Latest news from FE Week | FE Week

Family learning: Where next for the ‘hidden jewel’ of adult education?

Family learning programmes have had to fight for survival in a competitive funding environment that demands quantifiable outcomes for learners.

But the provision, which involves adults and children learning together, now seems to be enjoying a bit of a revival, with over 20 per cent more people taking up family learning courses in 2022-23 than the previous year.

Schools and local authorities speak passionately about the impact of this hidden part of the adult education system, which can simultaneously improve English and maths for adults and children, and help to close skills gaps.

Advocates insist that family learning holds the key to engaging hard-to-reach, economically inactive families. They claim the long-term benefits extend to improved mental health and community wellbeing, as well as helping unemployed people find work.

Earlier this year the Campaign for Learning, part of NCFE, established the National Centre for Family Learning as a focal point for the fragmented sector of practitioners, who work for local authority services, specialist adult learning institutes and charities among others.

The centre already has over 1,000 members who it estimates are working with 240,000 families a year.

Campaign for Learning’s national director Juliette Collier believes these families include people who “would never have gone into college, and who wouldn’t even have the confidence to look at you when they start these programmes.

“If you found school irrelevant and humiliating, and you associate it with failure, why would you go back into education? Well, you might do if you wanted the best for your children.”

Family (learning) history

During the Blair-Brown years, cash flowed into family learning programmes, often taking place in children’s centres (many of which have since shut down) and schools, and in some cases funded through the European Social Fund. In the years since much of that funding dried up or was restricted to delivering programmes in deprived areas.

In the 10 years up to 2021/22, the number of adult learners on community learning programmes (which includes family learning) fell by 55 per cent.

It looked like the death knell was sounding for family learning last year when the Department for Education consulted on proposals to end the funding of non-qualification provision that is not directly linked to employment outcomes, from 2024-25 onwards. It took an outcry from the sector, for family learning, health and wellbeing and community integration to be reinstated as acceptable outcomes.

The number of community learning students climbed last year by 8 per cent to 328,690. And those involved in family learning jumped 21 per cent to 49,490, making up 15 per cent of the total.

However, there were still fewer community learning participants last year than in the years leading up to the pandemic. Over half a million students a year took community learning courses prior to 2018/19.

Family learning recipients

Last year more than a fifth of working-age adults were economically inactive, including one in four women. It is these people that family learning programmes generally seek to target.

They consist of two streams. Wider family learning programmes, which Collier describes as the “gentle first steps” getting reluctant learners in the door, made up 10 per cent of overall community learning participants in 2022/23.

And 5 per cent took family literacy, language or numeracy programmes, normally “explicit” courses which lead to practical qualifications.

In her previous life as a community outreach worker for Warwickshire Council, Collier met Becky, a mum who had missed much of her own schooling due to illness and lacked the skills to read to her two children.

Becky was too anxious to dive straight into a literacy class, so Collier persuaded her to do a cracker-making session in the run-up to Christmas. That built up Becky’s confidence and, from there, she went on to courses in literacy, computing and numeracy.

She could then read to her children, aged 3 and 11, and got her first job aged 31.

On one occasion, Collier visited Becky in her high-rise flat, where “nappies and rubbish” lined the hallway. But Becky’s family learning certificates took pride of place sellotaped to the living-room wall. “That’s how much it meant to her,” she says.

Similarly, the parenting course that Henriett Toth took in 2019 at her local children’s centre run by Learning Unlimited, which provided a creche for her small children, was a “lifeline.”

She says: “It was also good to learn that others were experiencing parenting challenges in similar ways to mine, that we all fail from time to time.”

She has since done family learning courses in maths and supporting SEND children, and is now a teaching assistant.

Hidden benefits

Toth’s progression onto work in a school is a common route: a 2004 study by Horne and Haggard, which tracked families up to four years after they had completed family learning programmes, found that a third went on to further learning or training, one in five volunteered at their child’s school or wider community and one in seven became paid classroom assistants.

Most parents said their “next step” activities would not have happened had they not participated in family learning.

Schools are currently struggling to recruit and retain support staff, with almost 10,000 school teaching assistant roles currently posted on the jobs site Indeed.

But, despite family learning courses offering schools an opportunity to train up the next pipeline of support staff, schools are not always happy to host them.

Sue Pember, policy director for adult education body Holex, says “a lot of” family learning happened in schools before Covid. But since the pandemic, some heads are “reluctant” to reopen outside normal hours.

Collier recalls one primary head who was hesitant to provide space for family learning, who told her that he “only sees parents when they come in to eyeball him”.

But, after 29 women were trained as teaching assistants through her programme, his attitude shifted. “We gave the certificates out to parents in the school assembly,” she says.

On location

At Realise Future’s working together class at Trimley Primary in Suffolk, participants are learning about the developmental milestones that children should be hitting at different ages.

The course, which consists of a two-hour session each week over 12 weeks, is not what most people think of as family learning. There are no children present. But the learning that these parents gain helps them not only to understand their children better but acts as a stepping stone onto a school support role.

The course includes a mandatory classroom placement, for which participants write diaries to note observations about pupil behaviour.

The tutor, Bernadette White, an experienced primary teacher herself, finds it “much harder” to get parents interested in family learning courses since the pandemic.

Whereas pre-Covid she had a waiting list for the course, today’s class only has four learners, all mums with children at the school.

She blames a “communication breakdown” between schools and parents, as “parents weren’t encouraged to come back into” schools after Covid. “It’s a shame because it’s so important that parents feel they can come in to air their grievances and anxieties.”

White splits them into two groups, each exploring what the national curriculum says about developmental goals for five and seven-year-olds. They draw and label stickmen accordingly.

The goal of “tying shoelaces” sparks hot debate, because shoes with laces are apparently no longer fashionable.

White says parents often express “genuine surprise” when they discover on the course “just how much children are learning at school”.

Carrie, a mum of three, is hoping the course will help get her “foot in the door” to become a teaching assistant. The course has taught her that “primary school is hard” for children.

“I said to my husband, imagine if you had to be at work all day with people of all different levels, and have lunch with them all. Yet we expect it not to be ridiculously stressful for these kids.”

Family learning courses

Family learning practitioners often have scope to be creative with their curriculums.

Susannah Chambers, a former family learning manager for Nottinghamshire council, recalls writing a “Family Bloodhound” course using materials about the world land speed record-holding car, which incorporated engineering and maths. Another course, about Doctor Who, aimed to teach science and technology.

In Suffolk, Realise Futures delivers 91 per cent of family learning.

The company’s initial engagement activities include cookery workshops, sessions on e-safety and Snappy Stories, a workshop White runs in which parents and reception-age children do creative storytelling together.

Last week’s stories involved “lots of fairies, and an evil pea!”.

Realise Learning’s more in-depth programmes include film-making and investigations in science, which are underpinned by the primary curriculum. Students progress onto courses in mental health, working in the childcare sector or CV writing and interview skills.

Family learning can also be a godsend for migrant families wanting to learn English and feel part of their local community.

In London, the Welcome Project, run by Learning Unlimited, delivers weekly sessions in children’s centres for newly-arrived families living in hotel accommodation, which involve arts and crafts and play activities. The sessions give families respite from cramped hotel rooms, and mums can ask questions of the professionals there to support them.

Uncertain future

The family learning uptick has been partly driven by numeracy-related courses provided as part of the government’s £559 million Multiply programme, which includes sessions in family budgeting and homework clubs.

But Multiply is set to end in 2025 and the long-term prospects for family learning are uncertain.

The Skills for Jobs white paper pledged to “prioritise the courses and qualifications that enable people to get great jobs” to “support our economy”.

It led to the drawing up this year of 38 Local Skills Improvement Plans, of which only one – Herefordshire’s – gives a passing reference to family learning provision.

The Campaign for Learning has been engaging with shadow skills minister Seema Malhotra, in the hope of persuading Labour to secure a stable future for the sector if the party wins the election.

In Scotland, family learning provision is mandatory in early years settings, and the Campaign for Learning is calling for it to become a universal entitlement in England too as part of the upcoming expansion of free childcare provision.

Collier believes such a move could help to address the current shortage of early years workers.

But Chambers sees family learning as being about much more than recruiting more childcare workers. She calls it the “jewel in the crown of adult learning” in how it “engages people and keeps them on a progression route”.

“Family learning saves the government money on health and crime outcomes, because it is helping children communicate better with their parents.

“Over the years, it has been absolutely heart-breaking that it has not had the profile it deserves.”

When Collier bumped into Becky recently, she had just read the eulogy at her nan’s funeral – something she never thought possible four years ago.

“That was incredibly moving to hear,” said Collier. “Family learning really is the foundation of creating lifelong learning.”

Devolution is not incompatible with learner demand – but it is a barrier

I am convinced what Bon Jovi’s famous Living on a prayer was really about was a demand-led adult skills system. Let me explain.

Got to hold on to what we’ve got

The introduction of the apprenticeship levy saw a seismic shift in employer-led funding. While employers rightly still challenge whether the system is genuinely an employer-led system, the funding itself is definitely demand-led. Indeed, depending on the outcome of the election, the levy might be opened up to fund other employer learning in addition to apprenticeships.

However, for individuals accessing FE it is still very much based on central government-controlled funding model. And when it comes to adult learners devolved authorities also continue to exercise a lot of control, with over half of adult funding allocated and tendered through them.

The question we should be asking is ‘how can we have a proper learner demand-led system?’. The question we’re actually left with is ‘how can such a thing even be compatible with devolution?’.

We can probably answer both of these questions. “[whoa-oh] we’ll give it a shot”

We’re half-way there

Level 4 and above learning is getting the Lifelong Learning Entitlement and finally supporting a unitised approach to learning. But why does the government think it is appropriate for higher-level courses and not for level 3 and below? This stinks of bias, and only makes things tough, so tough for the already under-resourced.

As to cost, there’s no reason the policy couldn’t be rolled out in phases. Let’s not forget there is an adult entitlement to level 3 and below learning too. We just make it impossible to access!

Meanwhile, level 4 learners get access to £28,000 of funding while others don’t. With such an individual account (which includes grant funding for the entitlement along with loan funding), there could be all sorts of exciting opportunities to provide tax incentives for individuals and employers to add to their pots.

You live for the fight

Those who argue against a learner demand-led system always quote the scandalous failure of the individual learner accounts over 20 years ago. There are probably three key lessons that need to be heeded:

The provider free-for-all

At the time, there were 8910 providers, with no quality control. We know how to do provider registers and appropriate regulatory controls now. From day one, our existing registers would safeguard every learner and every penny spent.

Horses for courses

The anything goes approach to courses that characterised individual learner accounts is no longer even imaginable. Clearly, we need a clear set of approved, funded courses, which should and easily could include approved units to allow a unitised approach to learning, while still working towards a full qualification.

Tech utopianism

IT systems quite simply didn’t work. But the future promised then is with us now. Even the possibility of a learner account app is readily deliverable.

We’ll make it I swear

The fact is that a fully learner demand-led system is possible. The challenge is to make it work in a devolved world – one that, depending on your viewpoint, is either creating a postcode lottery or responding to local need.

If we agree that every citizen has a right to access the same funding for training wherever they are in the country if they have a learning need – which is surely the premise of the LLE – then the key concern is not really about learners, but about the role of devolved authorities in such a system.

But they needn’t worry for them. Baby it’s okay. There are specific regional needs, skills deficits and priorities. Someone has to stimulate the supply and demand to meet these needs, and devolved authorities are perfectly placed to be given funding and powers to do so, as well as identify gaps and stimulate or pump prime colleges and providers to deliver the necessary programmes.

So take my hand, and let’s build on the LLE to deliver the kind of genuine learner demand-led system that works for all learners. By giving them the funding, we can stimulate employers, providers and create a bespoke role for devolved authorities to deliver for communities. More than that, we can ensure fewer of our potential learners go on living on a prayer.

What Labour and Lib Dems can learn from Singapore’s SkillsFuture Credit scheme

The debate around the Advanced British Standard and possible changes to the apprenticeship levy since the autumn party conference season has meant that little discussion has taken place on another reform proposal for the further education sector which is shared by both the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats. This is the idea of individuals having access to their own accounts to pay for lifelong learning or upskilling.

Labour outline their proposal as “the development of Individual Learning Accounts (ILAs), which would share the cost of learning between the individual, the employer and the state – and, where appropriate, the devolved budgets to Combined Authorities and elected Mayors”.

Bringing back a proposal included in their 2019 election manifesto, the Lib Dems are calling for the introduction of “Skills Wallets for every adult, giving them £10,000 to spend on education and training throughout their lives; these Skills Wallets will empower people to develop new skills so that they can thrive in the technologies and industries that are key to the UK’s economic future”.

Of course, the last Labour government presided over a short-lived ILA scheme in 2000-01 dragged down by an underestimation of its expected use and widespread allegations of fraud due to lack of proper oversight. But given the lessons learned and technological advances, it would be foolish not to consider some form of resurrection.

Learning from Singapore

Both parties will hopefully be looking closely at Singapore’s SkillsFuture Credit scheme as a successful example of learning accounts working effectively since the scheme’s introduction in 2015. As of October 2023, over 1.2 million Singaporeans have used their SkillsFuture Credit and this represents approximately 30 per cent of the eligible population.

The scheme has three elements which relate to whether or not the individual is in employment. The Lifelong Learning Credit is targeted at working adults aged 25 or over who are looking to upgrade their skills to stay relevant in their current jobs or to pursue new career opportunities. It is a one-off credit of S$500 (approx. £328) that can be used to pay for a wide range of approved skills-related courses, including online courses, part-time courses, and full-time courses to pursue lifelong learning or upskilling.

Devolution offers the opportunity to be innovative with adult skills funding

The SkillsFuture Credit is different in that all Singaporeans aged over 25, regardless of employment status or career goals, are eligible and they can obtain a yearly credit of S$500 that can be used for courses covering a wide array of skills, from technical and vocational to soft skills and digital literacy.

The third element is made up of SkillsFuture Work-Study Programmes. These programmes are designed to offer a blend of work experience and education, allowing individuals to earn a wage while learning on the job. All three elements are backed by a well-resourced Careers Guidance Framework to support individuals in making their choices.

Similar to Labour’s proposals, SkillsFuture Credits allow employer and individual contributions in addition to the government funding. In 2022, employers contributed a total of S$1.2 billion to the scheme while individual learners or employees contributed a total of S$200 million. The Singapore government has invested around S$10 billion in the scheme since 2015 and has committed an additional S$10 billion over the next five years (2023 to 2027).

Fit for LSIP priorities

The choice of courses is wide, but mindful of English devolution and the arrival of LSIPs with their sector skills priorities, policymakers here should note that for ‘high-demand sectors’ in Singapore, a S$500 top-up to a credit is available and 15 sectors are beneficiaries. There are also other SkillsFuture initiatives covering: digital workplace; mid-career professionals; older adults; and persons with disabilities.

When proposals for bringing back ILAs have been put to central government, the response has not been positive and there are no indications that this is about to change. However, devolution and the deeper deals offer the mayoral combined authorities the opportunity to be innovative with their adult skills funding. They should grasp it by piloting these accounts.

LCG case latest: DfE defends overruling AEB tender scores

The Department for Education has batted away claims that it unlawfully overruled the scores of a major group of training providers in the latest adult education budget procurement.

Revised defence documents were filed by DfE lawyers on Friday in response to fresh allegations raised by Learning Curve Group (LCG) and its seven subsidiary training companies last month.

LCG launched a High Court case in August demanding a re-run of the £75 million procurement after all eight of its bids were unsuccessful. They claimed that the department breached its duties under procurement regulations in its evaluation of their bid, and were “deprived of a real chance of winning a contract”.

The case rests on a row over Learning Curve’s Q1B1 submission – a template for bidders’ mobilisation and delivery plan which the DfE said should have included forecasts for training courses and learner numbers. A strict two-page limit was in place on the template, and bidders needed to score of at least 75 (good) to be successful.

DfE claimed the group’s submissions did not include the necessary detail to achieve a high score for Q1B1, namely an explanation of how their plans align with corresponding “volumes and values and spreadsheet”. LCG allegedly recorded forecasts for learning aim starts for sector subject areas rather than courses.

LCG countered this following sight of voluntary disclosure material which showed DfE’s evaluators scored their Q1B1 response as ‘very good’ – a score of 100. The material also revealed that non-evaluators were responsible for downgrading LCG’s response from ‘very good’ to ‘satisfactory’ – a score of 50.

Learning Curve also claimed that a “reasonably well-informed and normally diligent tenderer” would read and evaluate Q1B1 alongside the volumes template that was previously denied by DfE.

But DfE has now admitted that “a reasonably well-informed and diligent tenderer” would have understood that the mobilisation plan and the volumes template would be read – but not evaluated – together.

DfE’s fresh defence admits that the procurement evaluators “failed to apply” the award criteria for that crucial question because of the alleged missing information. As a result, the usual “consensus score” process, where two evaluators agree on a final score for a question, did not apply and the lower ‘satisfactory’ score was decided by a moderator.

The “major gap” in information, DfE claimed, meant LCG’s response couldn’t score higher than ‘satisfactory,’ contradicting the evaluators’ original judgement.

DfE lawyers maintain overruling evaluators’ scores in this way was lawful because the moderators “applied the published award criteria” to LCG’s submission through its quality assurance process.

It was also revealed that moderators intervened to revise Q1B1 scores for other providers’ bids.

LCG alleged that voluntary disclosure documents showed that the department evaluated Q1B1 responses from different bidders “on an inconsistent and unequal basis”.

DfE confessed to this in its latest defence. It said: “It is admitted and averred that the evaluators originally evaluated different bidders’ responses to Q1B1 on
an inconsistent and unequal basis. The defendant accordingly sought to remedy that failing in quality assurance, which it did.”

LCG declined to comment. The case continues.

Overseas FE teachers exempt from new immigration earnings thresholds

FE teachers from overseas will be exempt from the government’s new minimum earnings thresholds for visas, FE Week understands.

Home secretary James Cleverly unveiled plans earlier this week to cut down on net migration by increasing the minimum salary required for foreign workers to apply for a skilled worker visa by 48 per cent to £38,700.

Certain occupations on national pay scales, which includes teachers in schools, further and higher education, would continue to be exempt from the new higher earnings threshold and be eligible for a visa if earning at least £26,200, according to Home Office guidance.

Under guidance published in 2021, overseas FE teachers can apply for a skilled worker visa if they can speak, read and write English; are employed by a licenced Home Office employer sponsor; and the role pays at least £20,480 or the relevant minimum rate for FE teachers in England – £20,508 for an unqualified lecturer.

Applicants can also be recruited into FE if they have the following visas: a graduate visa, a youth mobility visa, a family visa, or a skilled worker visa.

Current FE workforce data from the Department for Education does not specify the visa status of staff in FE. Yet, the gap in FE recruitment remains large and sector leaders say that more effort must be made to fund colleges and training providers if the government wants to increase reliance on domestic workers.

At the end of the 2021/22 academic year, there were 5.4 vacant teaching positions across all FE providers per 100 teaching positions.

Ministers lined up to defend the migration reforms, claiming they would encourage businesses to invest more in training for domestic workers.

Robert Jenrick, who resigned as immigration minister days after the reforms were announced, said: “My message for big business is it is not right that they reach for the easy lever of foreign labour in the first instance – we want them to be improving and investing in British workers,” he said.

But FE leaders have flagged rigid benefits rules, low education funding rates, and low teacher pay as obstacles.

Emma Meredith, director of skills policy and global engagement at the Association of Colleges, told FE Week: “If the government is serious about filling vacancies it will need to invest more in colleges to open up opportunities for all people in the UK to train.

“That requires better funding rates so that colleges can attract and retain expert staff, more places for adults to learn flexibly whilst working, and more opportunity for people in receipt of Universal Credit to get the training they need.”

Other reforms included overseas health and social care workers not being allowed to bring in dependants, and applicants of family visas will have to declare a minimum salary of £38,700.

Simon Ashworth, director of policy at AELP, said these restrictions will make it harder for employers to attract candidates.

“The government clearly wants UK nationals to upskill but this once again highlights the need for a joined-up national skills strategy. Now, we’re left asking how can we train our own adult care workers when the funding rates are so low that it’s uneconomical for providers to deliver?

“As an absolute minimum, all apprenticeships should be funded at a rate of £5,000 per annum and the government needs to urgently look again at the exit requirements for apprenticeships. Perhaps then we might see the country able to fill its skills gaps,” he said.

Meredith agreed, and added that the migration changes could harm key sectors on the DfE’s priority list such as engineering, construction, digital and health and care.

“The skills bootcamps are part of the answer, but much more needs to be done over the long term to reverse the severe cuts to learning and training opportunities we have seen over the last decade and more. In 2003, there were 5.5 million learning opportunities in England for adults, now there are fewer than 1.5 million,” she added.

A DfE spokesperson said: “We are investing an additional £3.8 billion over this Parliament to boost access to a range of skills offers. This includes continuing to offer a range of Skills Bootcamps, free courses at Level 3 and working with employers to create more apprenticeship opportunities so businesses have access to the skilled workers they need.”

Migration reforms include:

Increasing the salary threshold for a skilled worker visa to £38,700
Overseas teachers exempted from the salary threshold
Reducing the number of occupations and review the “shortage occupation list”
Scrapping 20 per cent salary discount for jobs on shortage occupation list
Health and social care workers exempt from salary threshold rise but banned from bringing dependants
Increasing the minimum income for family visas to £38,700, from £18,600
UK citizens must earn £38,700 to bring in dependants
Minimum income for family visas raised to £38,700 to bring dependants in

Awarding giants silent as bids open to run ‘Gen 2’ T Levels

The awarding giants that deliver the seven T Levels put up for relicensing are keeping tight-lipped over whether they will bid for the contracts again.

Pearson, City & Guilds, and NCFE won the race to design and deliver the flagship qualifications during waves one and two of the rollout that got underway in 2020.

Their contracts run for an initial five years, at which point the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education launches another procurement to seek bids to “refresh” the courses.

The current awarding bodies must submit another bid if they want to be considered for running the qualifications in the future.

But all three have refused to say whether they will apply to recontract after IfATE launched the process for T Levels “Generation 2” last week, stating this decision is “commercially sensitive”.

FE Week understands that the awarding bodies have been running the contracts at a loss which could make them think twice about staying involved in T Levels. The running of the qualifications has also been difficult due to several layers of bureaucracy at decision-making level.

IfATE is responsible for procurement and management of the technical qualification (TQ) within T Levels, and the awarding body is responsible for designing and delivering the TQ; Ofqual regulates the TQ and the Department for Education issues T Level certificates, and is responsible for overall T Level policy.

There is also the new hurdle of the prime minister’s proposed Advanced British Standard, which would replace A-levels and T Levels in the next 10 years.

The attractiveness of T Levels has taken a hit since the announcement in October, with leaders warning the already difficult task of selling T Levels to parents, students and employers has now been made even harder.

IfATE addressed this issue when it launched the relicensing process, insisting that T Levels will, “in the meantime, remain the gold standard employer-shaped technical qualification at level 3 for 16- to 19-year-olds”, adding that it is “vital that the Generation 2 qualifications are refreshed and developed to the highest standard”.

While seven T Levels have this week been put up for relicensing, three of the qualifications – offered by NCFE in health, healthcare science and science – that were part of the wave two rollout have been left out.

All of those qualifications suffered with well-publicised issues which led to results being regraded in their first year. Various changes have been made to the content of the T Levels over the past year to make them fit for purpose.

A spokesperson for NCFE said: “For the health, healthcare science and science T Levels, we are under contract with IfATE and will continue to deliver these contracts. The future procurement is being managed by IfATE and we recommend you liaise with them directly on the timings of this.

“In terms of our bidding intentions for the T Level routes in the procurement round announced this week, this information is commercially sensitive. We continue to be focused on ensuring the T Levels we deliver are rigorous, high-quality, and meet the needs of those in industry. We will, of course, inform our providers of our plans, as soon as we are able to do so.”

Procurement documents, seen by FE Week, state the health and science T Levels “will be extended by one cohort”. FE Week understands that a separate relicensing process for the health and science T Levels will be conducted in 2024.

Pearson and City & Guilds both said their decision to bid for T Level contracts is also commercially sensitive.

NCFE delivers three of the seven T Levels part of this current tender, while Pearson & City and Guilds are responsible for two each. The contracts, expected to be awarded in July 2024 for delivery from September 2025, are worth £28,093,974 in total.

Chris Morgan, IfATE’s deputy director for commercial, said: “This exciting opportunity will see the first two waves of T Levels, rolled out from 2020, going back to market for bidding in three key sectors. We welcome widespread interest and look forward to receiving submissions from awarding organisations.”

The 7 T Levels up for relicensing

T Level name	Current AO	Contract value
Education and Early Years	NCFE	£5,526,068
Design, Surveying and Planning for Construction	Pearson	£3,426,668
Building Services Engineering for Construction	City & Guilds	£3,962,768
Onsite Construction	City & Guilds	£3,902,468
Digital Business Services	NCFE	£2,786,268
Digital Support Services	NCFE	£3,789,868
Digital Production, Development and Design	Pearson	£4,699,868

College ‘surprised’ at inspection just a year after ‘good’ result

A college group has been left shocked after being downgraded to ‘requires improvement’ just a year after it was judged as ‘good’ by Ofsted.

The TEC Partnership – which teaches over 6,500 students across several campuses in the Yorkshire and Humber region and Lincolnshire – was inspected in May 2022 and handed a grade two in a report published two months later.

Ofsted’s inspection handbook states that FE providers judged ‘good’ will “normally be inspected within five years of the publication of their previous inspection report”.

But the TEC Partnership received another call from the inspectorate in September 2023, during the busy student induction and enrolment period. Inspectors then conducted a three-day inspection between September 26 and 29, and published an overall grade three verdict this week.

A spokesperson for the TEC Partnership told FE Week the college group was “very surprised” by the timescale and resulting judgment, adding that there is an “emotional toll” attached to each inspection.

“We were repeatedly told there had been no trigger and it was within the usual inspection cycle as we were due an enhanced inspection,” a spokesperson said.

“We are very mindful of the emotional and organisational toll that an inspection takes on staff; particularly in September when we were in the throes of student induction and enrolment, and so soon after the previous inspection.”

Ofsted launched “enhanced” inspections of colleges in September 2022, which involves judging each college’s contribution to meeting “skills needs”. It has a commitment to inspect all colleges between September 2022 and 2025 using the “enhanced” inspection regime.

Ofsted reiterated this pledge when FE Week asked why the watchdog chose to reinspect the TEC Partnership within 15 months of its last ‘good’ inspection. A spokesperson added: “We use a broad range of information to assess risk and performance when selecting providers for inspection.”

The grade three report for TEC Partnership judged the college group as ‘good’ in every theme barring leadership and management, which was deemed ‘requires improvement’ and led to the same rating being applied overall.

Ofsted’s latest report said leaders have “recently developed a renewed vision and carried out a restructure of the organisation with the aim of developing a standardised and efficient partnership approach to their operation”, which includes approaches to “quality assurance, safeguarding and business support functions”.

However, the watchdog warned “too many” of the actions taken to achieve this “have not been implemented rapidly or effectively enough”. Staff have been left “uncertain about the reasons for the changes or what will happen next, and many express dissatisfaction with the approach that leaders are taking,” the report said.

Inspectors noted that across all TEC Partnership campuses, teaching and support staff work “hard to ensure that learners and apprentices receive a good quality of education”.

However, “too many” staff have “heavy schedules”, are “having to cover teaching vacancies” and have “high workloads”.

On top of this, while Ofsted found safeguarding to be “effective” it warned there are “inconsistencies” in this area across the college group’s different sites.

A TEC Partnership spokesperson said: “The report acknowledges that plans are in place and being delivered successfully and this seems at odds with the timeframe for the inspection and the grade profile for leadership and management.”

The spokesperson added that staff are “absolutely right” to raise issues around increasing workload due to staff shortages, which is a nationally recognised issue in education.

“Staff shortages due to difficulty in filling vacancies is our number one risk, as we explained to Ofsted, and we are doing all we can to address this,” they added.

“Since the inspection, improvements have been made to the salary scales for teaching roles in November and further improvements are being recommended to the board next week. All of this was planned before the group was re-inspected, as we were already very well aware of the challenges the sector faces.”

The spokesperson said the TEC Partnership has been through a period of “unprecedented but necessary change” since the inspection in May 2022, adding that the group is “fully committed to improving and are actively listening to staff concerns through additional engagement processes”.

Ban graduates from apprenticeships, says think tank

University graduates should be banned from becoming publicly-funded apprentices, a former government skills adviser has said.

The radical proposal is one of ten ideas put forward by EDSK, run by Tom Richmond, in its new report on addressing “neglected” routes for young people who don’t pursue an academic pathway through education.

The report is provocatively titled: “Broken ladders, why the ‘ladder of opportunity’ is broken for so many young people, and how to fix it”.

Skills minister Robert Halfon frequently uses the phrase “ladder of opportunity” in public speeches when describing government policies on technical education and apprenticeships.

The graduate ban would, the report argues, prevent apprenticeship levy funding being spent on “highly qualified existing workers” and protect spending for young people not following an academic path through education.

This comes following concerns that the apprenticeship system is becoming increasingly dominated by white-collar professionals on expensive, higher-level courses while the numbers of young people and lower-level apprenticeships are in decline.

“The simplest way to prevent apprenticeship funding being used on highly qualified existing workers is to ban anyone who holds a university degree or equivalent qualification from starting an apprenticeship,” EDSK said.

“This would protect apprenticeships as a route for those who do not want to follow an academic pathway after age 16 but without unduly stifling the breadth of opportunities available across the apprenticeship system, and without disrupting the wider operation of the employer-led levy funds.”

EDSK said young people who don’t go to university are comparatively “starved of political and financial investment” despite just 37 per cent taking three A-levels at school or college.

At the same time, job prospects have “stagnated” with 12.3 per cent of 16 to 24-year-olds in England not in education, employment or training (NEET), the same rate as in 2000, but down from a peak of 16 per cent in 2010.

Tom Richmond, a former government skills adviser, and now director of independent think tank EDSK, said: “Maintaining the well-trodden route from school to university cannot and should not come at the expense of the majority of young people who want to pursue other career options.

“Regrettably, our report shows that the first rungs of the ladder of opportunity for many school and college leavers are now broken and urgently need to be repaired.”

‘Purist’ position

However, training bodies lashed out at graduate apprenticeship ban plan.

Mandy Crawford-Lee, chief executive, University Vocational Awards Council, criticised EDSK’s “purist” position that “‘proper’ apprenticeships should be designed to meet the needs of under-served young people”.

“From a 2023 standpoint, we should dismiss the false notion that apprenticeships are the only suitable for school/college leavers unable to reach the ‘academic’ standards needed to take them to university,” she said.

And Simon Ashworth, director of policy at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, thought the idea would “significantly restrict employer choice”, arguing instead for a larger apprenticeship budget for “proper incentives to support young people access life-changing apprenticeship opportunities”.

EDSK also examines pre-employment training opportunities for young people and recommends redesigned versions of Kickstart and traineeships.

Kickstart was a temporary job creation scheme during the pandemic which paid employers to hire 16 to 24-year-olds on universal credit who were at risk of long- term unemployment.

A new Kickstart-style scheme should be introduced which is targeted at young people under age 21, those without a university degree, care leavers, or young people in contact with the justice system.

EDSK’s proposed new traineeship model would see trainees paid a £100 allowance and employers offered up to £5,000 in incentive payments. They would be attached to occupations to encourage progression to jobs or apprenticeships.

An equivalent “young traineeships” scheme should also be introduced providing 50 days’ work experience a year for 14 to 16-year-olds.

New English and maths qualifications that are linked to the 15 technical education routes should be launched to tackle the “adverse impact of GCSE resits and generic functional skills qualifications”.

Exam boards should be allowed to develop the new level 2 courses with half of the curriculum drawn from the existing functional skills syllabus, and the rest geared towards the relevant industry.

“This approach would allow the government to continue with their current level-based approach to setting English and maths requirements but would ideally mean that fewer students are prevented from pursuing their chosen occupation or apprenticeships due to inappropriate curricula or unnecessary learning goals,” the report said.

The government should also commission an independent review of T Levels to consider ways to improve take-up. EDSK suggests the review could look at ways to reduce the size of the flagship qualifications and re-model the foundation year to look more like a traineeship.

A DfE spokesperson said: “Under-25s continue to make up over half of all apprenticeship starts which will play an essential role in boosting our economy, creating jobs and transforming people’s lives.

“We are investing billions, so every young person has access to the high-quality education and training they need to succeed and continue to promote the range of exciting technical opportunities available to young people.

“Our new Advanced British Standard qualification will also make sure all young people get the opportunity to study a mix of academic and technical subjects, alongside continuing to study English and maths.

“So young people gain vital work experience, schools and colleges are required to offer every pupil at least one experience of a workplace by age 16, and a further experience by age 18.”

‘Inept’: Make UK speaks out after suppressing Ofsted

Manufacturing giant Make UK speaks out about “unjust” cliff-edge inspections after gagging a fatal ‘inadequate’ Ofsted report that turned into a ‘good’ just nine months later…

“They were inept, inexperienced and the wrong team who didn’t know what they were doing”, Make UK chief executive Stephen Phipson says when asked to describe his company’s first of three Ofsted inspections conducted this calendar year.

“If we hadn’t fought them, we would have closed down our training division on the back of what was a wrong judgment. That is unjust. How many other private providers have closed in the past because of a wrong inspection? That has got to be the question.”

Phipson was speaking to FE Week on Wednesday, hours after Ofsted published a glowing grade two report for the manufacturing representative organisation that trains almost 1,000 apprentices.

It came months after a different inspection team visited the provider in January and planned to slam it with an ‘inadequate’ judgment, which would have likely led to the Education and Skills Funding Agency kicking Make UK out of the apprenticeship training market.

The company, formerly called the Engineering Employers’ Federation, quickly lawyered up and was granted a judicial review after spending over half a million pounds on legal fees.

FE Week understands the January inspection team accused Make UK of delaying student progress due to a lack of qualified staff, poorly run courses such as failing to provide relevant materials for welding students, and failing to offer a programme that was tailored to students’ existing abilities.

The most significant allegation made was around safeguarding, namely that there was “misogynistic behaviour”.

“That was unfounded”, Phipson said. He told FE Week Ofsted based its misogyny allegation on an interview with two female apprentices that his team felt was “leading the witness” and extrapolated the view across the whole organisation. He said that the apprentices later denied ever using the word “misogyny” and claimed they said they didn’t even know the meaning of the term.

Ofsted’s grade two report for Make UK was wholly positive. Apprentices feel “safe”, “comfortable” and are “respectful to their peers,” the report said.

It also lauded leaders for providing “high-specification industry standard tools and equipment”, and said tutors are “highly qualified” but recognised there are “challenges with the recruitment and retention of staff”.

Phipson puts the January inspection outcome down to “incompetence” rather than malice.

For example, inspectors focussed on the apprenticeship standards offered by Make UK that have the smallest numbers of learners, rather than the level 3 engineering technician apprenticeship standard which most apprentices work towards.

“The inspectors simply didn’t understand the apprenticeship standards we offer properly,” Phipson said.

“Most of the inspectors had never seen this kind of engineering environment. They were people that inspect schools at the end of the day, and this was a very different thing for them. These are not children, these are adults in a factory setting.

“They were surprised at what welding looks like, you know, surprised at the ways that you have to physically train apprentices, which we’ve always done, and got very good results from.

“It raised a lot of alarm bells. We felt like we needed to give the inspectors a week’s training on what an engineering environment is like before they come in and inspect it. There seems to be a lack of real understanding.”

Make UK “rigorously” challenged the January inspection through Ofsted’s complaints process, which the inspectorate admitted this year was “not working” and is currently being reformed, but “got nothing out of it” which forced the firm to go legal.

The company was granted a judicial review on six grounds and a hearing was scheduled for November.

Ofsted conducted a mandatory follow-up monitoring visit of Make UK in August and identified positive provision. It then, off its own back, decided to run a full reinspection of the provider in October.

The watchdog then pulled out of the judicial review hearing at the eleventh hour for an undisclosed reason.

In the weeks leading up to the court case, Phipson’s lawyers warned him he had less than a 50 per cent chance of winning, and if he managed to it would set a high precedent for further judicial reviews against the inspectorate.

So why did Ofsted back away?

FE Week understands at least one inspector has been suspended during the proceedings. But Phipson claims Make UK has no idea why Ofsted stood down, but suspects it is a tactic.

“The honest answer to that is we don’t know. Something must have happened. But they left it up until the eleventh hour before they pulled out, which I suspect is always their legal tactic.

“If you look at most private providers, they haven’t got the resources to fight a legal battle against Ofsted, it’s expensive. You have got to employ good lawyers, the first challenge you’ve got is actually getting permission from a court to have a judicial review. So that in itself, I can tell you, was a mountainous task.

“All the private providers we speak to, they’re doing 100 or 200 apprentices, there’s no way they can employ hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of lawyers. We’re in a different position, because we’re a much bigger organisation, and we weren’t going to have any of that nonsense, because that really was outrageous what they [Ofsted] did.

“So I think what they do is they try and time you out, they take you right up until the court day almost, to see if you’re in or not.”

Phipson said the reinspection team, which was completely different to the January team, was “professional, experienced and knew what they were doing”.

“We had what you would classify as probably a model Ofsted inspection experience. It was great. This is the way it should have been all the way along.”

Summarising the experience, he said the whole year has been “nerve-racking” for his team.

“It’s been mentally stressful for them. They’ve gone through three Ofsted inspections this year. Can you imagine that?”

He said the overriding issue points to the fact that Ofsted inspections are a “point in time” judgment which is “unfair”.

“You can’t do a spot check on things once every five years. The modern way of doing assessments is continually assessing performance. And Ofsted must modernise and move to a position where there’s a continuous process of checking, inspecting, and not having a negative view on it but a view to try to help people to improve.

“Ofsted should be looking for ways to assist these organisations to improve their delivery of education, not just looking for black spots on a white sheet of paper once every five years.

“For independent providers, if you get a grade four ESFA withdraws your funding. There’s not enough light that’s been shone on the plight of people that invest their own money, only to have it taken away by a three-day visit. There’s got to be a better way of doing it.”

Ofsted declined to comment.