Regulations that govern foreign learners of English could be scrapped.

Ofqual is considering three options for the future of ESOL (English for speakers of other languages), including the withdrawal of existing regulations for ESOL Skills for Life and ESOL for Work qualifications. Other suggestions are for a new qualification called ESOL for Life in the UK or simply a revision of current rules.

An Ofqual spokesperson said: “New regulations will make ESOL more robust and fit for the purposes for which they are now used.

“For example, we propose that qualifications used for immigration-related purposes should be 100 per cent externally assessed and include identity checks of each student at each assessment, while other types of ESOL qualifications could use more flexible approaches to assessment.

“Our proposals are designed to secure the standards of the whole ESOL suite of qualifications and promote public confidence in them.”

The proposals were welcomed by Chris Taylor, ESOL programme manager at the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE). “This review presents an important opportunity, not only to revise and update the existing regulations, but also to redevelop and make them more relevant.

“One of the consultation principles is to promote public confidence in them. This was identified as an area for further research in the NIACE-led ESOL Inquiry in 2006 and it remains a matter of concern.

“ESOL qualifications need to be recognised by employers – as well as education and training providers – if they are to have any value and if they are to help support learners progress into further study or to open up new careers for them.”

She said NIACE would welcome a new language qualification at level three that had “currency for academic and professional progression”.

Ofqual plans three consultation events — in Belfast, Leeds and London — in November. Email reform@ofqual.gov.uk for further details or to register for these events.

The Welsh Government is expected to be seeking feedback on the proposals in Wales.

Comments on the proposals should be emailed to consultations@ofqual.gov.uk by the deadline of December 3.

Proposal one:

Introduce general conditions of recognition for a new qualification called ESOL for life in the UK. Ofqual: “We propose introducing regulations for a new qualification called ESOL for life in the UK which must meet specific rules including 100 per cent external assessment and the verification of the identity of those being assessed. These new rules should allow awarding organisations to demonstrate more clearly that their ESOL qualifications meet Home Office requirements.”

Proposal two:

Introduce revised general conditions of recognition for ESOL International qualifications, based on existing regulations. Ofqual: “This proposal introduces 100 per cent external assessment for ESOL international qualifications, whereas the existing rules allow up to 25 per cent internal assessment in limited circumstances.”

Proposal three:

Withdraw existing regulations for ESOL Skills for Life and ESOL for Work qualifications. Ofqual: “We propose to withdraw the additional rules applied to ESOL Skills for Life and ESOL for Work qualifications. Awarding organisations could develop these qualifications to meet their centres’ needs and these qualifications would still need to comply with our general conditions of recognition.”

An online system for rubber-stamping apprenticeships is in line for a “substantial upgrade” after less than a year.

Students, providers and employers have been using the Apprenticeship Certificates England (ACE) system run by The Alliance of Sector Skills Councils since January.

The system, which cost £120,000 to develop, processes applications for apprenticeship approval and has already issued more than 94,000 certificates, with approvals from a pool of 25 Sector Skills Councils (SSCs).

But slow download speeds and inconsistent requests for information have hampered site users.

Our members have been reporting teething problems with the system”

Alliance interim chief officer Richard Beamish said measures were now in place to solve the problems — and more would follow.

“There have been some issues although fewer than one might expect with such a new and complex system,” he said.

“We have already increased server capacity and are in the process of a substantial upgrade to ensure that they do not recur. We also are currently working to simplify the certification process for providers and introducing consistency in evidence requirements across all certification bodies.”

The issues prompted a meeting last week between the alliance, the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP), and the Association of Colleges (AoC). The Skills Funding Agency and National Apprenticeships Service were also expected.

Terry Fennell, AELP’s head of delivery, said: “Our members have been reporting teething problems with the system but it’s important to stress these aren’t major.

“The one thing that would really help is some SSCs  turning around provider requests for certificates more quickly. Some are definitely better than others.

“We also need to get the message out that there is only one universal application form that has to be used from now on. It will be mandatory from January, but AELP would encourage providers to start using it now.”

The new system was launched at the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills by ex-FE minister John Hayes who, at the click of a button, printed the first two certificates.

Hopes that it would make the process of certifying apprenticeships easier have not been dashed by the early problems, although Mr Beamish said it would be naive to suggest there were no issues or disagreements.

“We are aware that some have suffered from slow download speeds.

“While scanning and uploading remains important, we are working with awarding organisations, training providers and employers to speed up the certification process further.

“We are pleased with progress but we are not complacent. The system has been running since January and is being expanded to cope with current and anticipated future demand.”

Education Secretary Michael Gove’s plans to cull coursework by axing GCSEs for a new English baccalaureate have been welcomed cautiously by FE leaders.

The Tory minister revealed his plans to end the GCSE, introduced in 1988, when he told MPs last week: “Record increases in performance at GCSE have not been matched by the same level of improvements in learning. While pass rates have soared we have fallen down international education league tables.”

Mr Gove said the eBacc would start to replace GCSEs in 2015, ending “modules” and cutting back on classroom assessment and coursework in favour of a return to more traditional end-of-year exams.

“Changes made to GCSEs, specifically the introduction of modules and the expansion of coursework and controlled assessment, further undermined the credibility of exams, leaving young people without the rigorous education they deserved,” he said.

“These reforms are radical – so we will consult widely. Their introduction will require careful preparation.”

We need to understand both the philosophy and the theory that underpins these changes”

He said that students would sit exams for the first new certificates in English, maths and the sciences in September 2015. Other subjects would follow.
Key FE figures from the Sixth Form Colleges’ Forum (SFCF), Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) and Association of Colleges (AoC) agreed that there was a need for consistency and said they wanted to be involved in drawing up the new system.

James Kewin, SFCF’s deputy chief executive, said: “Reform is needed for GCSEs, but the process should be guided and informed by education professionals rather than politicians.

“The timescale for implementation – particularly while there are so many other reforms in train, not least to A-levels – will also lead to confusion and disruption for students. It will be demoralising too for students sitting their GCSEs in the next few years to know that they are working towards a soon to be defunct qualification.

“And while there is certainly a need to refine assessment, removing coursework and controlled assessment completely seems extreme, and is perhaps driven by politics rather than pedagogy.”

Martin Doel, AoC chief executive, said: “We need to understand both the philosophy and the theory that underpins these changes and how they will help to improve and engage children of all abilities.

“The important thing is to use the time between now and the introduction of the new scheme to properly design and develop a coherent understandable system. As one of the largest groups of recruiters for post-GCSE students, colleges would be happy to help in this process. Hopefully this would mean a joined-up passage through education for every student taking these exams.

“We need to understand how the new system regarding awarding bodies will work and will be particularly keen to make sure that it does not become uneconomical, and that there are no knock-on effects for other qualifications.”

Brian Lightman, general secretary at ASCL, said: “We look forward to responding to the actual proposals in detail and engaging with the government in a discussion about reforming exams in a way the meets 21st-century needs.

“It will be essential to debate the future of the national curriculum alongside proposals to change qualifications. Reforming exams and the school accountability framework without considering the curriculum would be a classic case of cart-before-the-horse and would not lead to improved standards.
“This is a once-in-a-generation reform and will affect the lives of millions of young people and our economic future. It is right to defer the start to 2015, to make sure everyone affected, including parents and professionals, can have an input.

“The knock-on effect of the more rigorous exams on post-16 could be significant, depending on the number of students who do not pass the exams at 16, or for whatever reason are deemed not ready to take them, and sit them at 17 or 18. We’re pleased that the consultation at least acknowledges that there will be additional pressure on post-16 institutions.

“We cannot allow the problems of this year’s exams to be swept under the carpet in the fixation with future reform. We must make sure that lessons are learned from this year’s fiasco, and that the current exams are administered properly for the next four years.”

Ofsted is looking at slashing 25 days off its time limit for accepting complaints about inspections and publishing reports even if a complaint has been lodged.

A complaint can currently be made during an inspection or up to 30 days after a report comes out.

But Ofsted is reviewing the procedure with a view to closing the complaints window to just five days of the incident or report publication.

Inspectors will also be expected to finish a visit and publish their report before more serious complaints are investigated — allowing the public to get the inspection result “as soon as possible.”

The proposals have already come under fire from FE leaders, who warned against a five-day complaints window and urged Ofsted to delay reports where complaints had been lodged.

Five days is far too short a timeframe to be able to take sound advice and gather all the evidence required by Ofsted to validate a complaint”

The consultation comes five months after inspectors were ordered off the premises at NCG (formerly Newcastle College Group) mid-visit.

The incident meant the inspection report, which graded the previously-outstanding college as good, was delayed by around two months.

However, an Ofsted spokesperson declined to say whether the NCG incident had triggered the review or would be considered as part of the consultation.

She said Ofsted was looking to “ensure our approaches are closely matched to the needs of those making complaints while recognising our public duty to reduce our costs wherever possible”.

Ofsted’s consultation document reads: “To ensure concerns can be investigated promptly and while issues are fresh in the mind, complaints will only be considered if submitted within five working days of the incident.

“In the case of complaints about inspection, this means within five working days of the publication of the report. Complaints submitted after this will not normally be considered.”

It adds: “In future we will normally only accept complaints about an inspection after the publication of the inspection report.”

But Malcolm Trobe, deputy general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, rejected the five-day proposal.

“Five days is far too short a timeframe to be able to take sound advice and gather all the evidence required by Ofsted to validate a complaint,” he said.

“A standard timeframe for lodging complaints is ten working days and we think this would be far more reasonable.”

And Joy Mercer, policy director at the Association of Colleges, said: “We would want to see a delay in reports being published if a complaint is pending.”

She added: “There is an issue about whether or not a complaint can be fully investigated by the inspector carrying out the inspection – there is no independence there.”

Ms Mercer also suggested the publication of complaints, with any identifying details removed, that had succeeded or failed to give colleges a clearer indication of how Ofsted might rule.

Ofsted’s consultation, which is listed on its website, will also see it look at the way it handles complaints about providers. It has called for input on the consultation to be emailed to consultations@ofsted.gov.uk before the October 29 deadline.

A spokesperson for NCG declined to comment.