traineeship — the government’s flagship policy launched last month to reduce unemployment among 16 to 23-year-olds.

Kwik Fit, graded outstanding by Ofsted following its last inspection in June 2008, was also the only organisation on the website named as both the employer and training provider.

It is understood that the Skills Funding Agency will pay Kwik Fit an average of £1,250 to £2,000 per trainee.

Kwik Fit can run traineeships because it has an apprenticeship contract with the agency. The contract, which also funds traineeships, is worth nearly £2m for the current academic year.

The firm’s spokesperson said trainees would spend a total of around 10 days in the classroom or workshop and the remainder on-the-job, where activities would include tyre-fitting and stock-handling, among others.

To run traineeships, the government requires firms to offer a “high quality” work placement with English and maths qualifications offered, if needed.

They can take from six weeks to six months.

But, with no government requirement that trainees be paid, Mr Vinson said: “We are seeing an increasing amount of traineeships turn into what are effectively unpaid internships.”

The Kwik Fit spokesperson said: “We provide an industry leading apprenticeship scheme which delivers exceptional value to the tax payer.

“We receive 18,000 applications each year, however our experience shows that while some school leavers have the right attitude or personality, for one reason or another they aren’t quite work-ready.

“We want to help those people close that gap and get ready to take their first step on to a career ladder.

“We hope they succeed and go on to an apprenticeship with us, but there is no imperative for us to introduce traineeships — in fact the scheme will cost us more in time and resources than we will receive in funding.”

A spokesperson for the agency said Kwik Fit’s, “traineeship funding is calculated at individual learner level and is based on the number of hours planned for both the work placement and the teaching associated with the learning components.”

There is no suggestion Kwik Fit vacancies breach traineeship rules.

————————————————————————————————–

Editorial: Making traineeships work

Traineeships, as I said in my Newsnight interview, are a good thing — particularly given youth unemployment is on the rise again.

But let’s also be clear that the government has taken ownership of the term ‘traineeship’ and it is not intended to be a qualification-based programme.

It is a government-funded work placement scheme, with some work preparation and English and maths training where required.

The total time, most of which is likely to be the work placement, determines the amount paid to the training provider, in this case Kwik Fit.

So the tension comes from the government paying thousands of pounds in work placements for potentially unpaid trainees.

For traineeships to succeed, the government must protect learners from the threat of exploitation from both the training provider and employer.

When trainees are adding value in the workplace they should be paid, something the TUC argued as part of its Traineeship Charter, published last month.

And even when paid, it is also important that traineeships do not become an unnecessary and costly pre-apprenticeship programme.

The FE sector needs to work with employers to rally round the programme which, when done the right way, is the difference between being out of a job or developing the workplace experience and employer reference to get a job — and keep it.

Nick Linford, editor

Further education unions have given a cautious welcome to newly-announced government consultations on zero-hour contracts and apprentice pay.

A review of the controversial employment agreements over the summer has finished and Business Secretary Vince Cable said it was being followed up with a consultation, looking closely at “exclusivity” — whether the contracts were being used to stop workers getting jobs elsewhere.

It is also clear that there are abuses in the system, especially around the issue of exclusivity which some employers are demanding from workers on these contracts.”

Just weeks after FE Week reported on research from the University and College Union (UCU) that suggested nearly two out of every three colleges had teachers on the controversial zero-hour contracts, Dr Cable said: “It is clear they [zero-hour contracts] are much more widely used than we had previously thought.

“It is also clear that there are abuses in the system, especially around the issue of exclusivity which some employers are demanding from workers on these contracts.”

Critics of zero-hour contracts argue they create uncertainty in the workforce, leaving staff without sick or holiday pay, and make it difficult to get tenancy agreements, credit cards or loans because it is impossible to show a regular income. But proponents claim they allow for flexible working patterns and mean employers can take on more staff.

A UCU spokesperson told FE Week: “We welcome the belated establishment by Dr Cable of a consultation on zero-hour contracts.”

He added: “We will be submitting detailed evidence to the consultation and we will argue that education is best served when practitioners operate in a secure, decently-rewarded working environment.”

Norman Crowther, national official for post-16 education at the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said: “We are pleased the government is reviewing zero-hour contracts and want it to be alert to the wider effects of such contracts on the general workforce, on effective team working, and on the status of professional lecturers in further and higher education.”

Meanwhile, Dr Cable said he wanted the LPC to look at the NMW to “make sure that the benefits of growth are shared fairly across the board”.

He added: “I have asked the LPC to look at what economic conditions would be needed to allow the NMW to rise by more than current conditions allow.”

Toni Pearce, president of the National Union of Students, said: “It is encouraging to see the government will be looking into making wages fairer across the workforce.

“We shouldn’t forget that the two thirds of students are workers too and being able to increase the NMW more easily is definitely something that could directly and immediately improve many students’ financial circumstances. However, these measures do not stand to help the many students and young people that are being exploited either in unpaid internships and badly, and sometimes illegally, under-paid apprenticeships.”

Members of the LPC plan to visit Gloucester and Newport on October 3 and 4 and want to meet people affected by the NMW.

Contact Roz Hands by emailing rosalind.hands@lowpay.gov.uk to meet a commissioner.

The LPC is due to report back to Dr Cable in the spring. The launch date for the zero-hour contracts consultation is expected to be confirmed later this year.

See page 6 for an expert piece

Q&A with Ofsted inspector Karen Adriaanse, author of the education watchdog’s report Going in the right direction? Careers guidance in schools from September 2012.

The report, and Ofsted boss Sir Michael Wilshaw, was critical of schools for their careers guidance offering since they were made responsible for the service.

Mrs Adriaanse, who is also Ofsted’s national lead for careers guidance, spoke with FE Week reporter Chris Henwood.

 

Chris Henwood (CH): To what extent did you find colleges being mentioned in schools careers’ guidance?

Karen Adriaanse (KA): They were mentioned and certainly when we were out there we did see colleges promoted.

Probably not well enough, which is what we’re saying, but one of the issues was that it wasn’t to everybody.

If they [schools] did promote different types of learning, particularly the schools ahead of sixth forms, they didn’t make sure all students were told.

They almost made decisions on students in advance — that you’ll go and do A-levels and you need to go somewhere else so let’s take you to a college. It wasn’t in every case.

Some schools have done this well, though and we found good examples of where they did make sure that everybody knew of the full range of options available.

In some of the schools there wasn’t mention enough of colleges particularly to all of the people. Most of the schools might have had some partnerships with a college, but it did vary.

 

CH: How did vocational education fare in schools’ guidance?

KA: Vocational learning wasn’t promoted well enough. It was certainly seen as a second option rather than an equal route.

The young people that we spoke to really didn’t know how vocational training could lead to high-level qualifications — that it could lead to university.

But they didn’t see that, they just thought that if they couldn’t do A-levels, well then they’d better do vocational training.

The other thing that was really interesting was the parents’ view of vocational training, because that was the same. They saw the A-level as being the gold standard.

 

CH: What happened to when children asked specifically about vocational learning?

KA: Most schools, if they had a young person really had a clear direction, would be happy for them to pursue that.

But there really weren’t enough opportunities for everybody to even reconsider because for somebody who wants a vocational route it might be that another route is suitable.

It’s really being able to make sure young people know all the options that are available and that they get thorough advice to help them make informed choices.

 

CH: A criticism that has made levelled against school is that their careers guidance has been poor for some time and they’ve been doing it on purpose to ‘keep bums on seats’. Did you see any evidence of this?

KA: There could be perverse incentives through the funding and that’s something we’re saying should not happen. There were some schools that we saw where the focus was very much on going into A-levels to attend sixth

form. We only saw 60 schools and some of the evidence indicated that the advice wasn’t as independent or impartial as it could be. Which is why we have stressed in the report again that all leaders of schools really need to

make sure the guidance they give everybody is independent and impartial.

 

CH: Were you shocked or surprised by your findings?

KA: That’s an interesting question. I was surprised how little employability and the employment options were promoted.

I always thought apprenticeships might not be promoted well, but it took me back the extent to which employers weren’t involved enough and that has to be a two-way street.

Schools weren’t inviting employers in enough to support young people making decisions and employers weren’t knocking on schools’ doors enough.

Schools have told us they do work with employers, but often it’s to complete CVs and applications and mock interviews and things like that; it’s not actually to show a young person the full range of jobs in their particular industry.