Failing colleges should of course be the main concern of the new FE Commissioner, but the benefit of his experience should also be extended to high-performing colleges and Ofsted, says Denise Brown-Sackey.

It’s an inevitability of big, complex organisa­tions that sometimes the wrong person ends up doing an important, well-designed job. I doubt I’m the first to have come across the ‘square peg in a round hole’ problem at some point.

With the recent appointment of Dr David Col­lins as FE Commissioner, there’s a part of me that fears we might have the reverse problem — a great candidate filling a less than perfect job.

David’s appointment is great news for the sec­tor. He has huge experience, something which I know will matter to us all.

And there are aspects of the job, too, about which I’m excited.

I’m glad, for instance, that David will be based within government. FE still doesn’t get the policy-making attention it deserves. Expert advice at the highest level should help remedy that, especially if both the Department for Busi­ness, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Education engage with David’s work.

Looking forward, it would be exciting if the FE Commissioner post set a trend in education for bringing such advice inside government. After all, as a Parliamentary report pointed out a couple of years ago, the Departments of Health, Defence, International Development and others all have senior professional officers working with Ministers. Their absence in education is an odd one.

I also welcome the fact that David, himself an experienced college leader, will have a role in dealing with the poorest-performing. The sector can’t bury its head in the sand and pretend there is no room for improvement: there is plenty. And who better than an ex-principal to aid those institutions in need of support?

But there lies my biggest regret about the post. The language around its functions is highly negative, suggesting an entirely crum­bling sector.

The words “driving improvement” are given in the headline as a key part of David’s role (I can’t help remember Sir Humphrey’s proclama­tion, in ‘Yes, Minister’, that you should always “dispose of the difficult bit in the title”), but the remainder of the press notice talks only of failure, of closing colleges, of inadequacy and monitoring and minimum standards.

I’m not for a second saying that those things shouldn’t happen. Indeed, I’m happier than many colleagues to stick my head out and argue that poorer colleges (and, indeed, schools, hospitals, and anything else) should close if they persistently fail to improve.

My concern is that the language furthers the existing ‘us and them’ feel which exists between government and our sector. This isn’t the most helpful way to begin.

I hope very much that David, once in post, has access to Ofsted management

The relationship between the commis­sioner and Ofsted will also need defining. I have concerns about the Ofsted framework and feel strongly using a schools model to inspect col­leges is akin to inspecting nursing homes on an A&E department template.

I hope very much that David, once in post, has access to Ofsted management — having his knowledge taken on board when designing frameworks would be great for us all.

There’s a further regret for the wider sector, too, I think. The college I’m privileged to lead is a high-performing one, but there’s no question that I – as a comparatively new principal – and my senior team could learn hugely from David’s experience and expertise. As it stands, we won’t get to, because, as a good college, we won’t come into contact with him or his team of advisers.

I agree with Matthew Hancock that there is room for improvement across FE, but the com­missioner working with us all would support that.

It could also lead, in turn, to more partner­ship working between colleges. Evidence from the City Challenge programme, and academic studies, prove that such arrangements drive up standards and performance greatly, and they’d chime well with the localism being urged by government.

Denise Brown-Sackey, principal, Newham College

Many apprenticeship reviews over the last few years have called for change to the programme, but, asks Michael Woodgate, what about enforcing the rules that already exist?

Much has been made of the government’s recent announcement on “new” appren­ticeships, but just how radical are these reforms and, more importantly, will they make any significant difference?

When the Train to Gain (TtG) gravy train hit the buffers in 2010/11, providers needed an alternative source of revenue. As a college manager put it to me when I asked her how they would cope worth the loss of TtG funding: “That’s simple — we’ll just use apprenticeship funding instead.”

“But these learners aren’t apprentices,” I lamely replied. She looked at me implying she pitied my naivety.

But what she’d said was right. And so began the chronicle of well-reported abuses of the sys­tem which, after various inquiries and reports, brought us to the latest government proposals.

The October 2013 Implementation Plan articu­lates four principles. An apprenticeship is a job in a skilled occupation, it requires substantial and sustained training, it leads to full compe­tency to a standard defined by employers and, lastly, it develops transferable skills including English and maths.

But describing these as “principles of future apprenticeships” rather ignores the fact that all of these principles apply now. The problem is that no-one is enforcing them.

The current standards for apprenticeships are laid down in the Specifications for Appren­ticeship Standards in England (SASE) which set out the minimum standards for apprenticeship frameworks.

Then, in May 2012, in response to John Hayes’ and others’ widespread concern about sub standard apprenticeships, the National Appren­ticeship Service (NAS) published its statement on apprenticeship quality. All four of the “new” principles are covered by the standards in these two documents.

No amount of tinkering with the architecture of apprenticeships will make any difference unless there are rigorous standards, demonstrably enforced

But earlier this year I dealt with a large and well known provider who had enrolled more than 250 existing and capable employees on to apprenticeships six months after this statement was issued.

Nor do I for one moment think this is a rogue provider acting outside the mainstream — the fact that, over a year after the NAS statement was published, they barely recognised they were doing anything wrong indicates how lightly this standard is enforced.

Again, when it comes to the second “new” principle — “Substantial and sustained train­ing, lasting a minimum of twelve months and including off the job training” — the SASE and the NAS statement are unambiguous.

The SASE specifies minimum on-the-job and off-the-job Guided Learning Hours (GLHs) and the NAS statement specifies a twelve-month minimum duration.

But who is responsible for counting GLHs? The same people who check how well the Em­ployment Rights and Responsibilities element has been delivered — that’s nobody.

These new apprenticeships will have “an apprenticeship standard defined by employ­ers”. But isn’t this what National Occupational Standards (NOS), allegedly drawn up with the full involvement of employer representatives, and on which apprenticeship qualifications are based, supposed to do? Or are NOS and qualifications not fit for this purpose, in which case why have we been funding Sector Skills Councils for the past decade?

And with regard to English and maths, there is again a standard specified in the NAS state­ment which is, on the evidence I’ve seen, widely ignored.

No amount of tinkering with the architecture of apprenticeships will make any difference un­less there are rigorous standards, demonstrably enforced.

Currently, different organisations look at different bits of the apprenticeship — award­ing bodies look at consistency of assessment, Ofsted looks at provider quality while the Skills Funding Agency seems mainly concerned with financial aspects and the prevention of fraud.

What no one organisation has, is responsi­bility for making a judgement on the overall quality of apprenticeship delivery and its value to learners, employers and taxpayers. Until such a responsibility is established it is unlikely anything very much will change.

Michael Woodgate, Independent Skills Consultant

The supply of science, technology, engi­neering and maths learners from school is a worry and action is needed, but in the meantime what can be done to make the subjects more attractive in the world of FE. Carol Snape considers looking beyond the GCSE and A-level options.

If the UK’s economic recovery is not to be “constrained” by a lack of engineering skills, as Prof John Perkins, chief scientific adviser at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) warned in a recent report, then the “substantial demand for engineers” must be met quickly.

Professor Perkins has issued “a call to ac­tion” to government, industry and educators to “step up” to inspire future engineering talent and address skills shortages.

The report [Review of Engineering Skills, BIS, November 2013] highlights the fact that “the vocational route into engineering is an under-exploited asset for the profession” and “there is real opportunity for the sector to take advantage of the new FE freedoms and flexibilities and take ownership of future skills needs”.

At the launch of the report, Business Secre­tary Vince Cable echoed his words saying that too few teenagers were studying science.

The number of young people choosing these subjects post-16 is certainly relatively low, especially among women.

The report highlights the fact that while in recent years there has been a significant increase in the number of students studying three individual sciences at GCSE and there is no gender gap; a significant gap starts to show at A-level.

The gender gap in physics is most striking: it is the second most popular A-level subject for boys in England, but only 17th among girls. No less than 49 per cent of state funded co-educational schools in England failed to enter a single female candidate for A-level physics.

Something must be done to engage and enthuse learners, particularly those who did not study science, technology, engineering and maths subjects pre-16

The gender gap in A-level physics constricts the number of women in the talent pipeline for engineering as well as the physical sciences. In 2012, 17 per cent (362) of all state-funded schools and colleges did not have any A-level physics entrants.

Something must be done to engage and enthuse learners, particularly those who did not study science, technology, engineering and maths (Stem) subjects pre-16. A starting point may be to attract learners to the Stem subjects in FE colleges via a non-GCSE or A-level route.

QCF qualifications in the Stem subjects are emerging that have been designed to meet the needs of learners who are interested in sci­ence, technology and engineering but have not studied science at Key Stage Four or who have not achieved GCSEs in the subject.

They offer an alternative, more applied, ap­proach than the GCSE, giving the learner the knowledge, understanding and skills that will enable them to progress to qualifications in a science or technology related area at a higher level.

And, as these QCF Stem qualifications are relatively new they have been designed with 16 to 19 Study Programmes in mind.

As with all QCF qualifications they offer a credit-based approach where learners can see their achievements building to a full qualifica­tion.

The applied science and technology qualifi­cations from OCN Eastern Region, for exam­ple, offer a grounding in core subjects such as biology, chemistry, physics and electronics and a range of optional study areas including forensic detection.

Such qualifications can also be used with learners pre-16 who require an alternative, more applied approach than GCSE science qualifications to set them on the path to suc­cess.

Prof Perkins says the profession suffers “from widespread misconceptions and lack of visibility that deter young people, and especial­ly girls from pursuing it as a career”.

Let’s change these misconceptions by offer­ing engaging and interesting qualifications to the engineers of the future.

Carol Snape, chief executive, OCN Eastern Region

Opposition leader Ed Miliband claims to have spotted a problem with IT apprenticeships — they’ve been declining. But, explains, Mick Fletcher, the Labour boss might just be missing a trick or two by using it to knock the government.

Apprenticeships and immigration are two words that have considerable resonance with the electorate and it was good politics for Labour leader Ed Miliband to find a way of combining them in the same headline.

His party’s promise to cut the number of non EU migrants by requiring their employers to take on an equal number of apprentices is as likely to give a warm glow to voters as it is to ensure severe headaches for those trying to implement it.

Unfortunately, it misses an opportunity to make a serious contribution to the vocational education debate.

A good point to have started the debate might have been the falling numbers of IT apprentices quoted by Mr Miliband in support of his plan.

It’s a convenient statistic with which to bash the coalition, which is how it was used, but a closer examination would reveal an altogether more complex picture.

Numbers have certainly fallen in the past year, but that has probably got far more to do with the rapid rise and equally rapid fall of a firm called Zenos.

It offered apprenticeships in IT and in 2010/11 delivered more than half the national total in that category.

Unfortunately, what it offered didn’t fit with either the com­monsense view of what an appren­ticeship is, or the new regulations that restricts the term legally to employees.

Zenos appren­ticeship training was almost all off-the-job — a highly condensed, short, classroom-based training programme that didn’t involve a job or guarantee a work placement.

In 2012, Panorama raised concerns about the Zenos model alongside a different set of concerns about organisations like Elmfield Training.

As the Skills Funding Agency was forced to act to enforce apprenticeship regulations num­bers at Zenos declined, it was sold to Pearson, who dropped the brand before pulling out of the training business altogether.

Numbers delivered by its successor organi­sations are running at around a quarter of its former level.

Mr Miliband could have used this example to raise a number of big questions about apprentice­ship policy in England.

He could, for example, have questioned the wisdom of try­ing to promote apprenticeships through manipu­lating a provider market which gives ample scope for those more interested in business than learning to game the system.

One suspects that he didn’t because Labour is just as much in hock as the coalition to the current orthodoxy that sees all markets as good and public institu­tions as suspect.

He might also have challenged the current dogma that sees education post-16 as either aca­demic or work-based, ignoring or even denigrat­ing the important contribution of provider-based vocational education.

What Zenos offered used to be called ‘pro­gramme-led apprenticeships’ and while it was dishonest to pretend it fitted the apprenticeship rules it delivered effective training that met a need for many young people.

Expanding vocational education, including provision like programme-led apprenticeships in colleges, is far more amenable to government intervention than trying to legislate reluctant employers into taking on trainees. The work-based fundamentalists who systematically decry this option have probably done far more damage to vocational learning in this country than those alleged to look down on the vocational from an academic tower.

Promising to invest in high quality vocational education does not have the short term appeal of penalising employers, but it stands more chance of increasing the supply of skills.

Sadly, the missed opportunities to develop coherent policy are not restricted to apprentice­ships.

Some weeks ago Skills Minister Matthew Hancock seemed to hint at the creation of a new breed of “elite colleges” — though to date no rationale for the idea or supporting detail has emerged.

Rather than examine critically whether we need another type of college, Mr Miliband an­nounced his own proposal for ‘a new generation of elite technical colleges’ similarly lacking in either description or logic.

It’s a poor way to make policy; one can only assume that the focus groups have said that ‘elite’ makes good politics.

Mick Fletcher, education consultant and visit­ing research fellow at the Institute of Education

A busy year of FE expansion with the likes of AoC in India and UK China Partners in Education means new opportunities are quickly emerging, explains John Mountford.

These are exciting times for colleges as they look to develop their international partnerships and activity.

FE is getting more global, students are becoming more mobile and overseas partners are more aware of the UK offer.

The education market is set to grow and it’s important that colleges position themselves to take advantage of those opportunities.

As all areas of the world wake up to the huge importance of quality technical and vocational education and training (TVet) in supporting sustainable economic growth, there is a greater interest in what established skills providers, like UK colleges, are doing.

Colleges are increasingly delivering pro­grammes overseas and in partnership with other providers.

There is a growing curiosity in our sector’s world class offer — a clear demonstration of this is that we welcome over 50 international delegates at this year’s Association of Colleges (AoC) Annual Conference.

Colleges, and the FE sector as a whole, have a central role to play in the government’s international strategy for the education sector, launched in July, and AoC will play a prominent role in the recently-established Education Council.

This year has seen the launch of sector-wide initiatives such as AoC in India and UK China Partners in Education, which has helped us to gain traction in these important markets.

On the back of WorldSkills and through organisations such as World Federation of Colleges and Polytechnics, there is a growing TVet international community through which colleges can build overseas partnerships.

New funding through Erasmus+ will also help to support colleges’ engagement with EU vocational education and training (Vet) partners.

Challenges remain around Tier 4 Student Visa regulations and the sector holds understandable concerns about the impact of the introduction of credibility interviews

Of course, challenges remain around Tier 4 Student Visa regulations and the sector holds understandable concerns about the impact of the introduction of credibility interviews for both our students and status as sponsors and there is still work to be done to promote a more understanding from the Home Office towards college and their recent visits to AoC college meetings is certainly step in the right direction.

The government’s international strategy is a perfect illustration of the opportunities this work affords colleges.

The strategy articulates our government’s acknowledgement of the huge value of the sec­tor’s international work from both commer­cial and educational perspectives.

It supports a more joined-up approach to working internationally, which would allow the UK to better position to itself to engage in large scale ‘system-to-system’ opportunities.

Through the strategy, a new UK Trade and Investment (UKTI) Education Unit has been established. It has been charged with working closely with providers, including colleges, to help source international opportunities and bring the sector together to help coordinate the UK response.

It is very encouraging to see the prominence of FE colleges in these plans and the clear ac­knowledgment of the important role we play.

The opportunities presented to colleges through this work also raise certain challeng­es and questions — how can they best position themselves to engage with international partners and initiatives? What countries and what courses should they be looking to work in? How can they take the first steps into these markets? How can they best resource and develop this work? How can they ensure quality of overseas delivery and how can they best support international students who come to study in the UK while also keeping a tight grip of their requirements as Highly Trusted Sponsors?

These questions will be debated, and per­haps answered, at our Annual Conference and colleges will be able to exchange ideas on how they go about developing their international strategies.

There will also be the opportunity to meet delegates from around the globe and gain insights into AoC’s work in this area and how we can effectively support our world-class col­leges to work on a global stage.

John Mountford, international director, Association of Colleges