College staff have agreed pay deals of up to 10 per cent at 24 more colleges across the country, the University and College Union (UCU) announced today.
Bolton College has settled on a seven per cent pay uplift and an agreement not to deduct strike pay following three days of strike action earlier this month.
Elsewhere, Tameside College has agreed a 10 per cent increase and staff at South Staffordshire College have accepted a pay deal of 9.5 per cent rise.
The news follows 36 pay deals for the 2023/24 academic year, including seven colleges that called off recent strike action, after settling pay disputes with college bosses.
Since the results were announced in October, 60 colleges have agreed a staff pay rise.
Seven colleges are yet to settle their pay disputes. These are: Capital City College Group, Craven College, Croydon College, Farnborough College of Technology, Loughborough College, Myerscough College, Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group.
UCU general secretary Jo Grady said: “After a sustained campaign for better pay and conditions in further education we are proud to announce these latest pay awards, which will go a long way to helping college staff meet the cost-of-living crisis. These hard-won uplifts come off the back of our coordinated strike ballots across England alongside resolute bargaining and negotiating by our members.
“There are now just seven bosses who are shamefully holding and refusing to make an offer acceptable to our members. They urgently need to recognise that staff need manageable workloads and decent pay and get back to the negotiating table to avoid the possibility of further strike action.”
Below are the 24 new pay deals:
Bolton College – 7% and an agreement not to deduct strike pay
Bridgwater and Taunton College – 6.5%
Burnley College – 6.5%
Chesterfield College – 6.5%
Derby College – 6.5%
Halesowen College – 6.5%
Harrow, Richmond & Uxbridge Colleges – 6.5%
Hopwood Hall College – 8.5%
Lambeth College – 6.5%
London South East Colleges – 6.5%
Leicester College – 6.5%
Milton Keynes College – 6.5%
Newham College – 6.5%
North Warwickshire & South Leicestershire College – 6.5%
Northampton College – 6.5% + £1k non-consolidated
Preston College – 7%
Solihull College and University Centre – 6.7%
South Staffordshire College – up to 9.5%
Southport College – 6.5%
Tameside College – 10%
Telford College – 6.5%
Trafford College Group – 6.5%
West Thames College – 7%
Wirral Metropolitan College – 7.5% + £500 non-consolidated
Previously announced pay deals:
Abingdon and Witney – up to 9% plus £500 unconsolidated
Bath College – 6.5%
Bournemouth and Poole College – 6.5%
Brockenhurst College – 6.5%
Burton & South Derbyshire College – 6.5%
Bury College – 8.5%
Calderdale College – 6.5%
Cambridge Regional College (Camre) – 7%
Cheshire College South & West – 6.5%
City of Bristol College – 6.5%
City of Liverpool College – 6.5%
City of Wolverhampton College – 6.5%
Dudley College -6.5%
Ealing, Hammersmith & West London College – up to 7.1%
East Durham College – 6.5%
Exeter College – 6.5%
Furness College – 6.5%
Gloucestershire College – 6.5%
Hugh Baird College – 6.5%
Isle of Wight College – 6.5% + 1% non-consolidated
Leeds College of Building – 7%
Middlesborough College – 6.5%
New College Swindon – 6.5% plus £900 unconsolidated
Nottingham College – up to 7.3%
Petroc – 6.5%
Plymouth College – 6.5%
Runshaw College – 7.52%
South Thames Colleges Group – Average uplift of 7.09% lecturer grades with more for lower paid staff.
Employees with level 4 and above apprenticeships are in jobs most “exposed” to artificial intelligence (AI) compared to any other training route, according to new Department for Education research.
Jobs in education are also among the top 20 most affected occupations by AI, particularly by the rollout of large language modelling like ChatGPT.
A report published this morning by the DfE’s Unit for Future Skills measures the exposure of UK jobs to AI, rather than distinguishing whether a job will be augmented, aided or replaced by AI.
Researchers found employees who achieved apprenticeships at level 4 or higher are in jobs that will be most impacted by the AI advancement, usually in the accounting, professional services and IT sectors.
The findings are however based on a “novel” dataset and the reference period for the data means it mostly included level 4 and 5 apprenticeship frameworks available before the introduction standards and growth in higher level apprenticeships from 2017 onwards.
The report said that level 4 and level 5 apprenticeships are expected to lead to occupations with more exposure than jobs from level 6 apprenticeships. This is due to the high proportion of apprentice starts on standards such as ‘police constable’ and ‘registered nurse degree’, which would have low AI exposure.
Excluding these two standards would increase the level 6 average exposure to AI far closer to the level 4 exposure score, the report added.
Employees with qualifications at level 3 or below in building and construction, manufacturing technologies, and transportation operations and maintenance are in jobs that are least exposed to AI.
These are the standards most exposed to the progression of AI, and with more than 1,000 starts:
Level 4 business analyst
Level 7 accountancy or taxation specialist
Level 4 associate project manager
Level 3 data technician
Level 3 assistant accountant
Researchers found the insurance and finance sectors will change the most when considering the pace at which AI technologies are developing.
“More recent advancements in AI have been more applicable to software and technologies and either require skills in technical coding or use of specific software as part of the job, e.g. accountancy and finance,” the report said.
Conversely, industries least exposed to AI are environments that have more manual work and lower wages, which reduces the incentive to automate. These jobs include roofers, roof tilers and slaters; plasterers; and steel erectors, and sports players (as an outlier).
“Occupations requiring a lower level of education tend to be more manual and often technically difficult roles, which have already seen extensive changes due to developments in technologies, and it is unlikely to be cost effective to apply further automation,” research said.
The top three most affected jobs, according to the research, are management consultants and business analysts, financial managers and directors and charted and certified accountants.
Education advisers and school inspectors placed 14th on the top 20 list of most affected occupations.
Top 20 most affected occupations by AI
Meanwhile, the data shows female students are also in training which leads to more exposure to AI in jobs than males.
There is also a geographical difference in the AI impact on occupations. Workers in London and the south east have the highest exposure to AI across any geographical area of the UK, and the north east has least exposure to AI.
This is due to London having a higher proportion of professional occupations, including programmers, financial managers, and IT professionals.
‘Hallucinations’ found as AI summarises LSIPs
The government also published an evaluation report from an eight-week pilot that tested the use of AI on local skills improvement plans, which have been produced for 38 areas of England led by employer representative bodies.
Each report is around 30 pages long and contains vast amounts of intelligence regarding skills needs described in a variety of ways including sectors, occupations or cross-cutting/transferable skills, proposed local changes to help address the skills needs, and the operation of the DfE’s skills policies.
The AI pilot aimed to summarise each report in a single page, and researchers found 75 per cent were accurate with some lacking “key” details.
There was also some evidence of “hallucinations” – described in the report as a “phenomenon” where an AI model produces a confident response that is not based on real data or events – across at least three of the 38 LSIP summaries.
When asked whether they or their team would be likely to use the summaries in their work, the majority of employer representative bodies said this was “unlikely or unsure”.
The report said to produce a library of one-page, accurate and consistent summaries to provide a quick and easy overall impression of local needs and provide a reference for policy queries, there will need to be “further manual work to redraft and bring in ERBs’ comments”.
The government is pushing ahead with legislation to limit the impact of strike action in colleges.
New regulations have been proposed that would allow colleges to require staff to work during strikes so priority groups of students can still attend classes.
Education secretary Gillian Keegan first floated minimum service levels (MSL) last month and opened talks with unions for a voluntary agreement that would avoid legislation.
However, “not enough progress” was made, according to DfE, so powers under The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 will now be used to bring in regulations to limit disruption in education on strike days.
The department said that ten days of strike action by the University and College Union (UCU) and nine days by the National Education Union (NEU) took place in further education in the last academic year.
Further education and sixth form colleges will be in scope of the new rules, as well as the specially designated institutions.
Independent training providers and specialist post-16 institutions are not in scope as they are deemed at low risk of strike disruptions.
Keegan said: “Keeping children in school is my number one priority. Last year’s school strikes were some of the most disruptive on record for children and parents with 25 million cumulative days lost, alongside the strike action that badly affected students in colleges and universities.
“We cannot afford a repeat of that disruption – particularly as young people continue to catch up from the pandemic.
“Whilst I know many schools and colleges worked really hard to keep children and young people in face-to-face education during strikes, we must make sure that approach is applied in every school, in every area of the country.”
Colleges choose minimum staffing levels
Under the proposals, college leaders can choose to issue a work notice ahead of a strike which would list the staff needed to deliver a minimum level of service.
Staff that can be named in a work notice can include leadership, teachers and lecturers, teaching assistants, safeguarding leads, administration staff and other non-teaching staff.
The regulations will not tell college leaders how many staff they must direct to work during strikes, but they will specify which groups of students should be protected from disruption.
Priority student groups
The department is proposing that young people defined as vulnerable, students due to take exams and assessments (excluding apprenticeship end-point assessments), and children of critical workers be prioritised.
Students who are looked after by their local authority, are aged 25 and under with an EHCP, have a child protection or child in need plan, and/or receive special educational needs support will count as vulnerable under the MSL regulations.
Also on the priority list would be students due to take exams or formal assessments in the same academic year strike action takes place. This includes assessments for GCSEs, A levels, T Levels and other vocational and technical qualifications.
Apprentices however will not be included in this priority cohort. This is because strike action has a “limited risk” to the delivery of end point assessments.
The final group of students to be prioritised under MSL rules will be children of critical workers, such as health and social care workers, transport workers and certain education roles.
But for colleges to prioritise the attendance of those students, it is proposed that both parents or guardians must be critical workers, or that a single parent in a household is a critical worker.
For students not prioritised for attendance on a strike day, the DfE said it would “expect every effort” to provide teaching remotely.
There are also proposals to require colleges to implement rotas so that all students can receive some face-to-face education during strike action lasting five college days or more.
The same groups of priority students have been suggested for primary and secondary schools, and a separate proposal in the consultation would prioritise the attendance of all primary school pupils during a strike.
The consultation also floats introducing minimum service levels in universities for the first time, though that would be subject to a further consultation.
The government believes schools and colleges should remain open for three quarters of students during strikes, leaked documents show, as ministers prepare to legislate for minimum service levels.
But the Department for Education stands accused of acting in “bad faith” and deliberately “collapsing” talks with unions aimed at reaching a voluntary agreement.
However The Sunreported last night that Keegan would pursue a legislative route, quoting a source saying she had “tried her best” to avoid the approach.
A discussion document from the talks about a voluntary agreement for MSLs, seen by FE Week, states that the government believes there is a “particularly strong case for ensuring face-to-face provision” for groups of learners making up three quarters of the school and college population.
They include “vulnerable children and young people” including looked-after children and those with SEND, disadvantaged pupils, students due to take public examinations, the children of critical workers and primary aged pupils.
These groups “add up to roughly 74 per cent of school pupils and FE students”. Unions were told to “consider” the DfE’s proposals.
DfE ‘collapsing’ talks in ‘bad faith’
Unions learned of the plans to legislate via media reports last night.
Paul Whiteman, from the National Association of Headteachers’ union, told FE Week’s sister publication Schools Week the announcement had come “completely out of left field” and while unions were “in the middle of talks”.
“We were waiting for our next meeting date. We had met them three times and there was nothing to suggest that they would just collapse it other than the spectre of Number 10 in the background.
“As far as we were concerned we’d had three meetings. We were in the middle of talks, difficult talks yes, but we were acting in good faith. It seems they have acted in bad faith.”
Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, posted on X that “education unions attended every meeting the secretary of state requested. None of us ‘refused’. We were expecting more discussions last week and this week. Instead we get this.”
He added that minimum service levels “are a profoundly illiberal policy by a government that has lost the argument”.
“Nobody wants to go on strike. It is action that is taken as a last resort when all else has failed. But passing a law which effectively removes the right to strike from groups of employees is obviously done in order to weaken unions and the voice of employees over their pay and conditions.”
He said he feared the legislation would be used “to impose a miserly pay award next year which will further erode the real value of teacher pay and worsen a recruitment and retention crisis which is causing huge damage”.
David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said the DfE’s proposals have “potentially far-reaching implications for colleges”, adding that it is “critical that the unique and distinct position of colleges is fully recognised should any regulations be taken forward”.
A specialist college PE teacher of 30 years has been named FE lecturer of the year in the 2023 Pearson Teaching Awards.
Sixteen winners from across the UK’s schools and colleges have been honoured for their dedicated work in education.
Nine winners were presented their gold awards at a glitzy ceremony in London on Saturday, with another seven revealed during the week on the BBC’s The One Show.
Awards were presented last night by TV presenter Gaby Roslin, who also presented the first awards in 1999.
Now in their 25th year, the awards celebrate the best teaching across the UK and thousands of nominations were received for the gold award winners.
Education secretary Gillian Keegan said: “The impact of a teacher on a child’s life can be immeasurable – I know it was for me. I am so grateful to all the staff in our schools and colleges for everything they do.
“Teachers change lives and we should all feel a sense of gratitude to those we are celebrating today. Thank you again and congratulations.”
Sharon Hague, Pearson UK’s managing director of schools, added: “The hard work that goes into teaching and showing up for students day in and day out cannot be underestimated. Congratulations to all winners and thank you for your continuous efforts.”
Rachel Bown, SEND PE practitioner at Fairfield Farm College
Bown is “not only a Special Educational Needs teacher, with over 30 years experience, she is also a representative for Team GB in the Triathlon, a survivor of a brain tumour, a funeral celebrant, and a published author.”
She is an “outstanding teacher” who always “leads by example” and encourages her students to “reach above and beyond what they thought they could ever achieve.”
FE team of the year
HRUC Uxbridge College, Performing Arts Department
The performing arts team at HRUC Uxbridge College is known as the “heart of the college” due to their “vibrant performances and family-like bond” which is admired across the school.
With many of the team still performing professionally, they have been recognised as “truly credible role models and inspirations to students.”
Excellence in special needs education
David Jones, additional learning needs transition co-ordinator at Pembrokeshire College
Jones is described as “a very special guy” who supports young adults with additional learning needs and disabilities and other vulnerable groups of learners.
According to his colleagues, he “doesn’t stop supporting the young people in his care at the end of the working day; he will continue working in his own time, covering roles that aren’t on his job description, to make sure he helps the learners he supports.”
Teacher of the year in a secondary school
Dr Jo Turner, early careers teacher lead at Callington Community College
Turner’s science students say her classes “make you feel indestructible.”
She is known to parents as being “a role model as a woman in science with a PhD, a dairy farmer, a fudge maker, and an inspiration for their children.”
Headteacher of the year in a secondary school
Farhan Adam, Headteacher at Crown Hills Community College
Farhan is a headteacher in Leicester who has made it his mission to “change the lives and extend opportunities for everyone in the school community.”
He is described as “a truly inspirational, humble and caring headteacher who leads by example, relentlessly driving his initiatives for the enormous benefit of his students and staff.”
Impact through partnership
Hope School
Hope School is a special school which “raises awareness of attachment theory and the psychological impact of trauma.”
Through its HEARTs project, and in partnership with the local authority, they are “sharing their skills and expertise to have a positive impact on other institutions, enabling them to have the best outcomes possible.”
Teaching assistant of the year
Lorna Cannon, teaching assistant at Margaretting at Church of England Primary School
In her 20 years of working at Margaretting Church of England Primary School, Cannon has “transformed the school with her creative flair,” making “hundreds of bright displays that proudly show off the children’s work.”
Some of her resources “have been so successful, they are now being used across the school trust.”
Unsung hero of the Year
Manjit Nahal, lead lunchtime supervisor at Bridgetown School
Nahal is “the beating heart of Bridgetown School where the children thrive due to her attentiveness and support.”
Her “Top Table award scheme at which pupils are selected to eat lunch with the Head Teacher on a table laid with linens, flowers and place cards” is a huge motivator for children.
Headteacher of the year in a primary school
Maria Carlton, executive headteacher at Bewley and Kirklevington Primary School
Carlton has “a magical, warm and welcoming approach combined with a firm moral purpose and a simple determination to provide the very best for her community.”
She has “created an environment, supportive of individuality and difference, where pupils, staff and the community are able to thrive.”
Teacher of the year in a primary school
Matthew King, deputy head of science at Trinity St Peter’s
King is known as a “joker” and “role model” who cares “deeply for the children in his care and the whole school community.”
He “sees things in the children that they don’t always see in themselves” and uses his “enthusiasm and energy to motivate the rest of the team as well as the children.”
Digital innovator of the year
Nino Trentinella, head of the art & photography department at Sutton Grammar School
Trentinella is a “USA Presidential Award-winning teacher and a recognised specialist in Blended Learning and Artificial Intelligence Art.”
She has “created an innovative curriculum and is the first teacher to embed cutting-edge technologies (Stereoscopy, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics) into the entire art and photo curriculum from Year 7 through Year 13.”
Making a difference – secondary school
Sharples School
Sharples School’s motto, “learn, dream, achieve”, is the “bedrock of all their work.”
In their community, Sharples is known for being so much “more than a school”. Each teacher goes “over and above to support the students” and to “open their eyes beyond Bolton” to see how they can contribute to the wider community.
Lifetime achievement
Sheelagh Rusby, quality improvement officer at Dumfries and Galloway Council
Rusby has been in education for 40 years and has been described as “the kind of person you would want in your corner through thick and thin.”
She has “championed community schools, enterprising schools, rural skills, and developing the young workforce before these terms became part of the more recent educational ‘lingo.’”
Making a difference – primary school
St. Oliver Plunkett Primary School
St Oliver Plunkett has the “highest aspirations for its students and looks to hard-wire the belief that they can achieve to the highest levels.”
The school “operates in stark contrast to the challenges the broader community faces, with a calm, orderly and nurturing atmosphere.”
Outstanding new teacher of the year
Zac Moxon, head of music at Chiswick School
Although starting out as a trainee maths teacher, “Zac was asked to take on the role of Head of Music at
Chiswick School and the impact has been truly remarkable.”
His lessons are “creative with endless elements of performance across all ages and abilities as well as being filled with academic rigour.”
Early years team of the year
The Woodland Nursery
Woodland Nursery is “embedded into the heart of the community” and has created a “unique environment that truly inspires children to learn and explore.”
It is here that “families, staff, and nature work in harmony to provide an enabling and emotionally safe environment.”
Skills minister Robert Halfon has continued to oppose calls for changes to the apprenticeship levy, despite the UK chancellor’s admission that he is “very open” to reforms.
At Treasury questions in the House of Commons last week, Conservative backbencher Luke Evans asked chancellor Jeremy Hunt to “look at red tape around the apprenticeship levy” which he said was making hiring apprenticeships in his constituency “very difficult”.
Hunt replied that he was “very open to reforms on the apprenticeship levy, providing they stick to the fundamental principle that any investment is not within in-house training that would otherwise have happened but is transferable, passport-able training that someone can take with them if they move to another business”.
However, Halfon doubled down in defence of government policy, which he described as focussing on “quality, not just quantity”, in a Westminster Hall debate on the levy this week.
Halfon faced three further fellow Conservatives calling for apprenticeship reforms, including from former ministers. Thérèse Coffey, who was briefly deputy prime minister under Liz Truss and was fired as environment secretary by Rishi Sunak this month, said the “lack of flexibility has been a consistent complaint from many employers”.
Among Coffey’s suggestions was diverting more “surplus” levy funds to small businesses and supply chains.
“The apprenticeship levy was critical in providing a pathway for individuals to realise their potential and for businesses to thrive in that ever-evolving landscape. The regulation and the design of the scheme needs to evolve to keep at pace,” she said.
Level 7 apprenticeships were also in Coffey’s sights. She asked Halfon to carefully look into the issue of firms developing apprenticeships just to use their levy.
“I ask the minister to really interrogate what is happening, particularly with level 7 qualifications. I have heard stories, although I have not actually got the proof to back it up, that the police superintendents’ course had become a level 7 apprenticeship so that police forces could use their levy. That is not really what it was designed for.”
FE Week could find no evidence of a level 7 apprenticeship for police superintendents.
This week’s debate was secured by Stoke-on-Trent North MP Jonathan Gullis, who was briefly minister for schools last year. Gullis currently co-chairs the all-party parliamentary group for apprenticeships and earlier this year published “The New Conservatives’ plan to upskill Britain” along with fellow tory MP, Lia Nici.
Gullis argued that red wall constituencies have “been hit especially hard” by the decline in apprenticeships going to young people and small businesses.
“In northern and coastal constituencies, the number of apprenticeships has fallen, while it has grown in places such as Wimbledon and Chelsea,” he claimed.
Any unspent levy funds should be spent on “training home-grown talent that will help close the skills gap” and the amount levy-paying businesses can transfer to smaller businesses should be increased from 25 per cent to 35 per cent, he argued.
And Conservative MP Peter Aldous, chair of the all-party parliamentary group for further education and lifelong learning, said the levy has been “successful in creating higher-level apprenticeships in larger firms” but reforms were now needed to “provide apprenticeship opportunities for younger people and new labour market entrants.”
Aldous made the case to extend the two-year expiry date for businesses’ levy firms, which he said leads to “rushed financial decisions, rather than strategic workforce development.”
He also argued for an increase to the apprenticeship minimum wage to improve retention and a “flexible approach” to the 12-month minimum duration.
Halfon launches ‘operation machete’
Other than shadow skills minister Seema Malhotra, no other Labour MPs were present for the debate. Halfon admitted the government was “trying” to slash regulation.
“I have a phrase that I use in the department: I call it Operation Machete. I do not like regulation, and there is too much of it. We are doing a huge amount in this area,” he said.
Removing the cap on small business apprenticeship starts, and “significantly reducing” red tape onboarding new apprentices and the new expert provider group were cited as examples.
He also referenced the latest figures on apprenticeship achievement volumes improving by 20 per cent compared to last year. Full-year apprenticeship achievement rates are not due to be published until March 2024.
But he made no commitments or indications on calls from his own side for levy reforms, pointing out that “98 per cent of the apprenticeship budget was spent in the last two years”.He concluded: “Yes, we always have to look at our reforms and make sure things work, and I have listened to everything hon. Members have said in the chamber today. However, it is vital that we give employers and providers the time and stability to deliver gold-standard apprenticeships across even more apprenticeships and that we offer a ladder of opportunity to every young person and to those who want to train and retrain throughout their lives.”
Last week, I was at the Association of Colleges conference, where I attended a breakout session called ‘English and maths, the elephant in every room’. For me, having spent almost 30 years working in the adult education sector, the real elephant in the room is the lack of investment or priority given to those adults in the community who lack basic literacy and numeracy skills.
Don’t get me wrong. It was heartening to hear the government’s commitment and investment in English and maths education, including the perceived benefits of the Advanced British Standard. We were told that 64 per cent of young people who don’t achieve good English and maths grades at 16 go on to achieve them by the age of 19. That is truly remarkable and clearly the policy drive to see all students study English and maths to 18 is working.
And yet. What about the 36 per cent who become adults still having not achieved good grades in these vital subjects? Eight million adults in the UK have maths skills lower than those expected of an eleven-year-old, meaning lots of rewarding and high-level jobs will likely never be available to them. These are the adults who come to institutions like mine to improve their skills, yet there has been no funding increase for adults over 19 requiring English and maths for 10 years.
Adult participation in English and maths is declining nationally but the need is not. What is stopping adults from gaining these essential (functional) skills? We know that addressing the numeracy and literacy needs of adults is a multifaceted investment that pays off in terms of individual wellbeing, economic development, social cohesion, addressing inequality and overall national progress. So why is there a lack of investment?
Adults who have been through the school system and perhaps two years of college without achieving a ‘relevant qualification’ deserve a different kind of intervention. It is possible a sizeable proportion of adults who lack essential English and maths skills have an undiagnosed learning difficulty and disability. Other factors that contribute to low literacy and numeracy may be socioeconomic or health-related.
There has been no funding increase for 10 years
Meanwhile, at a time when participation in ESOL is growing exponentially, have we considered that adult learners with an ESOL need may not be lacking in numeracy skills? Language barriers are hindering the development of literacy and numeracy skills, yet no focus or priority has been given to the appropriateness of maths education for people for whom English is not the first language.
Measuring the achievement or competence of adults against a qualification framework may be where our problem lies. If what adults truly need is functional maths and English, why do we measure their success through the lens of an outmoded assessment model?
For example, I had a learner in my level 1 functional skills maths class who was elated that she could help her son with his primary school maths homework without feeling inadequate. Incidentally she did not pass her exam and is part of the national statistic, but in her eyes she had succeeded. I am sure across the country every college and adult community education learning organisation will be able to give an array of examples of learner successes that are not related to passing an exam.
The flexibility of Multiply funding is helping to address some of these issues in maths teaching. Colleges are effectively using Multiply to bridge the rigidity of the maths curriculum by recognising the diverse reasons adults may have low numeracy. Only time will tell if these tailored and flexible approaches to adult education will deliver the sort of measurable results politicians look for when making funding decisions.
What’s certain is that further investment is needed right now for adults lacking basic skills. They are today’s workforce and today’s parents. Improving their numeracy and literacy skills will not only enhance overall productivity and economic competitiveness in the short term but enable them to more fully participate in activities with plenty of medium- and long-term benefits too.
We all know that the pandemic has left an inerasable mark on the education landscape which, in parts, we are still mopping up. While this year’s cohort of year 12 learners are the first to have returned to sitting full GCSE exams, I am quite confident that all of you reading this would agree that in the aftermath of the pandemic, they are not the same as the year 12s we used to teach.
A new type of learner has emerged, one whose skills and experiences differ from those of the pre-pandemic era and one whose pastoral needs and requirements outweigh those of their pre-pandemic counterparts.
But this isn’t an article to join in with staffroom complaints about our new type of learner. This is my call to ask you as educators to recognise and celebrate their emerging skillsets and to embrace the need for adaptation and empathy.
Indeed, the comparison itself is counterproductive. Instead, by embracing the skills that learners have acquired during the pandemic rather than those we think they have lost, we can create environments where they feel valued and understood. This, in turn, can foster a more positive and supportive learning experience.
The student becomes the master
One of the most significant changes the pandemic brought about is the acceleration of digital proficiency among students. Whether they were attending virtual classes or engaging in remote learning, students had to become tech-savvy at an astonishing rate.
This newfound digital literacy is an invaluable asset. It allows students to access information, collaborate and communicate in ways that were previously unimaginable. As educators, we should recognise and continue to harness this digital proficiency despite most teaching returning to pre-pandemic methods.
The difficulty is that most young people’s digital skills have now surpassed their tutors’. The right response isn’t to bury our heads but to encourage them to share their technological skills with their peers while we continue to integrate technology into our lessons (and hopefully catch up).
Shift + CTRL
In addition to digital proficiency, the pandemic forced students to respond to rapidly changing circumstances, making adaptability one of their most valuable skills. The ability to adjust to unexpected situations and find creative solutions is a trait that will serve these learners well in life.
In the classroom, we can remind learners of these skills they already possess and create opportunities for students to showcase this adaptability. Encourage them to solve real-world problems and adapt their learning methods to suit their individual needs. By doing so, we empower them to become resilient and resourceful individuals.
The pandemic period also altered the locus of control for many learners. They were tasked with managing their own schedules and staying on top of assignments independently. This experience has cultivated improved time management and self-discipline.
As educators, we should not only recognise these skills but also help students refine them further. Encourage the use of planners, time management techniques and goal setting. By doing so, we equip learners with essential life skills that extend beyond the classroom.
A unique diversity
The disruption of traditional teaching methods during our learners’ secondary school years gave rise to a wide array of learning experiences. Students engaged with diverse resources from online platforms to hands-on projects to meet their educational needs.
This diversity of experiences has nurtured an awareness of different learning methodologies, approaches and practices. We can leverage this to create more inclusive classrooms in which they can take ownership of their learning journey.
Embracing the post-Covid learner requires a paradigm shift. We must move away from comparing students to the pre-pandemic ‘normal’ and instead focus on nurturing their unique skillsets with empathy and flexibility.
The world of education has changed and will continue to do so. Rather than resisting this, we should be at the forefront ensuring students’ needs are what drives its evolution.
The ‘new normal’ is here to stay. Comparing what is to what was only stops us from enacting what could be. After all, the one constant in all this turbulence is our responsibility to ensure our educational approaches reflect the needs and strengths of our learners, whatever their backgrounds and experiences.
The 2017 reforms to the apprenticeship system were ambitious, and rightly so. They demonstrated two fundamental understandings: first that for apprenticeships to succeed they needed a long-term, sustainable funding source, and second that they had to be rigorous if they were to win the confidence of employers and learners. The apprenticeship levy was designed to deliver the former while a host of other measures would ensure the latter.
From my conversations with some of the country’s leading apprenticeship employers, it has become increasingly clear that several of the provisions within the 2017 reforms that were aimed at driving growth and quality are now proving counter-productive and restricting take-up.
A recent roundtable discussion on the topic hosted by Ofsted outstanding apprenticeship training provider, MBKB and attended by some of the country’s leading apprenticeship employers repeated many of the calls I have heard from industry.
What’s the rush?
While the levy has successfully driven employer-funded apprenticeships, there is a feeling among some in industry that the two-year expiration on levy funds is inadvertently encouraging the adoption of a ‘spend it or lose it’ mentality. This leads to rushed financial decisions rather than strategic workforce development.
We need a more nuanced and flexible approach to the levy. Extending the expiration period could encourage more thoughtful expenditure, aligning training initiatives with long-term business strategies.
Tailored to suit
There is also a common feeling that reform is needed to address the rigidity of apprenticeship minimum duration requirements.
The 12-month minimum length of apprenticeship, for example, while suitable for some programmes, does not necessarily align with the operational demands of others. For instance, I have heard that certain schemes, such as in retail and customer service training, would be more effectively delivered in shorter, more intensive programmes – to the benefit of apprentices, training providers and employers. Meanwhile, others are being completed too quickly.
A reform to the system that legislates for a more flexible approach to minimum length requirements would enable better tailoring of apprenticeships to specific job roles and industry needs.
Pay and progression
Poor retention rates in apprenticeships also demand attention. The feedback from industry leaders suggests that a combination of factors (including the apprenticeship wage structure and lack of clear progression pathways) contributes to high drop-out rates.
Some have argued that increasing the apprenticeship minimum wage could positively impact apprentice retention rates by providing financial stability and demonstrating the value of their contributions. In turn, this would enhance job satisfaction and commitment. This is an option, among many, that the government could consider to improve retention.
A changing world
The way forward is not to dismantle what we have built but to listen, adapt and refine. This refinement is not just about making minor tweaks; it is about ensuring our apprenticeship system remains relevant, responsive and effective in a rapidly changing economic landscape. Modifying our approach as the circumstances change is a cornerstone of good policymaking.
Continuous examination reforms in the UK since 1986 underscore a crucial lesson to policy makers: complex policies demand calculated, large-scale improvements over time, ensuring long-term benefits and stronger foundations for future generations. There is no reason this dynamic logic of policy making should not be applied to improving the apprenticeship system.
As we see a shift away from traditional emphasis on university degrees, apprenticeships stand to play a pivotal role in filling the skills gap. This will only happen if they are attuned to the evolving needs of learners and employers.
While the foundations of the 2017 apprenticeship reforms are robust, targeted amendments are necessary – and will continue to be. By refining the levy, introducing flexibility in programme lengths and addressing retention challenges, we can ensure that our apprenticeship system remains a key driver of skill development and economic growth.
And by continuously drawing on the wisdom of industry, we can sustain them as the pivotal and adaptive avenue for career advancement today’s ever evolving world requires.
