Brokers fail to raise SME awareness or starts in DfE apprenticeship pilot

The government has been told to explore alternative ways of engaging small and medium employers (SMEs) in apprenticeships after a multi-million-pound brokerage “pathfinder” failed to raise awareness or boost starts.

An evaluation report for the Department for Education’s “SME apprenticeship brokerage” pilot was published on Friday and outlined “significant barriers” including strict eligibility criteria and administrative struggles.

The DfE set aside £2.5 million in 2022 to fund the trial which involved brokers providing SMEs with support to set up apprenticeship service accounts, selecting the appropriate training provider and apprenticeship standard, and recruiting the candidate for the role.

The pathfinder operated in four areas in the north of England where apprenticeship starts have declined substantially in recent years and to support the government’s “levelling up” agenda: Greater Manchester and East Lancashire, Merseyside and Northwest Lancashire, West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire, and the North East.

Researchers at Alma Economics found that SMEs who had apprenticeship starts through the pilot were “happy with their experience and were satisfied with the support the broker and the training provider had provided”.

However, take-up of the brokerage offer was “lower than anticipated”, the report said without providing any figures.

Payment problems

Payment for brokers was dependent on evidenced outcomes with SMEs at three stages. A 25 per cent payment was made when the broker engaged with an eligible employer. Upon completion of onboarding, where the SME was “equipped with the knowledge and support needed to make an informed decision about recruitment”, a further 50 per cent payment was made. A final 25 per cent payment was made when the SME recruited their first apprentice. 

The report said brokers noted that not having an upfront marketing budget “limits their ability to raise awareness of the pathfinder, and accurately target eligible employers”.

It added: “Most brokers and training providers felt that levels of engagement with SME Brokerage Pathfinder were lower than expected and attributed this slow start to engagement with needing time to make local connections, and to understand the nuances of the sectors involved.”

Interested SMEs not eligible

Eligibility criteria for the pathfinder “resulted in interested businesses not being eligible”, researchers also found.

Brokers mentioned having to turn down businesses based on not having been trading for a minimum of 12 months, having had an apprentice in the last two years, or being outside of the geographic scope of the pilot.

Starts ‘much’ lower than projected

Researchers said SMEs who got involved in the pathfinder “valued support in choosing the right apprenticeship qualification and getting assistance registering with the apprenticeship service”.

But overall the trial has faced “significant challenges, including the number of starts being much lower than projected, meaning alternatives should be explored”.

The DfE refused to release the projected or actual starts numbers for the project.

Other barriers included concern from brokers around entry points as set by training providers “leading to delayed starts and not being compatible with the schedules of employers”.

A lack of suitable candidates was “identified as a potential barrier to starts, with challenges in finding the right person to take on the apprenticeship”.

SMEs also struggled with the administration associated with starting an apprentice, including registration for the apprenticeship service account. This was especially the case for micro-organisations where all staff members are multi- functional, and there is no dedicated administrative or HR staff to handle onboarding requests”. 

Researchers made a series of recommendations including the need for changes to the payment model and eligibility criteria. But ultimately the DfE was told to “explore alternative models of support for similar programmes in the future”.

SEND pilot flexibilities rolled out

The DfE also released the evaluation report for its apprentices with SEND pilot on Friday. 

Following the success of this trial, the government now allows all providers to use a flexibility that allows apprentices with learning difficulties but without a pre-existing education health and care plan (EHCP) or statement of learning difficulties assessment (LDA) to work towards a lower level of functional skills.

FE Week first reported on this move in March. You can read the full evaluation report here.

How we’ll go about reforming the level 3 landscape

One of the real joys of my new ministerial role is that I can build on my previous experience as a minister at DfE when I worked on 14-19 education and on my own career in schools and colleges teaching vocational qualifications alongside A levels. 

I passionately believe that we need a system that meets the needs of every single learner and of employers, that provides high-quality routes where excellent technical and vocational education can stand alongside academic.    

I know from meeting many of you working in FE in recent weeks that there’s already so much to be proud of, but there is so much more that I want us to do together. There is a consensus among those of you to whom I have spoken that the qualifications landscape has got to get better. None of us want to see poor-quality qualifications or inferior outcomes for learners. 

We’ve already started to make progress, setting up Professor Becky Francis’s curriculum and assessment review which I hope many of you will contribute to.   

We have also taken immediate steps to pause the removal of public funding from qualifications that was due to take place on 31 July 2024, and we have launched a focused review of qualifications reform. 

The review will consider whether we should remove funding from these qualifications and other qualifications due to be defunded in 2025. I know some have argued that we should just shelve this work, but I’m not willing to go slow on the work to improve our qualifications or to leave uncertainty hanging over the system.   

I’d like to take this opportunity to share more about how this review will work.   

Principles   

It will focus on the objectives I set out above.   

We remain committed to T Levels and their place as an excellent offer for young people. It’s been a pleasure meeting students and providers who have benefited from this ambitious new qualification.

I am pleased that we’ve been able to commit to rolling out new T Levels, but we also need to look at how delivery of current ones can be improved so as many young people as possible have the opportunity to enrol and succeed on one.  

As part of a wider offer for young people I recognise that we need to retain other qualifications alongside T Levels and A levels.

Where the review identifies the balance of learner and employer needs within a sector requires level 3 qualifications other than T Levels and A levels, we will maintain the relevant qualifications. This may well be in areas that overlap with T Levels, which is a change from the approach taken by the last government.  

The quality of qualifications needs to continue to improve, so where we decide to keep qualifications we will continue to work with you to reform them to improve outcomes.   

As part of the review, we will also identify qualifications with low or no enrolments. When resources are tight, I don’t think it’s right to retain public funding for qualifications that aren’t attracting learners unless there are very special circumstances relating to them. So funding will continue to be removed for these qualifications in line with the already published dates.  

What next?   

I will be overseeing the review and will continue to engage on what we need to do to build better outcomes for all students. We will work with the sector to gather views as we take decisions on the best way forward. 

As promised in July, we will communicate the outcome of the review before the end of the year.   

This is an exciting time for further education because we have a real chance to reshape the landscape so that it creates opportunities for everyone. I am confident that this sensible and measured approach will help us build on the common ground that so many of us share.   

DfE boosted early bootcamp payments after provider complaints

Training providers delivering skills bootcamps received higher upfront fees in wave three of the rollout after complaining to the Department for Education (DfE) they felt they were teaching “for free”, a delayed report has revealed.

The DfE published an evaluation of its flagship employment skills programme today, 18 months after the 2022-23 ‘wave three’ period ended.

It reveals that contractual payments for delivering the crash courses, which last up to sixteen weeks and are meant to include a guaranteed job interview, were changed following cash flow concerns by providers.

Providers told researchers they needed more cash upfront because “resources can be a bit tight”.

The DfE agreed to increase the upfront fee for learners enrolling and starting a bootcamp, known as ‘milestone one’ from 30 to 45 per cent.

In a bid to incentivise providers into getting learners into a new job or a better role, the department also decreased the second milestone payment for learners completing the course from 60 to 35 per cent, and increased the final milestone payment from 10 to 20 per cent.

However, increasing the weighting of the final payment, which requires the learner to share proof of a positive job outcome with the provider, reduced the “financial attractiveness” of delivering bootcamps.

The DfE’s target of 75 per cent of learners achieving a positive outcome, and 100 per cent being offered an interview was criticised as “unrealistic”.

One anonymised provider told researchers: “If you’re very niche or working with employed co-funded learners you’re pretty much guaranteed an outcome, otherwise it’s very challenging when you’re working with unemployed learners.

“Our average job outcome across all our programmes is around 40 per cent, which is in line with the national picture for getting people into employment.”

Some providers shifted their focus towards co-funded or self-employed learners because it was “easier” to receive the full payment.

According to figures released last week, almost two-thirds of skills bootcamp learners in the previous wave, covering 2021-22, failed to achieve a positive job outcome in the second year of the flagship programme’s rollout, new government data has revealed.

And almost two in five bootcamp starters from this cohort dropped out before the end of their course.

The DfE has blamed the delay in releasing this data on the Covid pandemic and the general election.

However, FE Week understands there have been issues between providers and the Education and Skills Funding Agency over evidence required to receive the final payment for positive outcomes.

The report failed to provide any statistics showing how many learners completed their course or moved on to a new or better job.

However, it said “few participants” had achieved successful outcomes, although many felt “more confident” about their skills.

Attendance of bootcamps was low, with just under half of learners attending all or three quarters of their training, researchers found.

Overall, learners were “largely positive” about their course, although some complained they were “too complex and the timescales too short to learn the required knowledge and skills”.

According to the Greater London Authority, the estimated cost per bootcamp learner is about £3,500.

The DfE declined to comment.

How to make the further education sector neurodiverse-ready

Around one-quarter of all students are neurodiverse, but are our campuses and estates designed in a way that caters for everyone? How well do sector leaders understand the significance of environment in meeting neurodivergent students’ needs, and are they equipped to do so?

The first step in designing buildings that are inclusive of neurodiverse learners is to understand exactly what the term means.

Neurodiversity is the concept that brain differences are natural variations and that some people’s brains simply work in a different way. For the 22 per cent of students are neurodiverse, these differences may mean they are diagnosed with one or more neurological conditions within a broad range that includes autism, dyslexia and ADHD.

Understanding these differences and variations lays the foundation for ensuring that every student has an accessible and comfortable learning environment. By accepting that a student’s learning experience is impacted by how their brain processes information and by their surroundings, we can keep their specific needs in mind right from the planning phase.

It’s equally important to understand the differences between SEND (Special Educational Needs and Disabilities) and neurodiversity. Although there is a BSI standard relating to neurodiversity in the built environment which aims to help with the design, creation and management of neurodivergent-inclusive environments, it is more likely to be overlooked in the design industry.

While SEND and neurodiversity differ, there is an overlap. Some conditions considered neurodiverse, including ADHD, autism, dyslexia, dyscalculia and dyspraxia can also be classified as SEND conditions. However, some are not.

Therefore, engaging at an early stage with key stakeholders such as staff, experts, parents, students and those with lived experience is essential to fully integrate needs into a building’s design. That work shouldn’t end at the consultation stage. Doing so ongoingly can help leaders to prioritise, plan and eliminate any issues or missed steps.

Some adaptations might be simple, quick fixes

Working with experienced suppliers who understand the needs of educational buildings used by neurodiverse students can also lead to quicker project completion. The more specialists are involved from the beginning, the more likely students will be able to thrive in inspiring, safe and sustainable learning environments.

To ensure an environment is suitable for neurodiverse students, colleges must start by assessing their buildings.

Some adaptations might be simple, quick fixes: the brightness of artificial lighting, access to natural light, removing distractions or making smaller breakout spaces available.

Larger considerations include the ability to move around. Many neurodiverse learners, for example, can struggle in large or loud environments and feel more comfortable in a low-stimulus space. Teachers can factor this into their teaching plans – but will do so most effectively if classroom layouts and the building itself allow it.

Although changing behaviours, attitudes and practices can help to create a more accessible learning environment, it may not always be enough. Some buildings may require long-term estate planning and refurbishment if the structure is not suited to accommodating a wide range of learning styles.

Having said that, adapting to meet the needs of a diverse range of students will also help to futureproof estates and ensure sustainability, not only in terms of decarbonisation but also in terms of maintaining high applications and admissions rates.

However, doing so will be a steep hill to climb without government funding.

Sadly, of the £2.6 billion allocation announced in 2021 to create 20,000 new specialist education places, the FE sector will see only a very small fragment. Current projects plan for only 160 places for young people with SEND in colleges — less than 1 per cent of the total.

This investment is a significant step in the right direction for schools, but many if not most of these students will transition to the FE sector before long. Welcoming them into unsuited environments will only add to pressure on staff – a pressure that is already associated with recruitment and retention challenges in the school sector.

So the funding settlement will need to change, but in the meantime, there’s no reason not to make progress where we can.

Whether that’s through quick fixes or embedding neurodiversity in already-scheduled projects, ensuring neurodiverse students can thrive should be a priority now.

What the curriculum review needs to know about generic skills

Internationally and for many years, there has been a focus in education on ‘generic skills’, also referred to as ‘soft skills’, ‘life skills’, ‘essential employment skills’, or even ‘employability skills’. Here, however, curriculum reform over the past 14 years has focused mostly on schools and on knowledge acquisition. So how does our system now compare, and what does it mean for colleges?

Our new report reviews the extent to which generic skills are delivered in the 14-19 curriculum in ten jurisdictions. We investigated academic and vocational programmes in England, China, Estonia, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Ontario in Canada, Scotland and Singapore.

There are, of course, different takes on what generic skills are. However, across all ten jurisdictions there is a very clear top three: communication, collaboration and personal qualities (e.g. character, personality, self-management).

The next most common were ICT or digital skills, creativity, critical thinking and citizenship. The notion of being able to learn independently was also mentioned by many jurisdictions.

In every jurisdiction, generic skills are part of the vocational curriculum. In England they are an explicit part of study programmes for 16- to 19-year-olds. However, most of England’s learners start to be exposed to generic skills two years later than their international peers. Indeed, unlike England, most of the international systems we looked at include generic skills for the full 14-19 cohort.

In most jurisdictions, those on academic programmes still mostly have generic skills integrated into their curriculum, typically in the form of projects. These projects, we find, are widely considered to work well in helping to develop generic skills like collaboration.

However, they can be taught variably, particularly in jurisdictions where the focus was on high-stakes exams and knowledge-based pedagogy. This is certainly the case in England, where optional extras like extended project qualifications and Duke of Edinburgh awards, for example, remain the purview of higher-income families.

England is an outlier in a number of ways

Schools in England can make their own decisions about the extent to which they include generic skills in their curriculum provision, but they are not compelled to do so. This further drives inequalities in terms of opportunities and outcomes.

This is not the case for vocational learners. They are getting a better deal than their academic counterparts, because generic skills are an explicit part of their study programmes.

Of course, the economic and social context of the jurisdictions as well as the design of their education systems and the status of teachers in them all have an impact on their inclusion of generic skills.

In some countries, like Germany, a questioning and democratic approach to teaching means generic skills like communication and collaboration are taught naturally within the curriculum.

And in Finland, a longstanding commitment to a particular set of generic skills means they are embedded as a matter of routine.

Meanwhile, systems with fluidity between academic and vocational options are more likely to ensure all learners receive equivalent generic skills that are relevant to their programmes.

The high status of teachers in most jurisdictions also means they get the initial training and ongoing professional development to support them to make the most appropriate choices for embedding generic skills within their curriculum areas.

In England, however, we do not have fluidity between academic and vocational areas for 14-19-year-olds, with the notable exception of provision within FE colleges. In these settings, learners are typically better supported to develop a range of skills alongside subject-specific ones.

Our selection of jurisdictions is mostly made up of PISA high-performers with a range of education systems. Among them, England is an outlier in a number of ways.

With a curriculum review underway and a different culture at the DfE, it’s clear that renewed interest in generic skills is required to make us internationally competitive and begin to tackle challenges at home like youth unemployment and skills shortages.

In this, there is much to learn from the experience of those delivering study programmes in colleges, as well as from abroad.

Read the full report, Generic skills in the 14-19 curriculum: An international overview here

How to launch a staff-friendly volunteering strategy

Introducing a volunteering strategy can seem daunting, especially when staff workloads are already high. However, with thoughtful planning, it’s possible to create meaningful opportunities without overburdening staff. 

Being part of Good for ME Good for FE and witnessing the incredible work happening across the sector has been a major source of inspiration for us. Winning three of the campaign’s awards last year was the icing on the cake, and has only motivated us all to push even further this year.

However, I understood from the moment I was appointed to lead student social action in 2022 that the key to success would be to find the right balance between fostering strong student engagement and minimising the impact on teaching staff.

Here’s how we’ve done that.

No new to-do’s

We have embedded volunteering into existing curriculum frameworks. This ensures the strategy supports personal and academic development while keeping staff involvement manageable.

Doing this involved dedicating six stand-alone Personal Social Development (PSD) tutorial sessions to planning and executing social action projects, guided by the #IWill Movement‘s six principles.

This is now aligned with project-based learning and embedded in the main body of the PSD curriculum, spanning a substantial number of weeks. In fact, feedback from staff and students after the six-week pilot encouraged us to provide extra time (eight to ten weeks) in 2024/25.

Dedicating part of the structured curriculum to volunteering projects allowed students to engage in meaningful community activities without creating additional assignments.

Student-led projects

Empowering students to take ownership of their volunteering projects is crucial. Our students lead the entire process, from selecting themes and developing initiatives to executing the projects themselves.

Tutors act as facilitators, offering guidance and ensuring each project aligns with personal and academic goals. This approach not only builds students’ autonomy but also equips them with essential ‘future-ready’ skills, including soft skills, digital literacy, numeracy and oracy.

The student-led model significantly lightens the administrative burden on staff while enhancing student growth and engagement.

Clear messaging

To streamline the process further, we established clear frameworks for social action projects. We developed structured guidelines that outline the steps, expectations and deadlines for each project.

Templates for project proposals, evaluation forms and other documents also help reduce confusion and keep students on track, limiting the need for constant staff oversight.

Vocational alignment

Volunteering initiatives should complement the academic or vocational focus of the students involved. For example, our projects are linked to real-world issues like sustainability and social entrepreneurship, allowing students to develop skills that enhance their employability.

Using peer and expert assessment to feedforward on project progress and outcomes can also negate the need to spend time assessing and grading.

By aligning social action projects and products with vocational pathways, students gain relevant, practical and hands-on experience while tutors can guide and signpost without adding significant workload.  

Strong external partnerships 

Partnering with local organisations and charities can create mutually beneficial relationships that support the volunteering strategy.

Last academic year, we worked with over 45 charities and organisations, enabling students to work on meaningful community projects. These external partnerships can offer resources and support that alleviate pressure on staff while strengthening the college’s connection to the local community. 

Structured staff involvement 

Our next step was to introduce a staff volunteering scheme as part of their professional development. This initiative, aligned with the college’s strategic priority of giving back to the community, will provide opportunities for staff to engage in community service without adding to their regular workload.

Integrating staff volunteering into existing professional development plans is allowing us to create a culture of service that benefits employees and the community alike. 

And it’s working. Staff and students are engaging in a multitude of activities including refurbishing a local library, creating garden spaces and murals, singing in local care homes and raising awareness of homelessness with a ‘Big Student Sleepout’.

In the end, workload isn’t just about how much work we do. It’s about the value we place in it. If everyone in the organisation values it properly, from inception to design to delivery to impact, then workload isn’t an issue that arises.

And how can anyone fail to value this work?

Nominations for this year’s Good for Me Good for FE awards close on October 7. You can nominate here

Prisons ‘lack resources’ for inmates to learn their way to liberty

Offering prisoners earlier release dates if they participate in education courses will not work unless the government improves “underfunded” education services, ministers have been warned.

According to a report in The Times this week, ministers are drawing up early plans to copy the success of a scheme in Texas which allows prisoners to shorten the time they serve if they take part in education.

The policy proposal, understood to have been briefed to the newspaper by special advisors, comes almost 10 years after former justice secretary Michael Gove claimed to be looking at the policy.

But the Prisoner’s Education Trust’s chief executive has warned that prisons currently lack the capacity for classrooms, teachers or prison officers to meet demand.

Prison education shortage

Jon Collins, whose organisation provides 130 distance learning courses to prisoners, welcomed prioritising education as “fresh thinking” that could help to solve the prisons crisis.

However, he told FE Week: “The biggest problem with prison education in England and Wales isn’t with demand – by and large, people in prison are keen to access education – it’s with supply.

“Prison education is underfunded, what is on offer is narrow and limited, and there aren’t enough classrooms or teachers to accommodate more people or enough officers to escort them to education departments.

“The first priority must be to make high quality education more widely available in prisons, with the capacity to support more learners. Once that is in place, the focus can shift to how to encourage more people to participate.”

According to the Ministry of Justice’s prison performance ratings, more than half of prisons failed to meet their targets for progress in English and maths (57 per cent in category B prisons and 64 per cent in eligible reception prisons) in 2023-24.

An FE Week investigation earlier this year highlighted concerns about declining prisoner participation in education, contracts that prioritise value for money over quality, and a focus on English and maths over more interesting or advanced courses.

Not a new idea

The idea to incentivise prisoners to study through earlier release dates was floated by Gove during his 14-month tenure as justice minister in 2015. 

He reportedly asked MoJ civil servants to draw up detailed proposals before then prime minister Theresa May sacked him in 2016.

None of the eight Conservative justice ministers who followed Gove in the last eight years appear to have revived the plans.

In 2022, the MoJ accepted “in principle” a House of Commons education committee recommendation that it consider education as an incentive for early release. 

‘Counterproductive’ warnings

However, officials said directly linking early release to education “could be counterproductive”.

They added: “The essential criteria are whether the temporary release applied for will further the prisoner’s rehabilitation, and whether they can be safely released.

“As is demonstrated by our strengthened performance management metrics on prisoner attendance at education, we are keen to ensure that governors can take decisions as to how best to incentivise their prison population to engage with education and training.”

Peter Cox, managing director of prison education provider Novus, which operates at more than 40 prisons and young offender institutions across England and Wales, said: “Reoffending costs taxpayers £18 billion each year, and Ministry of Justice research has demonstrated that individuals who take part in prison education are 7.5 percentage points less likely to reoffend.

“We welcome moves to look at what more can be done to support rehabilitation in prisons, including exploring approaches which have proved successful in other countries.” The MoJ declined to comment.

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 472

Joanne Wallace

Campus Principal for HE, TEC Partnership

Start date: September 2024

Previous Job: Deputy Principal, TEC Partnership

Interesting fact: Collects antique and vintage textiles

Simon Spearman

Principal, The Henley College

Start date: September 2024

Previous Job: Deputy Principal, Christ the King Sixth Form College

Interesting fact: Simon has played the guitar and piano for over 30 years, still striving to get better

21-year-old unfair college dismissal claim is ‘just too late’

A judge has dismissed an unfair dismissal claim against a London college group because it was filed 21 years after the event. 

United Colleges Group has successfully had an employment tribunal claim thrown out after a former employee lodged a complaint over an accident that happened in 2003. 

Judge Tim Adkin agreed with the college’s representative that a fair hearing was “no longer possible” given the time since the accident and the fact that individuals involved are likely to have moved on. 

The claimant, named in tribunal documents as Mr A Watfa, was contracted as a centre services assistant for the City of Westminster College in March 2003 and shortly after had an accident that resulted in the amputation of his right middle finger. 

Watfa was dismissed in September 2003 and lodged claims of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination 20 years later. He explained the reason for the delay was that it was a “traumatic” accident, and he had had “periods of mental health difficulties” since. 

The judge told Watfa that, if his tribunal claim were taken forward, it would probably be heard next year, making it “unfair” for key witnesses to explain their actions 22 years after the incident. 

“Even if the respondent was able to track down key witnesses, which must be in doubt, in my view the prejudice to the respondent would be very great and it would be unfair of them to explain their actions 22 years after the event,” Judge Adkin said. 

He added that it was “simply just too late” to bring a claim so long after the event. 

“I understand that in part the claimant says that he has had a lasting problem as a result of the injury. I do understand that, and I am very sympathetic to that,” the judge said. 

“My finding is it that it will not be possible to have a fair hearing.”