Latest news from FE Week | FE Week

The apprenticeship levy cannot sit in isolation of place-based need

A Policy Exchange report published in May called for widescale changes to the skills funding system; and an open letter sent by several major employer representative bodies back in February described the apprenticeship levy as a ‘£3.5 billion mistake’. The Labour Party has recently announced that it would transform the apprenticeship levy into a ‘Growth and Skills Levy’.

While we do need to reflect on how we address weaknesses in the current approach to work-based education, we should also pause to celebrate the fact that since the apprenticeship levy came into effect in 2017 it has generated funding from business to support more than 1.75 million apprenticeship starts. This includes over 400,000 higher and degree apprenticeships. The department for education claim that, in England, 99.6 per cent of their ring-fenced apprenticeship budget (£2.455 billion) was spent on training last year, with less than 0.5 per cent of funding returned to the treasury.

With this in mind, I recently hosted a roundtable on the future of the apprenticeship levy with representatives from think tanks, professional bodies, representative bodies and Rt Hon The Lord Blunkett, who produced the Labour Party’s recent Council of Skills Advisors’ Report. Although there was much nuance to the discussion around the table, and a usual focus on transparency and bureaucracy with respect to the levy’s allocation, a key theme that developed was around the importance of positioning the levy within a wider, place-based skills framework.

The apprenticeship levy was introduced to help address the market failure of under-investment in training by UK employers (currently less than half the EU average). However, it has arguably had limited impact in this regard, given that only 23 per cent of employers were offering apprenticeships in 2021 and over one-third of employers (39 per cent) have provided no skills development for their workforce during the past year.

There is a risk that our skills funding is creating a ‘welfare state mentality’ for employers. With that in mind, the government perhaps needs to consider using tax incentives or other funding levers to complement the levy in ways that encourage more employers to take ownership of this agenda, assessing their own future skills needs and investing in training, be that through apprenticeships or otherwise.

The levy is subject to the individual decisions of 17,000 employers

If skills development is to expand in a sustainable way, then as well as funding levers, we will need a clear skills strategy at governmental level to identify areas of skills deficit and focus on core growth opportunities like green skills, digital, engineering, biology and healthcare. The current lack of strategic oversight of how the levy is spent means it is currently subject to the individual decisions of 17,000 separate employers. While these employers will make the best decisions for their businesses, their choices will not necessarily align with wider government and societal priorities.

The identification of national priorities would help improve investment in infrastructure at a local level. That could be facilitated through the shared prosperity fund, for example, but linked to investment in local skills needs by local business beneficiaries. Without a clear strategy it is difficult to ensure work is joined up across different government departments and to understand not only where we should focus but what investment is needed for success.

If government provided a clear strategy, it could assess the funding needed to tackle shortfalls in level 2 and 3 skills. Currently, these shortfalls are unlikely to be addressed by business but these must be dealt with if we are not to fail 50 per cent of our young people. A dedicated fund to promote opportunities aligned to apprenticeships and training for learners from lower socioeconomic backgrounds could help to transform the skills pipeline as we develop our aspiration to be a knowledge-led economy.

This must be part of a clear skills strategy that helps support appropriately funded adult education through developed funding for core level 2 and 3. This plan must also incentivise employers to engage in skills development and align government departments to enable place-based focus within a national framework.

Supporting us must start with understanding who we are and what we need

The Student Commission on Racial Justice will soon publish its 2023 Manifesto for Action. Over five weeks, its commissioners will set out its five key priorities and recommendations exclusively for FE Week.

I am 21 years old and I study health and social care. Safety and wellbeing are at the heart of what I am learning, and I’m pleased that they are also at the heart of the work the student commission on racial justice has been doing.

Among the commission’s five priorities, we focused part of our peer research on exploring racial justice in relations to support, safety and wellbeing. Colleges have a reputation for doing a great job when it comes to student services, including mental health provision and learning support. However, our findings suggest that said support may not be as accessible to all students as once thought.

Many students in our research said they feel well supported, but students from minoritised ethnic groups felt less confident that they would receive adequate mental health support if they sought it. Equally, while most students feel safe in their colleges, students from minoritised ethnic groups report being targeted by security staff because of their ethnicity.

Some students spoke positively about the fact that their college has a multi-faith facility, yet many stated that theirs is not well advertised and doesn’t offer adequate space. Moreover, many say that staff aren’t supportive of their students’ use of the facility, and a significant number did not even know it existed.

This is clearly not acceptable. Students and teachers are learning and working in a public setting. Everyone must understand that each of us is unique, and that with different people come different needs. Not having enough knowledge is not necessarily a problem, but it is certainly not an excuse. No one should be judging anyone else based on their appearance or behaviour, and this applies as much to racist stereotyping from security staff as it does to support staff who may not provide the same support to minority students, assuming they don’t need it.

Students we spoke to told us a lot about being questioned by teachers during Ramadan when they needed to pray, being asked to “just do it later” or told to “do that on your own time”. This is when lack of knowledge does become a problem. If members of staff don’t understand the needs of their students, how can they possibly offer the best support?

Lack of knowledge is not necessarily a problem, but it is certainly not an excuse

We are encouraged to ask questions when we don’t understand. The same applies to adults. Most people love to be asked questions about their cultures and religions, particularly if it is friendly, respectful and genuine.

Students appreciate the support they receive from their education institutions, particularly when these take steps to accommodate their religious and cultural practices. A well-advertised, suitable and accessible multi-faith space, reasonable adjustments for Ramadan, and seizing opportunities to grow community understanding go a long way towards that.

As a commission, we think that colleges need to work more closely with their student body to understand their individual needs when it comes to support. We also think colleges need to ensure that their staff get to know and understand their students – who they are as individuals, and why they need what they need, whether that is Halal food or time and space for prayer. Christmas is a given. In fact, most students have no choice but to partake in the festivities, including a mandatory two weeks off college. Ramadan, Eid, Diwali, Lunar New Year matter equally to many students.

To build on the quality of support colleges offer, we recommend creating and training a cohort of student ambassadors who can represent the student body in an authentic way. They can advise you of the needs of their peers. They can help to design and deliver unconscious bias training to ensure that no student is treated unfairly, targeted, or dismissed.

We also recommend that colleges improve their communication so that students clearly understand what support is available and know how to raise concerns or suggestions if they do not feel their needs are being met or are experiencing unfair treatment.

After all, supporting us to succeed starts with understanding who we are, what we need, and celebrating what makes us unique.

Why every college should have a literacy lead

Literacy is woven throughout every part of our educational experience, whether that’s writing assignments, reading case studies or expressing strong communication and presentational skills. Even when we leave the safety of education and step into the world of work, literacy is always a constant.

Yet, according to the National Literacy Trust, 1 in 6 adults (7.1 million people) in England have poor literacy skills. This can lead to low self-esteem, misunderstanding of concepts, poor behaviour and, ultimately, could hinder learners wanting to gain higher-level technical qualifications and employment.

Oldham College recognised the importance of developing these skills for all students and took the decision to appoint a literacy lead (as well as a numeracy lead). In this role, my purpose is to give staff the tools, resources and above all the confidence to make literacy explicit to all their learners.

The search for ideas and support was challenging to begin with, and I continue to struggle to find literacy resources targeted at FE learners. Most cater primarily for those working in primary or secondary schools.

Learning does not stop when a child reaches 16. English doesn’t all of a sudden become relevant only to A level students. Adult learners, in addition to our 16-18 vocational learners, also need support to develop their literacy. There is certainly a gap for educational publishers to fill when it comes to the professional knowledge and resources available to Further Education. After all, universities and employers require a high level of literacy of their students and employees.

Having said that, there is plenty of potential within the sector itself to fill these gaps. Happily, this is what I have been able to uncover and facilitate at Oldham College, and I am certain the same is achievable in every further education setting – whether on their own or by working together.

Literacy is being embedded more naturally into lessons

My journey began with a meeting with each faculty area to gather as much information about the specific literacy skills required from each subject. Standing nervously in front of business and sports teachers about to deliver a presentation about the importance of literacy, I kept asking myself: would vocational staff want to have conversations about literacy? Would they want to listen to an English teacher talk about English? I needn’t have worried; what I found was that staff were very open to developing their own awareness of literacy in their subjects and keen to hear how I could support them.

After those initial meetings, I focused on two emergent areas of need: supporting staff to identify spelling, punctuation and grammar (SPG) errors in students’ work, and better embedding subject-specific, technical vocabulary.

This led to the creation of ‘faculty bookmarks’, posters of the top 10 technical terms in each area, and a focused CPD session on identifying SPG errors. More recently, we have also launched literacy knowledge organisers, where vocational staff gave an overview of literacy skills in their subject and we explored ideas and strategies for embedding these in the curriculum. These knowledge organisers don’t just benefit students in their various subjects; the English team uses them to support contextualisation to help learners to make valuable and meaningful connections across curriculum areas.

Having been part of the English team for six years, it was quite a daunting prospect to leave that bubble and branch out across college. As I reflect on the start we’ve all made, I am deeply encouraged by the collective reception the staff have given to my role.

On a professional level for myself, it has given me rich insight into almost every course taught at the college, and I have found myself connecting with colleagues I might never have had the pleasure to meet. I’ve been able to facilitate other new connections across the college too, and it is evident that literacy is being embedded more naturally into lessons. Staff as well as learners have greater awareness of the impact literacy has on achievement, progression and employability.

So, I would encourage every college to have a literacy lead (and a numeracy one too). Imagine what we could achieve for the sector with a national network of us, developing the profession’s knowledge base, creating resources for every subject and most importantly bringing people together in common effort.

Germany beats England hands down on apprenticeships, so what can we learn?

With our focus on the shortage of many skilled occupations, and the ongoing debate over recruiting from overseas, NOCN has looked at what makes the German apprenticeship system successful. From this, we have been able to draw out key lessons for UK educational policy.

The reform of our English apprenticeship system began in Autumn 2013 with the first wave of Trailblazers, followed by the new apprenticeship levy and the creation of IfATE in 2017.

Ten years on, while higher and degree apprenticeship starts have increased, total apprenticeship starts have declined by one-third, with level 2 starts declining by two-thirds and level 3 starts by one-quarter.

On the positive side, we now have better occupational standards. There are 673 live as of May this year, covering all sectors of the economy. However, only 360 are at the traditional levels 2 and 3.

In Germany, by contrast, starts have held up well despite Covid. Germany has about 330 state-recognised craft and technical standards, or occupations. In that, the two countries are similar.

However, half of German school leavers (15-18) move on to vocational training, with one-third contracting to do apprenticeships, compared with only 6 per cent of English school leavers (16-18). Germany’s involvement of SMEs in the system is better too, 98 per cent there against 41 per cent here. And although Germany measure completions slightly differently, their rate is about 87 per cent compared to our 54 per cent. Finally, Germany’s proportion of apprenticeship starts relative to population is 0.6 per cent. Ours is 0.4 per cent at levels 2 and 3.

What we do have more of is organisations. Our apprenticeships system is fragmented, with skills policy controlled by DfE through ESFA, IfATE and Ofqual and trade and professional bodies dealing with IfATE. In Germany, there is a single organisation, with 630 staff. Independent of ministers, it is driven by industry requirements through collaboration with regional and national chambers of industry, commerce and crafts.

The German government funds formal training, while employers cover costs of the apprentices. There is no complex, inflexible apprenticeship levy, which seems to result in greater employer engagement at all levels.

Half of German school-leavers move to vocational training

And finally, while our FE system is still seen by many as secondary to the ‘preferred’ academic route, German technical occupations are the only route for employees to find work and for employers to find skilled workers. The importance of occupational training is embedded in the systems from age 11, giving credibility and encouraging engagement.

It is also clear that it will not be possible to lift and shift the German system to England. Its very structured approach makes it too rigid for that, and in any case hampers its ability to adapt to the agile requirements needed for net-zero and digitisation.

Realistically, with a general election due within the next 18 months, it is unlikely that we will see fundamental change soon. But this creates an opportunity for the sector to take the lead in shaping the next stage of evolution for our skills.

It needs to be streamlined, easy to use and embrace localities and trade bodies as well as the needs of the economy. It must meet the needs of existing workers as well as those moving into employment for the first time. It should be based on a national skills strategy to deliver a green and digitised future. And parity of esteem with the academic route is the least value that should be ascribed to it.

In this regard, IfATE’s Simpler Skills System report is welcomed. Our next steps should be to develop a national skills strategy, to research how to increase apprenticeship starts and achievement rates, to benchmark apprenticeship funding systems and improve the levy, and to better connect our national and regional policy making levels.

Greater political recognition of our sector’s value is great and must continue. But rather than waiting on political leadership, we are better finding out what we can learn from Germany’s experience and starting to develop a clear plan for what happens in a new parliament.

We must collaborate to make retention a sector-wide priority

In the 30 years I have been working in the FE sector, never before have I seen recruitment challenges on the scale we are currently experiencing.

Of course, we are not alone with this issue. Both private and public sector employers in almost every industry are struggling to fill vacancies. The ONS reported in November 2022 that over 13 per cent of employers had gaps they couldn’t fill and that overall, there were as many vacancies as there were unemployed people (1.19million).

But the great irony for colleges is that we have been deemed as the silver bullet to solving the country’s skills shortages – via the upskilling, reskilling and training opportunities we offer – when we ourselves are facing an extreme recruitment crisis.

Sustaining high-quality provision on this scale is already a huge challenge. But when you throw in the cost-of-living crisis, the post-pandemic ‘great resignation’, long-term underfunding and a stark lack of parity with schools, the situation we find ourselves in is as unsurprising as it is relentless.

FE relies on the expertise and knowledge of skilled tradespeople and industry experts. Yet these professionals are in demand and deciding to move within their industries for increased pay, rather than going into teaching.

This is an impossible situation that will only be solved by fairer funding. The fact that colleges are not exempt from VAT is a good example of the inequity within the education sector; an unfair anomaly costing colleges around £200m every year.

Along with colleagues, staff and the AoC, we will continue to call on the government for better deals to support our sector, which is quite clearly essential to the country’s future prosperity.

It is this disparity between schools and FE that is adding to FE staff’s feeling of being undervalued. A report from the Institute of Fiscal Studies highlights that while schools have seen teachers’ pay decline by between 5 and 13 per cent in real terms (which is bad enough and needs to be addressed), pay levels for FE lecturers have fallen by 18 per cent.

The same report also reveals that school teachers earn 21 per cent more than college lecturers – with this gap having increased over time.

The situation is as unsurprising as it is relentless

As CEO of an Academy Trust as well as a college, it’s clear to me that allteachers and support staff need to be more fairly rewarded in salary terms.

However, such disparity within the FE sector specifically is unfair and wholly unreflective of the unique dual professionalism needed in FE – where our lecturers are vocational specialists as well as skilled teachers.

So, we are finding ourselves in a position where we simply can’t compete with many of the offers being made to our staff by schools and universities, both in terms of salaries and esteem.

Further Education is a rewarding and incredibly impactful sector to work in. It offers a stable career, with lots of progression opportunities and generous leave. But this is no longer enough, particularly in a world where people are quite rightly demanding fairer salaries that enable them to fully provide for themselves and their families.

A few years ago, I posed the question as to whether FE should have a ‘transfer window’, similar to the football model. It would mean an open culture in which staff could change jobs more easily, with colleges having greater flexibility to recognise and reward talent. I’m sure this would improve retention and outcomes – so is it perhaps something we should consider as a sector? I’d be keen to hear from colleges willing to give this a go.

We need to work together, valuing all our lecturers and support staff equally and sharing expertise fairly in a way that benefits learners, rather than damaging their prospects.

If we are to create a strong pipeline of dedicated teaching professionals and leaders in our schools, colleges and universities, we need politicians to listen, hear and recognise the unsustainable position we find ourselves in – and work with us to address it.

Yorkshire SEND college fails to make safeguarding progress after third Ofsted visit in four months

Ofsted inspectors have raised the alarm over the safety of learners at a Wakefield SEND college following a full inspection and multiple follow-up monitoring visits.

Following Camphill Wakefield’s full inspection in March 2022, Ofsted inspectors found the specialist college was inadequate overall for its SEND provision, leadership and management, and the quality of education.

Inspectors have since conducted three monitoring visits, the most recent was an unannounced monitoring visit focused on safeguarding on April 26 and 27, which found the college had made insufficient provisions to keep learners safe, particularly during trips outside of the campus.

Lead inspector Jacquie Brown said in her report that while staff complete generic risk assessments for off-site visits, they do not consider individual learners’ needs of health, care and behaviour support needs.

“As a result, they cannot guarantee that learners are safe in these situations,” she said.

Camphill Wakefield offers residential and day provision for learners aged between 16 and 25. The college had 66 learners enrolled as of its last inspection last March.

James Heaton-Jennings, CEO of Camphill Wakefield, told FE Week that the safety of students is its “first priority” and the college “immediately addressed” concerns as soon as inspectors identified key risks.

“This included reconfiguring our safeguarding team with additional members of the SLT. We then triangulated our actions by inviting our host local authority to review our progress, which lead to a positive report,” he said.

Inspectors also found that managers failed to guarantee that information about learners’ allergies is correct, finding some potentially inaccurate information in documents used by staff. The report said that the college has undertaken a full review to address the issue.

Brown added that the college was aware that the residential care staff were not recording safeguarding concerns on online systems consistently, which meant education staff would not always have information on safeguarding concerns that occur in the residential settings.

Camphill Wakefield has recently hired a new head of care, who is currently revising the culture and reporting procedures in residential accommodation.

“However, it is too soon to see the full impact of their actions,” the report added.

Two subcontractors work on the 56-acre campus: Stride Theatre Group and Riding for the Disabled, who deliver programmes on the college site. The college also has a working farm and gardens with greenhouses.

The report that that college leaders “work well” with external health and safety specialists and staff in the farm areas and horse-riding school supervise learners in these areas closely.

Camphill also reviewed their care plans for learners with epilepsy and staff have recently undergone epilepsy training.

The report found most staff have completed mandatory training in safeguarding and the Prevent duty and a number of members have been identified as needing additional safeguarding training, such as the administration of medication.

Heaton-Jennings confirmed that 86 per cent of staff have completed the additional level 3 qualification in principles of safeguarding children, young people and adults.

“Like many colleges, we have experienced disruption and uncertainty over the past few years, but we are very proud of the way in which the staff team have stepped up to rebuild a fantastic resource for our young people,” he concluded.

The two previous monitoring visits found reasonable progress was being made to the quality of teaching given to learners. However, the first visit found learners were not receiving good enough feedback to improve on, and the second visit said that parents and carers were not receiving “appropriate updates” on the progress of learners.

“Too often these staff are occupied with other tasks and are not able to make the calls as often as they should,” the report said.

In 2020, the college won a Natspec award for pathways to employment, where judges praised the college for having an “aspirational” pathway into employment embedded into the curriculum.

Pride is as pride does. LGBTQ+ communities need us to listen and act

Working with the Lifelong Education Institute recently, I was struck by a sentence one of their talented researchers used: “Pride is as pride does”.

Now entering my eighth decade, I’ve been reflecting on the years I’ve lived, work I’ve done, people I’ve met, experiences I’ve had, and the challenges I’ve faced. I have come more and more to appreciate why it is existentially and linguistically important to define our individual identity in words and concepts which are meaningful to us, and which are closely linked to our need to belong.

Hearing from a colleague, who identifies as bisexual, I was reminded of the progress we’ve made towards LGBTQ+ inclusion, but also how far we have left to go.

I’ve also been reminded (as a linguist by background) how much our language evolves and is shaped by our need to determine more finely and describe more accurately the unique and precious experience of life we each encounter.

The way we describe our ‘lived experience’ is much more complicated these days. However, when I was growing up in Moss Side in the mid-1950s, the idea that ‘homosexuality’ was acceptable and that each June we would celebrate Pride Month was unthinkable. A little shared discomfort over new terms and new definitions is a small price to pay for the emancipation of LGBT+ communities.

Pride as we know it today (although sadly not universally or globally) commemorates the 1969 Stonewall uprising in Manhattan. Stemming from the same period, ‘gay’ was originally an abbreviation of ‘good as you’. There is a rich history – still being written – behind our practices and our language about LGBTQ+ inclusion that we can ill afford to forget.

This is one reason why we need to repeat the Pride narrative generation after generation. And this is why we should support the teaching in schools, colleges, universities, training and workplaces of the history and importance of Pride month.

We need to repeat the Pride narrative generation after generation

Let’s not forget that during the Thatcher and Major years (1979-1997), the ‘promotion’ in educational settings of homosexuality as an acceptable way of life was against the law. I know. When I became a FE college principal in 1987 (at the time, the youngest ever at age 34), I could not have admitted that, at the time, I was a woman in a relationship with another woman (even though neither of us defined ourselves a lesbian).

It wasn’t long before a clique of local, male secondary school headteachers were referring clandestinely and in a derogatory manner to me and my two (straight female) deputy principals as ‘the three lesbians’.

They felt professionally threatened, because aside from anything else we were making waves, changing the college culture and learning offer. Young people were choosing FE rather than staying on in school sixth forms, and they were losing funding.

But, really! Is it any wonder that I never came out formally to the sector until I bared all in my article for FE Week in February 2019?

If lifelong learning is to mean anything, then it must mean that adults remain open to learning, whatever the lesson and whoever is teaching it. It was working with young people in my role as chair of the Scouts that I discovered from them that I was a ‘cis woman’. It was they who sensitively explained to me what ‘nonbinary’ means.

Now, as chair of the Lifelong Education Institute, I am blessed to be working with my young colleague, who believes in promoting a shared message of greater love, tolerance and acceptance. I am therefore learning ever more about the experiences of LGBTQ+ people, and the language that is emancipating them.

I’ve learned that the term TERF refers to trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs), for whom being a woman should be limited to those who are AFAB (assigned female at birth). They remind me of those three secondary headteachers in the late 1980s.

And I’ve been challenged by my colleague’s mantra, that pride is as pride does. There is no space for complacency. Pride is a name with rich history, and it is an emotion, but it must also be an action, like shouting from the rooftops that we exist and have a right to feel that we belong.

There are many queer young people around and near you. Open your ears to them.

Fund careers advisers directly to ease burden on colleges, DfE told

Ministers should trial direct funding of careers advisers amid fears asking schools and colleges to foot the bill is leading to “significant disparities” in provision, MPs have said.

Colleges should also be made to publish information on the amount of time that leaders in charge of careers provision are able to devote to their role, a report by the Parliamentary education committee recommended.

Although “many changes” to careers advice and guidance over the past decade mean the “right framework is broadly in place”, the report warned of a “lack of a clear overarching strategy and stated outcomes”.

While new legislation enforcing post-16 provider access to school pupils is “an important step in the right direction,” the committee said it was concerned that ministers did not have a system to monitor compliance.

“Simply informing pupils of the options available is not enough to tackle the fundamental bias towards academic routes still seen in many schools” the report said.

Progress towards meeting the Gatsby Foundation’s eight benchmarks for good careers advice has been “slow”, with schools and colleges “only meeting just over half of them on average”.

This is based on self-reporting by colleges, which “means that we do not have a full picture of how many are being achieved”, the committee warned.

Since 2012, schools and colleges have been required to fund their own careers provision from their own budgets.

Research by PWC for Gatsby in 2014 estimated that the cost of meeting all eight benchmarks would range from £38,000 to £76,000 per school and sixth form.

‘Significant disparities’

The report warned the expectation on schools and colleges to pay for services out of their “already stretched budgets” was “causing significant disparities in provision”, with some spending just £2 per student.

The DfE should therefore pilot a programme of funding careers advisers directly through the CEC, the report said, rather than “requiring schools and colleges to buy in this support from their existing budgets”.

The department should also make “one-off developmental funding available to schools and colleges who have the lowest record of achieving the Gatsby benchmarks”.

The report also found that careers leaders – those responsible for ensuring their colleges meet the benchmarks – are “struggling to fulfil their responsibilities effectively due to lack of time amid competing pressures”.

Support for careers provision should also be included in the package available to education investment areas.

Almost half have less than a day per week allocated to their role. The DfE should therefore update its statutory guidance to “suggest an appropriate proportion of time that careers leaders should be given to fulfil their role”.

They should also require schools and colleges to “publish information on the time they have allocated to the role on their website”, and ensure the CEC publishes data from schools and colleges about time leaders have to fulfil their role.

The report also makes a number of other recommendations, summarised as follows…

Ensure Ofsted looks at schools’ achievement of the benchmarks
Make reporting on progress against the benchmarks compulsory for schools and colleges
Extend coverage of careers hubs to all schools and colleges by the end of 2024
Make the National Careers Service appropriate for under-18s or provide an alternative
Consult on how to incorporate careers education into different levels of teacher training and development
Provide more teachers with “experience of modern workplaces across a range of sectors”
Consult on whether any administrative barriers to providing work experience can be removed or lightened
Create a ‘national platform’ for work experience placements
Track compliance against the Baker Clause and ensure ‘appropriate action’ is taken against non-compliance
Collect and publish data on the proportion of SENCOs who have undertaken careers training and set out steps to train them all

WorldSkills UK rolls out Centre of Excellence after three-year pilot

WorldSkills UK is opening its Centre of Excellence programme to all UK colleges, training providers and higher education institutions for the first time.

This follows a three-year pilot of the programme, which WorldSkills UK developed in partnership with awarding body NCFE, which involved 46 colleges and two independent training providers.

WorldSkills UK said that more than 140,000 young people and nearly 5,000 educators can now access support and development opportunities through the programme for a further three-year period.

Members of the Centre of Excellence will have access to free “world-class” teacher training, a community for thought leadership to influence policy and practice, and a hub for innovation known as the Network for Innovation.

Membership is free.

WorldSkills UK interim chief executive Ben Blackledge said the programme “is already delivering results for educators and young people, inspiring learners at all abilities to achieve their own level of excellence.”

“We want to build on that success and ensure we are delivering for employers too. That is why this next stage of the Centre of Excellence will have a strong focus on innovation, creating opportunities for business and education to come together to achieve the shared ambition of a truly world-class technical education system.

“In key growth sectors covering digital, net zero and advanced manufacturing, these networks will support the development and delivery of skills specific, industry-led and internationally benchmarked training. Providing the sector access to insights and learning from across the global WorldSkills network.”

The programme was piloted to 48 organisations over the last three years. Two of those were ITPs, while the rest were FE colleges (see list below). Those 48 organisations will remain registered to the programme as it rolls out to a wider audience.

Organisations interested in the project can register here.

NCFE chief executive David Gallagher said the two organisations are “committed to helping to create a fairer and more inclusive society through the delivery of exceptional technical education.”

“If we are to achieve this, we believe that our educators need greater access to world-class teacher training, interactive networks, and international insights. That’s how we can unlock their potential, so they are able to then deliver the highest quality education and training to our workforce of the future.”

Software company Autodesk and the Skills and Education Group are now also funding the Centre for Excellence alongside NCFE.

Scott Forbes, a chief operating officer at the Skills and Education Group, said: “In order to achieve a world-class skills system and to ensure our students are industry-ready – armed with the technical know-how employers need – we must invest in our teachers.

“We are therefore delighted to be championing the WorldSkills UK Centre of Excellence as it enters its next phase.”