Ofsted’s annual report may make uncomfortable reading for colleges, but counterbalance and context are needed, says
Joy Mercer

Ofsted’s annual report can make for uncomfortable reading for those working in and with colleges.

This is not least because the methodology of planning inspections is so heavily weighted by risk.

The report itself says: “The timing of inspection of learning and skills providers, like schools, is determined significantly by risk assessment. Over a third of all the learning and skills providers inspected in 2011/12 were identified on this basis, and this figure was higher for colleges.”

While the report is tempered by recognition of the significant pressures that colleges face, plus funding incentives that can lead to behaviours that Ofsted effectively penalises, counterbalance and context is required.

In terms of employment outcomes, Ofsted’s Skills for Employability report this year showed that colleges significantly outperformed the government’s own Work Programme.

According to Ofsted, colleges successfully placed 19 per cent of participants in work and as many as 27 per cent from bespoke programmes, where the Work Programme managed a rate of less than 4 per cent in its first year.

Colleges invest a great deal of time and resources helping students who have left school with poor grades in maths and English to improve their marks so that they can go on to further study or start work.

Almost 150,000 16 to 18-year-olds study at pre-GCSE level in colleges, some of whom only just missed the required C grade.  Some get their English and maths GCSEs swiftly, but most have to go back to basics and need a lot of help and encouragement to gain their qualifications in incremental stages.

The report poses some significant challenges for the FE system as a whole.”

It is a fallacy to imagine that 11 years of under-achievement can be fixed in two years at a college.

Risk assessment and context aside, there can be no doubt that the report poses significant challenges to the sector.

Ofsted is pushing for quicker and more marked improvement, in particular for more progress in teaching and learning, and for the sector to rise to the huge challenge of youth unemployment.

In censuring providers for “not focusing enough on measuring the true impact of provision” and leaders for needing to “focus more on the usefulness of qualifications”, the report poses some significant challenges for the FE system as a whole. But colleges are limited in how effectively they can measure impact because they cannot track the progress of alumni beyond a short time span. To do this they need government help.

The implicit criticism of success rates also raises systemic questions — we are interested to discuss how college performance might be better reflected in a wider basket of measures, but as our chief executive Martin Doel said in our response to the report: “If the goalposts are being shifted by Ofsted, we at least need to know the rules of the new game.”

Even before those goalposts move, the state of play is not always clear.

We are concerned that the paucity of data in some inspection reports fails to give those colleges the information needed to understand how to improve.  Nor will these types of reports best serve the needs of parents, employers, school careers advisers and potential students.

We find it baffling that no college has received overall outstanding for teaching and learning, and want to understand what the statistical basis is for such judgments. These reports do not allow for this level of analysis.

We have further concerns about the relevant experience of some inspectors and that some inspections do not give a true reflection of the whole of a college’s provision.

However, we do recognise that when criticism comes it must be digested, understood and ultimately acted upon.

The challenge for colleges, Ofsted and ourselves is how to use inspection to best serve the needs of students and the communities in which they live.

Joy Mercer is the Association of
College’s policy director

Apprenticeships, apprenticeships, apprenticeships — after three inquiries, incorporating a host of government recommendations, it’s time to take a breather, says David Way

Doug Richard’s report has been eagerly anticipated not least because its advice on the future of apprenticeships comes from the perspective of a businessman without the detailed knowledge or ‘baggage’ of an insider to the skills system — as the author himself acknowledges.

His independent review was intended to bring fresh insights and to propose some exciting possibilities for the future. It’s been generally welcomed, although a formal, considered response will come from government in the spring.

It picks up a number of themes already prevalent within current skills and apprenticeship policy aspirations, and resonates with recent speeches by ministers at conferences by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Association of Colleges (AoC).

These include ensuring employers are always centre stage and that apprenticeship standards are consistently high.

FE Minister Matthew Hancock has made it clear that high quality is as much a priority as growth in numbers. Expectations of apprenticeship quality and minimum duration have been made clearer – and more demanding – in the past year.

The review rightly says that we can go further to ensure that they demonstrate the degree of rigour that is vital for employer and individual confidence.

For example, we know that overseas experience shows independent end testing drives higher standards.

Mr Richard reminds us that for apprenticeships to help to fuel growth and support the economy, employers must be in the driving seat.

This echoes the important work of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) and the Department for Education in employer ownership pilots, and follows Jason Holt’s proposals to make apprenticeships more accessible to small and medium-sized enterprises.

We are continuing to work closely with Mr Holt, including offering a tailored service to businesses, streamlining the process of taking on apprentices and setting out clear standards for the service that we and apprenticeship training providers will give.

There is much in the Richard Review that will stimulate fresh thinking”

One of the most far-reaching recommendations relates to how we ensure that purchasing power rests more surely with the employer.

While there is much to consider in how this might be implemented, it would potentially help to make more transparent the scale and purpose of the government contribution.

I am always mindful of the message from employers that they want to be clear about future arrangements so that they can be confident in how they engage and invest — a message underlined at the recent CBI conference.

After Holt and the BIS Select Committee inquiry, Richard adds to a significant body of advice to government. We now need a period of reflection and discussion so that employers and apprentices can be confident of the future direction and the support that is available to them.

When Mr Hancock and I attended a recent celebration event for HSBC’s graduate apprentices, I was reminded that there is much that is good about apprenticeships, with more and more employers opening up or expanding programmes and with satisfaction levels high.

However, building confidence in apprenticeships and supporting the drive for skills that fuel economic growth means that we must constantly raise awareness and standards.

There is much in the Richard Review that will stimulate fresh thinking about apprenticeships. I look forward to discussions about how we can achieve real improvements, building on the very best of current apprenticeships.

David Way is the chief executive of the
National Apprenticeship Service

Ann Watson on why EAL backs the Richard Review’s proposal to use tax breaks to encourage employers to take on apprentices 

Certain issues surrounding apprenticeships are brought up time and again by government, employers, training providers, awarding organisations and apprentices themselves.

The Richard Review is the latest to highlight the benefits of the vocational pathway and the need for rigorous, high quality training equal to a university education.

One of the review’s key recommendations is the use of National Insurance or tax breaks to encourage employers, who may not have considered the option, to take on apprentices.

It’s an idea that EAL has backed before. Such a policy would especially help small and medium-sized enterprises.

However, all businesses should be encouraged to provide alternative opportunities for young people.

This is especially significant in times of high unemployment, when more graduates are chasing fewer employment opportunities and when the rising cost of university education leaves more graduates with record debt.

Government support through tax incentives would send a strong signal to employers, schools, students and parents that an apprenticeship is an equally valuable choice to a degree. As Richard states, it is “inappropriate for it to be viewed as a lower-status alternative”.

Apprenticeship numbers are at record levels so we must ensure that quality is maintained.

Using an apprenticeship funding system pegged to the tax system would hopefully help to ensure rigorous, quality training is being funded centrally, thereby protecting and enhancing the apprenticeships brand.

Independent assessment is also key.

Apprenticeship numbers are at record levels so we must ensure that quality is maintained”

Awarding organisations such as EAL provide a vital role in the accreditation and recognition of industry qualifications and standards, ensuring apprentices gain awards that employers can rely on.

We have consistently advocated the importance of independent assessment — we are the only specialist awarding organisation to employ full-time technical specialists as external verifiers to support employers and learning providers to uphold standards.

It is innovative approaches such as this that ensure standards are at the heart of every apprenticeship and that employers can trust that their new workers are competent.

Combining high quality training with rigorous independent assessment alongside the right incentives for businesses will lead to greater opportunities for young people to access a highly skilled, fulfilling career.

Employers should be at the heart of this, investing in apprenticeships that they can rely on, but government should also contribute to the cost in a simple, accessible way that does not discourage small and medium sized enterprises from participating.

Apprenticeships are vital for bringing down the numbers of young people who are not in education, employment or training, as well as meeting skills gaps in sectors such as manufacturing and engineering that are central to economic recovery.

Businesses of all sizes need to be encouraged and helped to participate, and perceptions of apprenticeships need to change among teachers, careers advisers, parents and young people themselves.

The recommendations made in the Richard Review are a step in this direction.

Ann Watson is the managing director of EAL
(Excellence, Achievement and Learning),
the specialist awarding organisation
for industry qualifications

Strong leadership at every level is critical if England wants to have a world-class education and skills system, says Matthew Coffey, national director of learning and skills at Ofsted.

There is no doubt there is a great deal of good and outstanding provision in the learning and skills sector, but much work and improvement are still needed, especially in FE colleges.

While the overall effectiveness of all learning and skills providers has improved slightly over the past three years, the proportion of colleges judged inadequate or satisfactory is the highest that it has been. In fact, 35 per cent of colleges are now less than good compared with 30 per cent at the end of 2010.

This means 1.5 million learners are attending providers judged to be less than good, compared with 1.3 million last year – that’s about another 200,000 learners.

Ofsted’s annual report highlights the weak leadership and governance in providers that have declined since their last inspection.”

Last year, we judged four colleges to be inadequate; this year there were 13. And those 13 are serving more than 82,000 learners. This is not acceptable.

So why are so many learners in FE provision that is less than good?

Ofsted’s annual report highlights the weak leadership and governance in providers that have declined since their last inspection.

Conversely, all the providers that had improved to outstanding overall had particularly effective leadership that focused clearly on improving teaching and learning.

Chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw focused on leadership because, as he said, “leaders change things. Leaders move things on. Leaders determine the culture and ethos of the institution.”

Rising unemployment and slow economic growth present the learning and skills sector with enormous challenges, especially when supporting learners at what is, for many of them, a pivotal time in their life.

It is therefore critical that providers offer courses and qualifications that ensure their learners have a greater chance of progressing to further training or employment. Leaders therefore need to focus on the usefulness and not the quantity of qualifications.

Current incentives largely ignore the progress made by learners and the value post-16 education adds. Funding clearly needs to change.

But my lasting memory of the German visit is the simplicity of the post-16 education system. There are lessons for us to learn.”

We have all heard a great deal about “the German system” and particularly their approach to apprenticeships. Sir Michael and I visited a few weeks ago to see for ourselves. Youth unemployment in Germany is one of the lowest in the EU and has been continually declining.

Apprenticeships have a high profile and are the main route to post-compulsory education and training for the 70 per cent of school-leavers who do not enter higher education.

In the UK, just 7 per cent of young people aged 16 to 18 participated in apprenticeships in 2011.

Information and guidance is well-established, whereas a recent Ofsted survey found careers’ guidance on apprenticeships in England to be weak. We aren’t Germany, and as Doug Richard commented recently, we can’t simply adopt a system from one country to another.

But my lasting memory of the German visit is the simplicity of the post-16 education system. There are lessons for us to learn.

Improving young people’s skills in English and maths is one of the many challenges for the learning and skills sector as a whole, especially when considering nearly 80 per cent of those who leave school at 16 without achieving a grade C or above in these subjects at GCSE still have not achieved this standard by 19.

We have therefore highlighted the need for more teachers with the specialist expertise required to support these learners.

We know there are many good, outstanding and sometimes genuinely world-class providers in the sector. I attended a FE college. My youngest daughter attends one now and I have inspected many of them over the past 10 years.

We know that qualification success rates are generally high. However, we do not know the extent to which these qualifications enhance their careers or support them in gaining employment or progressing to further education and training. We therefore need to broaden the systems we all use to measure the true outcomes for learners.

Matthew Coffey is the national director, learning and skills, at Ofsted