Latest news from FE Week

Government legislation is doing away with the requirement that FE lecturers need centrally-defined teaching qualifications. Dr Matt O’Leary makes the case against the move.

Ian Pryce, principal of Bedford College, has argued that the de-regulation of teacher qualifications should be seen as a positive step in the development of teacher professionalism and a ‘golden opportunity for FE teaching staff to demonstrate their true worth’. I would like to respond to some of his claims and in so doing offer an alternative perspective.

Mr Pryce’s position is largely based on a laissez-faire philosophy, which believes that by opening teacher professionalism — and qualifications — up to the free market, things will take care of themselves and the ‘market’ will naturally ensure high levels of professionalism.

The fact that he thinks the removal of statutory qualifications is likely to have a positive impact on the quality of teaching and learning suggests a lack of understanding of the symbiotic relationship between teacher education and classroom practice.

He talks about wanting ‘professional teachers because they need less supervision’, but fails to recognise that a key platform to the creation of ‘professional teachers’ comes from them having undertaken a teacher education programme in the first place.

Every FE teacher would no doubt welcome the freedom to determine what it means to be a professional”

In a 2012 survey by the Institute for Learning of more than 5,000 members, 90 per cent of respondents emphasised the need to retain a minimum qualification requirement, arguing that it added to the status and standing of the profession, and to the status and standing of vocational, adult and further education overall.

It is quite ironic then that at a time when vocational pedagogy is at the forefront of the FE agenda nationally, and with it the importance of teacher education in shaping excellent vocational tutors, there are voices such as those of Mr Pryce calling into question this agenda and with it the progress made over the last decade in raising the professional profile and status of the profession.

One of the most perplexing statements he makes is: ‘I find it hard to see how a teaching profession owned by teachers wouldn’t be able to persuade employers of their value’.

It’s difficult to decide what is most perplexing about this statement. Is it the assertion that de-regulation is somehow tantamount to giving teachers more ownership of their profession, or the assumption that teachers actually operate in a bubble of professional autonomy?

Whichever of the two, this comment is either incredibly naïve or so far removed from reality that it suggests a lack of awareness of what it means to be a teacher in FE in 2013.

Mr Pryce goes on to say that ‘freedom to determine what professionalism means … is what an independent, mature FE sector should want’.

Every FE teacher would no doubt welcome the freedom to determine what it means to be a professional, but surely this is dependent on a reduction of some of the systemic constraints that currently limit their ability to express such ‘freedom’.

Contrary to what he would have us believe, it is not teacher qualifications that should be seen as a constraint, but performance management systems that require FE teachers to spend so much of their time manipulating and managing data than the very job they entered the profession to do.

Mr Pryce’s free-market vision will do little to help a sector that craves greater stability to continue to attract the very best teachers.

The move to de-regulation and leaving FE teacher qualifications to the whim of market forces is only likely to result in an increase in the transitory nature and casualization of the workforce, ultimately resulting in the continuation of this perpetual cycle of uncertainty and instability, which, let’s face it, is no good for teachers, learners or employers.

Young teenagers face an extended period in education with the raising of the participation age. It’s a grand idea, but it might not be the wisest, says Anthony Benton.

August saw a big change in the statutory education system, the “participation age” rose from 16 to 17.

Young people must now remain in full-time education or approved training and continue to study English and maths (GCSEs if in school or GCSEs/Functional Skills if in training).

In essence, you could think this is a good idea, but is it? Some nations keep young people in education and training longer and some of these have better outcomes, but is it really tackling the real challenges we face as a nation?

As with many government initiatives raising the participation age (RPA) is a blunt instrument — it has side effects and unwanted consequences.

One justification for RPA is that too many young people leave education without the level of basic skills that employers say they want.

We have created a cultural situation where many learners are uninterested in these basic skills”

Cynically, a more basic underlying reason could be to slow the increase of so-called NEETs (young people not in education, employment or training) currently running at around a million.

When the government talks about adequate English and maths, of course they mean a grade C or above in GCSE, a so-called gold standard. Successive governments have fed confusion in this area by periodically introducing new qualifications and messing around with exams year-on-year for generations.

I would argue that many people in education, politics and the media are obsessed by GCSEs.

After all, these things that we don’t really understand are what schools are judged on more than anything else. And that obsession and the coarse use of GCSE exam results as the success measure of a school means that many other facets are pushed into the margins.

So, one of the stated objectives of the increase in participation age is to improve the levels of English and maths before young people move into employment.

A laudable ambition, but what about the question of why so many get to the end of years of intensive full-time education without being able to get above a grade D in their GCSE exams?

Hoping to make up for that failure through RPA is too little too late.

It is the wrong answer to the wrong question and to make matters worse by the time most young people get to this “failed stage” they probably hate maths and loath English, probably having sat their GCSE exams several times and being convinced by the establishment that they are thick.

Tragically, we are seeing also that some secondary schools are refusing to take back pupils who have done badly in GCSE results, reducing participation opportunity and reinforcing that sense of failure in the classic establishment academic route.

We need a nationally-recognised qualification system, but it needs to be two things to be successful. It must run seamlessly across all levels without ambiguity and be constant over time.

And although these qualifications can then be a marker for schools, pupils and teachers, they must not be allowed to exclude or dominate other markers, for example employment success rates and broader school culture-driven outcomes such as behaviour, values and attitude.

It is clear the biggest issue is the failure in learning of English and maths during school years. We have created a cultural situation where many learners are uninterested in these basic skills. This is what we have to address rather than just add on another year.

You can lead a horse to water, but if it isn’t thirsty, it won’t participate.

Government proposals on apprenticeships include one in which funding goes through employers. It’s a principle John Allan agrees with, but he thinks the options on the table still aren’t right.

The Federation of Small Businesses believes the best approach for apprenticeships would be a more demand-led system that ensures training is tailored to suit the needs of businesses.

The FSB has long said that the best way to make the system more effective is for government funding to be routed through employers rather than being paid directly to training providers.

The current apprenticeships system has been subjected to constant change which has undermined its brand and led to confusion.

While the current system is not ideal, it is vital not to rush into an imperfect solution. Indeed, detailed thought must be given to ways in which apprenticeship candidates, employers and training providers will be affected by any changes.

The FSB has said government must take its time with any reforms. It must think through the implementation in order to get it right first time and create a system that will last for decades to come.

Unfortunately, proposals laid out by government in the current consultation take a simplified view of apprenticeships. Furthermore, in their current form they appear to breach some of the key points we consider imperative to make this system work for small and micro businesses.

Proposals may potentially lead to a sudden and significant increase in costs which small and micro businesses cannot absorb”

Current proposals seem to suggest government aims for the employer to pay the full costs in advance of government payback.

The reality is many small businesses cannot afford to pay the full cost of the training upfront, even though some of it will be recovered. This would damage cash-flow and put small firms off engaging in the system.

We are also concerned that current proposals may potentially lead to a sudden and significant increase in costs which small and micro businesses cannot absorb.

Moreover, we are concerned about the proposals for payment on results. Small businesses are already left out of pocket if an apprenticeship ends prematurely, and payment on results could compound the financial pain felt by businesses in these circumstances.

Routing funding through employers should offer many long term benefits. It would make employers more involved in vocational education, and lead to providers being more businesslike and cost conscious.

We believe government must continue to be as generous as it currently is in its contribution towards apprenticeships, while also fully-funding the training element of apprenticeships for 16 to 19-year-olds. This group in particular can be seen as far riskier to take on for a small firm as they lack experience and skills of older apprentices.

Establishing government funding through the business puts the employer in charge and we believe that over time this will make them more engaged. The FSB believes they will have much more success at getting the training they want, rather than what a training provider can deliver cheaply.

To sum up, the FSB is a keen supporter of the principle of routing apprenticeship funding via employers. However, combining this change with a requirement to prefund providers and potentially increasing costs will reduce employer’s engagement in the apprenticeship programme.

We urge government to take its time with this proposal and ensure the best possible outcome, not just for the apprentice but for the small business too.

The National Careers Council called for a ‘culture change’ in careers guidance in the summer and made seven recommendations to improve the service. Dr Deirdre Hughes says she’s happy with the government’s new action plan on the issue.

For too long, careers provision has been a Cinderella service. Many people have their own anecdotes about the careers advice they personally received.

Now is the time to think more earnestly about how to improve careers provision,
moving beyond anecdotes to evidence of positive impact, including good and interesting policies and practices in our local communities. There is an urgent need to take collective action.

I welcome the Skills Minister Matthew Hancock’s call for ‘a culture change in careers guidance’ which requires government, education, employers, training providers and career development professionals all to play their full part.

As teachers and lecturers have so often said, young people need clearer pathways into the workplace through schooling, tertiary education and training.

Having careers support to help with navigating options and making well-informed decisions based on labour market realities
is essential.

The government’s new Careers Action Plan for England is a major step forward.

This is the first time the government has had such an action plan.

It is heartening that the government has acknowledged careers provision needs to be radically improved, responding to repeated calls from people working in schools, colleges and local communities.

As with all plans, the real work lies ahead to support schools, colleges and universities to provide impartial and independent careers guidance.

Ofsted’s findings are unsurprising given major structural changes in the delivery system are ongoing in this transitional period for schools.

But we now have a new focus and direction of travel — improving careers provision, regarded by government and its partners as a social and economic priority.

In England, a revision of guidance to schools and colleges and improvements in destination measures are a step forward.

Also, innovative developments such as the UK Commission for Employment and Skills’ (UKCES) LMI [Labour Market Information] for All initiative will improve access to labour market intelligence.

But significantly more work needs to be done between education, employers and career development professionals. I would also like to see more emphasis on engaging with the voices of young people and parents in local communities.

The Minister’s Inspiration Vision sets a challenge for more businesses to step up and work more closely with education, extending the delivery of the best that exists and more.

Partnerships at a local and national level have been commonplace for some time, but the new emphasis is to make an exceptional partnership the new norm.

Clearly more people, especially young people, need access to career insights to the world of work, but it is essential that this is combined with proper access to impartial and independent careers guidance.

The National Careers Service (NCS) has to strengthen its links further with employers.

There is significant potential with its partners to harness existing and new resources to reach out and connect with young people (and parents) in local communities.

Getting people closer to ‘the line of sight to work’ and/or suitable opportunities is a common goal that involves a multiplicity of players.

We know investment in addressing the youth employment challenge now comes in many different forms, including Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), who are beginning to work more closely with the NCS and National Apprenticeship Service.

With the government’s formal endorsement of all seven recommendations of the National Careers Council (NCC), the implementation of NCS ‘practical steps’ now begins.

The culture change is underway. The NCC will continue to work with government, the UKCES and other interested parties to look ahead and find practical solutions that help support and improve careers support services for young people and adults.