Lawyers deny claims DfE acted unlawfully in AEB contract row

Government lawyers have dismissed claims made by a major group of training providers that the Department for Education acted unlawfully in the recent national adult education budget tender.

Learning Curve Group and its seven subsidiary training companies filed a lawsuit against the DfE in August following its unsuccessful bids for a new national AEB contract.

They claimed that the department breached its duties under procurement regulations in its evaluation of their bid, specifically in relation to the group’s responses to tender questions about future learner numbers (question 1B1).

Learning Curve Group claimed it was “deprived of a real chance of winning a contract” and the DfE’s Education and Skills Funding Agency, which ran the procurement, provided “brief” and “vague” reasons for low scores in the tender.

The providers demanded a re-run of the procurement, as well as damages.

Defence lawyers acting for the DfE denied Learning Curve’s allegations that it had not provided appropriate feedback in its response to the tender, claiming that its response complied with the relevant regulations.

The case rests on a row over Learning Curve’s Q1B1 submissions – 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 considered.

Learning Curve’s providers did not list the number of forecasted learners for each course, so they received a score of 50 for Q1B1, the DfE said.

Learning Curve claimed its response satisfied the criteria for a higher score and the DfE’s response to its tender did not justify the score of 50.

Defence documents filed by the DfE this week and seen by FE Week confirmed that  “…there is a gap in the response which means an element of the question has not been addressed at all. The response fails to provide the forecast of the number of learners per course which is an entire deliverable asked for in the question and on the template to be used for responses.” 

This paragraph was taken from Learning Curve’s tender award letters from the department.

The DfE denied that it was under any obligation to clarify its justification for Learning Curve’s score any further than stated in the paragraph above, countering Learning Curve’s claim that it was entitled to further clarification.

Later in the defence, DfE lawyers stated that, if the providers had not “chosen to submit materially similar responses (on occasion identical)” to Q1B1, “there would have been sufficient space to address the number of learners per course”.

They point to “other bidders” that “were able to provide all the information requested by the question within two pages and receive a score of ‘very good’”.

Learning Curve’s claim that a “reasonably well-informed and normally diligent tenderer” would evaluate Q1B1 alongside a separate “volumes template”, which also required information about forecasted learner numbers, was also denied.

The DfE’s defence explained that the AEB tender guidance issued by the ESFA “expressly required” bidders to provide learner numbers in both the Q1B1 and the volumes templates. They also claimed that Learning Curve’s volumes template only recorded forecasted learners by sector subject area, not by course as required.

Learning Curve’s claim that each of their Q1B1 submissions “satisfied the scoring criterion for the award of a score of at least 75” and “the reasons stated in the award letter do not provide any lawful justification for the award of a lower score” was written off by DfE lawyers. This part of the claim, they said, was “embarrassing for want of particulars”.

National AEB contracts were finally awarded in late August after Learning Curve Group agreed to remove an injunction that prevented the ESFA from entering in to contracts with winning providers while there was a live legal challenge.

But delays to the procurement outcomes, and the awarding of two further contracts after 54 winning bidders were announced, drew fierce criticism from training leaders.

Learning Curve Group declined to comment. The case continues.

Colleges should cautiously embrace the Advanced British Standard

Yesterday’s announcement regarding the Advanced British Standard presented a bold vision for the future of post-16 education. 

In light of the ever-shifting political landscape, it is clear that these proposals may undergo modifications or even bear a different name when transformed into official policy. Therefore uncertainty remains, notwithstanding potential consultations and the publication of a white paper. 

Nonetheless, these proposals challenge the existing status quo in post-16 education and open the door to substantial discussions on reforming the educational landscape for this age group.

Over the past five years, there has been a noticeable policy shift towards emphasising technical education reform including the T Level consultation in 2018 and the skills for jobs white paper in 2021. 

However, these initiatives still retained the concept of separate paths for technical and academic education. 

The current announcement seeks to eliminate these distinctions by merging both streams under the umbrella of the Advanced British Standard, allowing students to blend technical and academic routes. From the perspective of further education colleges, this reimagining is a welcome development, and it’s heartening to see the sector integrated into these proposals.

Nevertheless, the success of these proposals will hinge on their funding and practicality. 

The proposal to increase students’ study time to align with international standards (1,475 hours over two years) comes with a substantial cost. 

For further education colleges, this means a 315-hour increase in the standard full-time curriculum, far surpassing the 195 hours mentioned in yesterday’s policy document. 

This adjustment would require the equivalent of at least 25 new teachers per college for a medium-sized general further education college with 2,500 full-time 16-18-year-old students. The recruitment challenge alone poses a significant hurdle. 

The proposed £30,000 tax-free incentive over five years to address new teacher attrition is indeed a positive step and will aid in retaining newer staff. 

However, retaining experienced staff remains just as crucial for colleges and is not addressed by this incentive. A broader increase in the base funding rates is the only viable long-term solution to this issue, enabling colleges to offer competitive salaries that encourage the long-term retention of staff.

The recommendation to mandate the continuation of maths and English education until age 18 is also complex. 

While there is no doubt about the value of these subjects to learners and their future career prospects, it must be acknowledged that there is already a high demand for maths teachers. This could pose a significant challenge for colleges that are already coping with a surge in students requiring these subjects post-pandemic and a shortage of teachers.

Furthermore, increasing teaching time by 15-20 per cent necessitates equivalent space. 

Current avenues for capital investment in colleges are insufficient to bring about the necessary changes, particularly given re-classification limiting alternative options. Addressing this investment gap is imperative; otherwise, many of these efforts will be stymied by a simple lack of physical capacity.

Putting aside these funding challenges momentarily, these proposals demonstrate a readiness to reshape the educational landscape. 

They offer any incoming government the opportunity to boldly address the country’s skills needs through more comprehensive reform, with further education colleges at its core, than might have been possible previously. 

As a sector, we should cautiously embrace this potential.

A college-led model to help learners transition into the workplace

For the past decade I have run the Media Learning Company at City College Norwich, an educational programme which emulates setting up and running a media production company. Post-level three students join us for an academic year and gain real-life experience across the media sector.

Riding high from the ‘anything’s possible’ spirit of London Olympics and Paralympics, entrepreneurial learning was an educational buzz-term in 2012. Of the many schemes and courses that launched into the further education sector at that time, ours has been an ongoing success.

Local production company, Eye Film had been looking at ways to give young people proper production training. They had started conversations with the college and I was lucky enough to land the job of taking it forward. The job description was rather open and I soon realised that there was no route map for what the Media Learning Company was to be.

I was a little terrified; the students were due to start just a couple of days after me. But very soon I embraced the freedom to try radical new approaches to learning. Coming from a traditional university teaching background, this felt exhilarating.

We began by developing a model in which students were in five days per week, 9 to 5, plus additional production hours, creating real media content for real organisations while fulfilling the requirements of their qualifications. I watched a lot of Ted talks and tried out all sorts of structures and ideas based on research and practitioners who I found inspiring. Some worked, lots did not.

With support from the college and mentorship from Eye Film, we outlived the educational trend from which we were born and have since solidified our position as a course with very high educational and employment impact. The Media Learning Company offers real experiences of genuine value.

Having worked with hundreds of organisations big and small, there are two constants across every brief we engage in: high pedagogic value, and ethical grounding. Each project has to provide excellent learning opportunities – the chance to develop new skills such as scriptwriting, casting or using new equipment or techniques, and Media Learning Company is not here to mop-up projects companies don’t want to pay a professional to do. Collaborations have to be meaningful and of value to the students up to and beyond completion.

Their impressive work ranges from blockbuster movies to household TV programmes

Students start the year by establishing their own production company. They decide their company values, name, logo, promotional film and website design. This not only shows them the basics of setting up their own businesses but serves a deeper purpose of creating a collective identity they can draw on under pressure.

Over the years, students have pitched and produced cross-media campaigns about weighty subjects such as county lines and domestic abuse. They have run live events, fashion shows, scripted dramas, cast, crewed, animated, designed and were entrusted with telling real people’s stories from our own communities within documentaries.

Though the educational model was the key to our unique learning environment, the qualification remained a rigorous backbone. We initially delivered a Foundation Diploma, but have recently moved to the UAL Level 4 Professional Diploma in Technical & Production for the Creative Industries.

The sector has changed immeasurably over the past decade with the rise of online content creators, streaming platforms and now AI. Yet our graduates are finding ways to adapt and excel in this quickly changing landscape. They have gone on to set up their own award-winning businesses, worked in the production of TV, film, radio, animation, live events, marketing and video as well as going to university. Their impressive work ranges from blockbuster movies like Disney’s The Little Mermaid to household TV programmes like Grand Designs and Love Island.

The key to this resilience rests entirely on the real-life nature of the course. Meeting clients, working and reworking projects until they are signed off. Project by project, building endurance, skills and guts. Taking risks and surpassing what they thought themselves capable of, often without safety nets.

Even when things went wrong, which of course they do, learning happens. They have stepped up and taken the leap, and now there are only more possibilities before them.

Isn’t that what education is all about?

Training ‘accidental’ scientists is key to tackling STEM skills shortages

Young people are finding that it’s never too late to start a new career in science, even if they lack the formal STEM qualifications that employers might normally expect. Others have fallen into a science-related job by accident, but now require certain qualifications and training to progress to the next level in their career.

Identifying these ‘accidental’ scientists and giving them access to flexible, higher-level training, which doesn’t require them to attend university could help employers to attract and retain the talent they need to grow their businesses. Crucially, it could also help to close the STEM skills gap which, if left unaddressed, could undermine the UK’s economic prosperity.

Recent data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows that demand for STEM skills is growing. In April to June 2023, just over three million people were employed in science and technology roles, which represents about 9 per cent of the UK’s total workforce.

During the pandemic, the world of scientific research and development was thrown into the spotlight as pharmaceutical and biotech companies were forced to recruit teams of unskilled people to support them in the race to find an effective Covid vaccine. Some retail and office workers took up opportunities to work in laboratories or help with the delivery of vaccination programmes. Many of these people have since chosen to continue their career in science but have got stuck in low-level roles doing data entry or sample preparation, unable to take things further.

What these individuals might lack in terms of formal qualifications, they make up for in a willingness to learn and attain new skills. Some already have several years of work experience under their belts. As a provider of higher-level science apprenticeships, The S&A Science Academy can spot people with the right characteristics and aptitude to complete a three-year course leading to Higher National Diploma and a recognised apprenticeship qualification, accredited by the Institute of Apprenticeships.

Accidental scientists are spread across our workforce now

Initially, some learners are unaware that doing a science apprenticeship could lead to a degree-level qualification, and that they can choose to specialise by opting onto an adjacent course in chemical science or life science. These career-minded learners are not only well-motivated to complete their training, but they are also committed to their employer and often have a positive impact on workplace culture and productivity long after their training has finished.

While places on Level 5 technician scientist apprenticeship programmes are currently in high demand, there are a variety of entry points available for those with relevant experience and those without.

For example, a learner can train to become a skilled technician scientist by attending training on a day-release basis in agreement with their employer, or through a period of block study. As well as enriching their company’s talent base, employers that choose to place the training and development of their employees in the hands of an Ofsted-regulated apprenticeship provider are able to do so free of charge. They also aren’t liable for employer national insurance contributions while the training is underway.

By far the most popular choice for employers and learners is to complete training on a day-release basis. This means that the learner spends 80 per cent of their time at work and 20 per cent with the training provider. This option is popular with employers because they start to see the value of the training in the workplace immediately. It’s also popular with learners as they gain a sense of progression as they work, and they can clearly see where their study is taking them.

Accidental scientists are spread across our workforce now, with large and small employers alike. They are in jobs that are easy to replace and just waiting for the opportunity for a more fulfilling career. Many more are in our colleges, unaware of the opportunities available to them to jump across from adjacent courses.

With STEM skills in growing demand, all in the education sector could be doing more to look-out for this under-realised talent pool and persuading businesses that upskilling these employees could become a key differentiator for them in the future.

ONS reclassification demands a new way of thinking about staffing issues

An immediate impact of the reclassification of FE colleges as public sector institutions has been that the Department for Education now requires colleges to follow the overall financial control framework for all central government bodies. This is set out in HM Treasury’s Managing Public Money guidance, which aims to achieve value for money across the public sector and touches on many areas, including staffing costs. 

While a level of financial decision making remains delegated to individual institutions, certain classes of transactions require prior approval from the treasury. This includes controls over senior pay and some severance arrangements.

Senior Pay Controls

Colleges face a constant battle to attract and retain talent. This is exacerbated by the fact that they often have to compete with other areas of the education sector as well as the private sector. 

Prior to reclassification, colleges were generally free to set levels of senior pay, subject to applying a value-for-money test and affordability within their own budgets.

Now, treasury approval is required where a remuneration package for a new starter is valued at or above £150,000 per annum or where any bonus arrangements could exceed £17,500 per annum. 

Approval is also required if adjustments to an existing employee’s pay will take them over these thresholds and for pay awards above 9 per cent for those already above them. 

For these purposes, remuneration includes pay, fees, pension “in excess of normal levels” and allowances. Private medical insurance and salary sacrifice schemes should not be provided unless the treasury has given prior approval.

The limits on a college’s delegated authority have been made relatively clear. However, the criteria that the treasury will apply in deciding whether to approve any request to exceed the limits remain less transparent.    

Settlement agreements

Like other employers, colleges often want to enter into settlement agreements. These avoid costly and protracted HR disputes and provide protection from future litigation. 

Prior to reclassification, colleges were generally free to decide to make payments to settle employment disputes as long as they could demonstrate that any sums paid were affordable and value-for-money. 

Since reclassification, colleges continue to have delegated authority to pay an employee’s statutory and contractual entitlements on termination. They can also make “special staff severance payments” that do not exceed the equivalent of three months’ pay or £50,000, whichever is lower.

Any proposed payments exceeding these limits will generally require treasury approval.  

The three-month limit on severance payments is not consistent with other parts of the education sector.  By way of example, academies only need to seek approval for severance payments that exceed £50,000. 

It should also be noted that unless the right to pay in lieu of notice is specified in an employee’s contract, any such proposed payment may be regarded as non-contractual and therefore count towards the limits on special staff severance payments. 

Colleges should now consider including an express right to pay in lieu of notice in their contracts of employment. 

As with controls on senior pay, the treasury’s criteria for granting approval in any particular case are somewhat opaque.

What it means in practice

Institutions are being required to comply with guidance that was written with central government in mind rather than a college sector that has until recently had a much greater level of autonomy over financial matters.

The handbook due to be published in the next year may provide more clarity for colleges on their obligations. In the meantime, colleges may wish to think about three immediate practical effects:

Forward thinking is key. Treasury approval takes time. Factor in a number of weeks, if not months for decisions. 

Approval is not guaranteed. Factor this possibility into your risk management plan.  Applications to exceed the delegated authority limit will need to be supported by a detailed business case, and DfE will often ask to see legal advice in support of that business case.  

Keep an audit trail. Even when treasury approval is not required it will remain important to show how decisions were arrived at, and in particular how each represents value for public money. 

In all cases, colleges should be willing to defend decisions on pay or an exit in the face of regulatory or public scrutiny.

FE needs to be its own most vocal champion – now more than ever

Amid party conference season, it is easy to get lost in the flurry of policy announcements and commitments. Each sector vies for primacy, setting out its needs and a compelling case for investment and prioritisation. Stepping back, you begin to see common themes and consistent messages.

Persistent recruitment and retention issues are present in almost every sector, further exacerbating existing skills gaps. It has been encouraging to see, for the first time, a Skills Hub at the major party conferences, shining a light on these issues.

Further education plays an integral role in supporting sectors that are essential to the UK’s prosperity and productivity, now and in the future – from social care and early years to digital innovation. Yet we shouldn’t just consider what FE can do for other sectors; we must also recognise the importance of the sector itself and champion its needs. This point has been brought into sharp focus through data and expert insights in our new spotlight report.

Alongside skills gaps and workforce demand projections, the views of prominent voices including Association of Colleges chief executive, David Hughes, London South East Colleges group principal and CEO, Dr Sam Parrett CBE and NCFE’s head of policy, Michael Lemin present a stark and sobering picture. But what also comes through loud and clear is not just a diagnosis of the issues. There are tangible solutions to these challenges.

First and foremost, it is evident that we need to close the gap between school teachers and FE educators. But the challenge is much more complex than simply ensuring parity of pay. We are in a catch-22 situation whereby FE supports many industries that command far higher pay than our sector can offer. Individuals are trained up to enter well-paid jobs and are then reluctant to re-enter FE to teach. It’s both a credit to the career paths we forge and detrimental to attracting skilled professionals to the classroom.

We need to be ambitious, bold and assertive

We need to look at a broader set of measures, such as upskilling our existing educators. It’s something we’ve seen, for example, through the work we’re doing with WorldSkills UK on the Centre for Excellence.  Since its launch in 2020, more than 2,000 educators have benefited from the programme which equips leaders and teachers with the knowledge and skills to raise the quality and standard of technical and vocational learning within their organisations. The programme’s next phase will see even greater numbers of educators in growth sectors such as digital, net zero and advanced manufacturing.

While much of the focus is rightly on the outcomes this produces for learners, what can’t be ignored is the impact this has on retaining people in the sector.

Another point that emerges from our report is the importance of industry partnerships – something we’ve long known to be essential. It’s this reciprocal nature that makes localised approaches so powerful – from relevant and accessible work placements to answering regional skills needs in a targeted way. 

The overriding theme throughout the report is that FE can and must be a better champion for itself. In my experience, most people in our sector are modest, committed professionals who don’t seek the limelight. But we do need to do better when it comes to showcasing why it’s such a great sector to work in, the diverse opportunities it offers and the impact it delivers.

This all feeds into a wider need to raise the profile of vocational and technical education overall. Much has been done in this regard over the past decade, but we must not be complacent about the journey we need to go on with employers, parents and learners themselves. As well as vocal support from central government, it is vital that we have our own say in ensuring the sector is not overlooked. We need to be ambitious, bold and assertive about ourselves and for our learners.

This report (alongside upcoming others on social care, early years and digital) is designed as a conversation starter. It doesn’t contain all the answers, but it does add further weight to ongoing discussions and debates around the future of FE. Our work is too important for these conversations to go quiet.

Employers may be in the driving seat, but the skills system’s engine has stalled

According to the latest Employer Skills Survey, employers invested £46 billion in on- and off-the-job training in 2022, including the wage costs of employees while they were training.

That’s a big number, but Learning and Work Institute analysis shows it’s actually a 26 per cent fall in training investment per employee since 2005 after accounting for inflation. That’s a huge drop, equating to £15 billion in lost investment each year.

With the government also investing £1 billion less each year in learning and skills in England, it’s no wonder we’re falling further behind other countries.

Who gets the training?

There’s been little change in the proportion of employees getting training each year. This sits at around 60 per cent. But the average number of days’ training per employee is down from 4.3 to 3.5.

Part of this could be a shift to new ways of learning. For example, two-thirds of firms provided online training compared to one-half before the pandemic. It’s also possible that employers are getting more bang for their buck and spending money more effectively.

Nevertheless, they are spending half the EU average on training. So are they really twice as effective at spending it? Given that overall our productivity is lower than many EU countries, this is questionable.

The sensible conclusion is that employers are clearly investing less in training; there’s not enough jam and it is being spread ever more thinly.

The Employer Skills Survey also shows that the decline in employer training investment per employee is broad-based, but larger in sectors that were already investing the least before. Construction, one of only two sectors to see a rise over the past decade, invests more than twice as much per employee as sectors like retail.

This holds back growth and productivity; unsurprisingly it is the sectors with the lowest investment in staff development and training that generally have the lowest productivity. And the fall is starkest among large firms: training spend per employee is down one-third in large firms. This suggests that the apprenticeship levy hasn’t increased large firms investment in skills.

The problem with policy

The reasons this is all happening are complex. Lack of investment in training is both a cause and a consequence of poor economic growth since the global financial crisis, coupled with ongoing political uncertainty for much of the period since. Employers will invest less in skills if they can’t see their markets growing. To stop this negative feedback loop, we need better economic growth and certainty for businesses to invest.

But it’s also down to shortcomings in skills policy. Our research shows that policy increasingly just passively follows employer decisions, rather than also seeking to tackle areas of under-investment. For example, three-quarters of skills bootcamp participants already had a level 3 qualification, while the number of adults improving their literacy and numeracy each year is down 62 per cent over the decade.

It’s little surprise then that you’re three times more likely to get training at work if you’re a graduate than a non-graduate. But a society that doesn’t invest enough in more than half of its population isn’t one that’s going to succeed long-term. The government should be more active in setting a framework  within which employers make their choices. So that we tackle, rather than reinforce, market failures.

There have been so many initiatives, many with the stated aim of putting employers in the driving seat. Their consistent focus has been on how employers can help to direct the publicly-funded skills system. Far less attention has been given to how we can get employers to invest more and use skills in the workplace.

And yet, this is ultimately the heart of the challenge. There is a good case for setting local skills investment plans the task of increasing employer investment in training as well as setting priorities for public funding.

The findings of this report make one thing certain: We must do better, or face sleepwalking ever onwards into stagnation.

Toxic? Online learning can be better than the classroom

This year’s Annual Apprenticeship Conference in Birmingham saw Ofsted chief inspector, Amanda Spielman take to the stage to declare that online learning and self-study can be a “toxic combination” if overused or used too soon in an apprenticeship. Spending too much time studying at home or alone could “can damage apprentices’ motivation and enthusiasm” and unsurprisingly lead some to drop out.

In reality, when executed properly online learning offers a formidable platform that can prove even more effective than in-person teaching in some instances.  

We have not conducted an in-person session for two years. And having successfully transitioned from in-person to online teaching, we have consistently maintained our Ofsted ‘outstanding’ status.  

Online vs online 

Key to understanding our success – and much of the derision directed towards online provision – is the distinction between virtual classroom-based learning on one hand, and the loathed (but sadly much embraced) pre-recorded ‘lessons’ on the other.  

Crafting effective engagement strategies is crucial to maintaining high-quality learning experiences online. Platforms like Moodle and pre-recorded content have serious limitations in advancing student learning. Their inflexible content lacks interactivity and real-time feedback, limiting engagement. They may be suitable for basic level two courses, but advanced apprenticeships demand a deeper understanding and require more innovative techniques. 

Instead, a hybrid model that combines virtual face-to-face sessions with small interactive cohorts and personalised one-to-one monthly sessions maintain vital flexibility. It offers a learning experience that is engaging and tailored to individual needs, providing apprentices with the chance to choose content according to their needs. They can focus on areas where they require assistance or skip to coaching sessions where they feel more confident. 

Furthermore, well-structured webinars with focused content can effectively replicate in-person interactions offered in traditional classroom settings. They aren’t without limitations; students are easily distracted and studies show that keeping webinar durations to around two to three hours enhances engagement and overall productivity. Regular breaks also play a crucial role in sustaining focus and optimising cognitive performance.

We have not conducted an in-person session for two years

Follow-up one-on-one coaching sessions further reinforce learning by bridging the gap between theory and practical application. As apprentices develop, transitioning from tutoring to coaching model shifts the focus onto real-world application.  

Elevating Education with Advantages 

Online learning also fosters a unique ecosystem of peer support and cross-sectoral conversations among apprentices from diverse backgrounds that in-person provision can’t consistently deliver.  

The logistics of arranging eight to ten students from different sectors to sign up to the same programme at the same time and in the same location is immensely challenging. Roll-on, roll-off recruitment allows apprentices to be seamlessly recruited across various sectors and locations.  

Apprentices can engage with colleagues in open cohorts at any time. This virtual format breaks down geographical barriers, enabling cross-sector interactions that enrich experiential learning.  

Meanwhile, virtual breakout rooms facilitate collaborative learning and enable apprentices to gain insights into challenges across various sectors. This promotes a holistic perspective that transcends the limitations of physical classrooms. Virtual classrooms can, in some cases, be more effective than physical ones.  

The benefits of online learning also extend to educators. An online setup reduces stress for tutors who no longer have to worry about timekeeping. No one is disadvantaged by traffic making students late in the morning or tiredness affecting focus on late afternoons. Tutors also cite reduced stress and improved teaching focus in an online environment, which can only benefit learners. 

Online learning benefits everyone else too, as it reduces our carbon footprint. Not only does that bring us closer to our net-zero commitments, it reduces costs for learners and educators at a time when the cost-of-living crisis poses a real risk to finances. 

Our corporate responsibility to deliver good outcomes for our students is a commitment we are devoted to. We would not deliver learning online if we could not provide high-quality education effectively.

Expertly implemented, online learning is far from toxic. Rather than damaging motivation and enthusiasm, it can deliver learning more effectively than traditional classroom-based provision for many learners. 

Inspectors recognise that in our practices. We hope a new chief inspector will too for the benefit of all apprentices.

Advanced BS? Perhaps, but hot dog, there’s good news for skills too

If you’re an online person, you’ll be familiar with the “hot dog” meme, known formally as “we’re all trying to find the guy who did this”. If you’re not aware, it’s taken from a previously obscure comedy sketch in which a man in a hot dog costume drives a novelty hot dog car into a shop window, causing massive damage. 

The hot dog driver then walks around in his costume with all the other customers, tutting about who on earth would have done such a stupid thing, and promising retribution when he finds them.

Anyway, changing topic completely, Rishi Sunak gave a speech today in which he told the Conservative Party conference everything that was wrong with education and what needed fixing. 

Actually, that’s not quite true. He stood there with big brown eyes and told the audience about the power of the Tories’ education reforms. He loves them. Really, really loves them. Especially the ones Michael Gove and Nick Gibb did, about knowledge-rich curricula and academic merit.

But skills? Those brown eyes looked up sorrowfully. 

Skills was a mistake. A 30-year mistake. 

Abolishing diplomas? A mistake, presumably. Cutting FE funding? Definitely a mistake. Introducing a new, gold-standard A level equivalent qualification called T Levels? The biggest mistake of all. 

Because it turns out he doesn’t like A levels after all. Or T Levels. That’s why he’s fixing the mistakes that unnamed other ministers made and scrapping them all, including the knowledge-rich curricula and reformed exams he was so proud of five minutes ago. 

A whole new qualification, the prime minister announced.

“Advanced BS,” someone sitting next to me muttered.

“Hold on,” I whispered back. “Let’s hear the end of the argument.”

“No,” he said. “That’s the name: Advanced British Standard.” 

“Oh come on,” I said. “Really? There’s no way they’ve picked something with that stupid an acronym. That would be like abolishing T Levels in the middle of the government’s own ‘T Levels Week’!”

I’m not saying there’s nothing good here for FE. Indeed, I can’t remember the last time a Conservative prime minister even talked about FE in a conference speech. Rob Halfon certainly welcomed it. In the hall, Gillian Keegan cried. (This was just after the PM had described her as a former degree apprentice, so it’s possible she was crying because she didn’t want anyone to know. She doesn’t make a big deal of it. One to check). 

Even Nick Gibb welcomed it, though I suspect he’ll need some remedial dental work once he’s unwound his rictus grin.

More money for FE lecturers is obviously a good thing. Additional funding and research into supporting maths and English re-sits, though less universally popular, is in my view a good thing. 

Explicitly recognising that improving terms and conditions for school teachers, without doing the same in FE makes the latter’s job so much harder, is long overdue. Extending learning hours for these new qualifications is also a good thing, and brings us back into line with other advanced education economies, as well as before the various changes to post-16 funding that some hot dog-loving guys cut successively since 2010. 

Normally, conference announcements come with supporting information that is as lean as the prime minister. But not this time. Shortly after he left the stage, the DfE published a 45-page document telling us all about the plan. 

‘Presented to Parliament’, it says on the front. I mean, maybe. It’s possible that we really don’t need HS2 because someone had managed to nip down to London from Manchester in the intervening period. Or maybe the document had been published in such a rush that no one realised this boilerplate sentence wasn’t true. Both possibilities are good!

I opened the document randomly. “For a long time, governments have claimed technical education is equal to academic, but in practice it is not”, it says.

Next sentence, “Since 2010 we have worked with employers to reinvigorate the quality of technical education and training in this country: we have introduced 18 T Levels…..”

Boy, when the prime minister catches the people who insisted we had parity of esteem and introduced these T Level qualifications that are for the scrap-heap, there’ll be a reckoning.