FAB to investigate regulators’ impact on health and wellbeing

The Federation of Awarding Bodies (FAB) is set to investigate the “human and emotional cost” of government regulation, including the approach and conduct of regulators.

It comes after FE Week revealed how Ofqual was accused of driving an end-point assessment organisation out of the apprenticeship market with an “excruciating” and “unfair” investigation that left its owner feeling suicidal.

The situation emerged amid the Ruth Perry inquest, which concluded last week with a coroner’s verdict that the school headteacher died in January by suicide, contributed to by an Ofsted inspection.

It was also discussed at this month’s FAB annual conference, in which one leading awarding body chief executive said that, when regulation impacts on people’s health and wellbeing, it is a “red line we should not allow to be crossed”.

John McNamara, FAB’s interim chief executive, told FE Week he now plans for the membership body to survey members on their experience of regulatory approaches.

He said: “The significant issue about the human and emotional cost of regulation was raised at the federation’s recent conference and we will be conducting research with our members to better understand the emotional impact of the current approach to regulation. 

“The results will be shared, and appropriate representations made to the regulator community and Department for Education should further action be required.”

Catherine Large, Ofqual’s executive director for vocational and technical qualifications, said the exams regulator “welcomes the news that FAB is working with its members to understand sentiment within the sector”.

“Mental health and wellbeing are very important issues, and we look forward to working with FAB and its members to consider the findings of their survey,” she added.

The awarding body that accused Ofqual of forcing it out of the apprenticeships market through a “traumatic” investigation is called QFI Ltd. 

The company claimed the regulator used “minor” and “petty” data errors to impose strict conditions that would make its business untenable, as well as “inappropriate evidence gathering”. This included an almost five-hour “interrogation” of the responsible officer that forced her to turn to stress medication.

Speaking at FAB’s annual conference, NCFE chief executive and FAB non-executive director David Gallagher said awarding bodies operate in a “low-trust paradigm”, describing it as a “waterfall of mistrust”.

He told delegates: “There’s a very serious point here. We saw what happened in relation to Ofsted and the reform that’s been called for because of a very, very tragic event. I know it’s quite a dark thought, but I think some of the pressures I’m seeing in the sector, some of the impact that I’ve seen on people, it’s not OK.

“I think we’ve got to challenge back with evidence, with research, with insight, with togetherness.”

An audience member then said: “I was very grateful to hear mention about the emotional and human cost of regulatory burden in the week when Ruth Perry’s inquest is going on. We’ve also read about the human cost of regulatory outcomes in our field. 

“It’s really, really important that FAB continues to step up and hold their [regulators’] feet to the flames in terms of the cost of that.

“I see an awful lot of it. The pressure it puts on organisations – and it’s not always as clear because it’s organisation to organisation – but there really is a huge human cost to this, and it’s on the exponential increase, it seems.”

McNamara said all FAB members believe in “fair and robust” regulation of qualifications and end-point assessments to “maintain public trust in the UK qualifications system and to protect the interests of learners”.

But he pointed out that the sector has seen an increasing regulatory burden. Three main regulators operated across the UK market in 2010. There are now eight organisations performing these functions.

Gallagher told FAB’s conference that, while the regulatory burden “is a problem”, the “approach” of regulators must also be examined.

He said: “I’ve spent most of my career within the sort of auspices of Ofsted regulation, and for me actually when it comes to Ofqual regulation, it’s so different. At least with Ofsted, you’re building up to an inspection, you’ve got a grade, you knew where you stood.

“Do you ever have any sense of achievement with Ofqual regulation? Are there any lessons that really come out of the, you know, the audits or the investigations? 

“So, stylistically, it’s not just the burden, it’s the approach. I think it’s becoming really concerning and, when it impacts on people’s health and wellbeing, that is a red line that I don’t think we should allow to be crossed.”

FE Commissioner celebrates ‘great year’ for colleges in annual report

Six colleges entered formal intervention last year, according to the FE Commissioner’s (FEC) latest annual report.

But Shelagh Legrave’s annual stocktake of the sector is unusually silent on the major issues facing the college sector. 

Previous reports have highlighted the FEC’s key concerns about the issues affecting college performance. For example, last year’s report flagged a lack of staff to deliver T Levels and college support services, poor oversight of subcontracting, cyber-security risks and the impact of inflation on college finances. 

This year’s report, which covers Legrave and her team’s work between August 2022 and July 2023, speaks of “a great year” for the college sector despite warnings from other regulators that under-funding and staff recruitment challenges were negatively impacting learners.

This much more upbeat report was deliberate, Legrave told FE Week, because she believes the sector is in a better position financially. 

“It was deliberate in so far as I think funding-wise, we’ve moved forward, which is great. It’s never going to be enough, but there was a settlement in the summer which I’m absolutely delighted with.”

It comes in the week the Institute for Fiscal Studies published its annual report on education spending which highlighted how spending per college student in 2024/25 will still be about 10 per cent below 2010/11 levels despite extra government funding.

Legrave said that cyber-security “remains a threat,” the use of subcontracting is “really reducing” and there will “always be challenges around governance”.

These issues have instead, Legrave claimed, been discussed with colleges at the annual strategic conversations and it her termly letter to college leaders.

Legrave told FE Week: “I have used that mechanism to talk about the specifics. My overall view is colleges are in a stronger place than they were, they are working really closely with employers, they’re growing their numbers of apprenticeships and delivering on government priorities.”

Colleges were reclassified as public sector organisations in November 2022, during the year this annual report covers. The move brought in immediate new controls on college borrowing and new rules on seeking approval for high-paid senior roles and “contentious and novel” transactions, which bring colleges in line with public sector Managing Public Money guidance.

Despite not making it into her final report – “I have talked about this elsewhere” – Legrave said, “the biggest problem at the moment is Managing Public Money because of the lack of loans, particularly for colleges that have grown substantially in September”.

“Most colleges are in a good place, I think,” she said.

The annual report details the work of the FE Commissioner’s office, which includes eight deputy FE commissioners, 13 FE advisers, 11 national leaders of governance and ten national leaders of further education. 

Legrave reiterated her personal “key performance indicators” which were outlined in her speech at last month’s Association of Colleges annual conference, and included helping colleges increase the number of apprenticeships by 10 per cent and growing the number of skills bootcamp participants by 25 per cent. 

As of July 31, 2023, there were 15 colleges in intervention, up one from last year. During the year five colleges exited intervention, meaning that six entered.

The only intervention report published by the commissioner during that year was for Ruskin College, which praised college leaders for taking swift action to improve its safeguarding procedures following an ‘inadequate’ Ofsted inspection. 

One college was dissolved in the year. St Mary’s College Blackburn became the third college to go through the college insolvency regime in October 2022 after failing to find a viable merger partner. 

The report lists the merger of Central Bedfordshire College with The Bedford College Group, the merger of Greater Brighton Metropolitan College with Chichester College Group and the formation of the South Hampshire College Group as outcomes of FEC-led structure and prospect appraisal outcomes during the year.

Another structure and prospects appraisal was started, but the college withdrew, according to the report.

The FEC team “supported” 80 principals, chief executives and governing bodies during the year, up from 52 the year before.

Legrave also hailed the success of the first rollout of curriculum efficiency and financial sustainability reviews, where experts advise colleges on curriculum cost savings and financial planning. An early evaluation indicates that the reviews have saved participating 35 colleges between £250,000 and £1.2 million. 

A recruitment round will be launched early next year for new FE advisers with expertise in apprenticeships and land-based education.

Addressing long-held diversity gaps in the FEC team, the report said: “The FE Commissioner hopes to increase the diversity within the team to more accurately represent the FE sector, and would particularly encourage applications from those who identify with characteristics which are currently underrepresented within the team.”

AI, soft skills and bespoke training: Six predictions for apprenticeships in 2024

The past twelve months have been transformational, with the explosion of AI and uncertainties surrounding the apprenticeship levy raising questions around the future of apprenticeships. Here are my predictions for what could be around the corner in 2024.

AI as a teaching aide

OpenAI introduced ChatGPT in November 2022, and since then it has shaken up the education sector and given us a glimpse at the future of learning. Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT excel as an educational sidekick, and we see apprenticeships being one of the sectors set to benefit the most.

Existing apprenticeship curriculums dictate that apprentices should divide their time between working and studying. With AI, these activities could be integrated into a cohesive learning strategy as the algorithm learns your schedule, workload and particular learning style. LLMs can adapt to almost any knowledge level, responding instantly and accurately to queries, generating their own relevant questions and adjusting their methods to complement your skills. They are also available 24/7, all year round.

For training providers, offering learners an informed and relatively inexpensive virtual tutor that supports their students individually will be a welcome resource. If 2023 is anything to go by, apprentices are set to become very familiar with AI in 2024.

More growth for bespoke apprenticeships

For many employers the traditional, one-size-fits-all approach to apprenticeships is starting to transform into a model of specialised courses, tailored to the company’s unique requirements. By guiding learning towards their specific business needs and values, employers can create a common knowledge base and culture.

Allowing apprentices to focus on areas directly relevant to their industry also creates a more engaging and effective learning environment that directly translates into more relevant skills, improved career readiness and better job satisfaction. Training providers are already offering this type of course as a recruitment solution, so we can expect their continued growth into 2024.

Changes to the levy

The apprenticeship levy has been a subject of political debate for a few years, with both major parties differing in their approach. Labour has produced a fully-fledged proposal to transform the existing arrangement into the ‘Growth and Skills’ levy, recommending the creation of a new expert body called Skills England and permitting firms to spend 50 per cent of their contributions on non-apprenticeship training, including modular courses and functional skills.

This proposal does present a risk to the apprenticeship sector, with the Department for Education forecasting that it would limit apprenticeship uptake to 140,000 a year, down from 336,000 in the 2022/2023 academic year. In response to this concern, Labour has also promised an additional spending commitment for apprenticeships in SMEs.

Ultimately, the exact future of the government’s role in apprenticeship funding remains to be seen, and largely depends on the specific details of the policy implementation.

More emphasis on soft skills

Recent data suggests a growing concern about the soft skills gap among university graduates as they transition into their professional careers. With our workplaces becoming increasingly technical, soft skills like presenting, communicating, emotional intelligence and teamwork can be neglected. Additionally, AI’s ability to execute sophisticated or routine tasks makes human-centric soft skills more necessary.

Apprenticeships, traditionally valued for their practical, hands-on approach to learning, are well positioned to bridge this gap because apprentices develop their on-the-job skills in conjunction with their technical education.

More technically skilled teachers needed

With our workplace technology becoming more complex, apprenticeship educators will require more technical proficiency to educate apprentices to business-ready standards. Teaching is continually made more difficult by the intense rate of technological development, requiring educators to frequently upskill.

We can fulfil these technical labour requirements by commissioning industry-expert trainers or partnering with cutting-edge private sector firms to assist in keeping curriculum delivery up to speed.

Changing demand for skills

As we noted last year, proficiency in digital and technical skills like data analysis, software development and digital marketing will become increasingly essential. This is still the case, with 27 per cent of the workforce lacking sufficient digital skills. As AI utilisation becomes mainstream, employers will require skills that complement and enhance the technology, so expect to see new apprenticeship opportunities arise in this area in 2024.

So here’s to another busy year for the sector. Happy new year!

Independent review launched to check efficiency and governance of Office for Students

An independent review to examine the efficiency and governance of the Office for Students (OfS) is underway, the government has announced.

Sir David Behan (pictured), former chief executive of the Care Quality Commission, will lead the review of the higher education regulator with the aim of concluding it in early summer 2024.

The inquiry is part of the government’s wider public bodies review programme, which examines the effectiveness of arms-length bodies. The Education and Skills Funding Agency was subject to its own independent review in 2021-22, which resulted in the body being stripped of its policy role.

However, the announcement of the OfS review comes months after a House of Lords committee criticised the regulator for a lack of independence from the government and for losing trust with “many of its providers”.

The OfS was set up in 2018 to be an independent body reporting to the Department for  Education and parliament, with a brief to work with higher education providers to make sure that students succeed. It regulates more than 400 providers, including 153 colleges.

The House of Lords’ industry and regulators committee said the actions of the regulator “often appear driven by the ebb and flow of short-term political priorities and media headlines”. It added that it was “failing to deliver and does not command the trust or respect of either providers, or students, the very people whose interests it is supposed to defend”.

The committee also called the OfS out for “widespread concern that it simply does the government of the day’s bidding”, a perception not helped by the fact that Lord Wharton, the OfS chair, continues to take the whip of the governing party in the House of Lords, while simultaneously claiming that the organisation, as a regulator, is independent of the government.

Sir David Behan’s review will focus on how the OfS meets the requirements of the following four quadrants: efficacy, governance, accountability and efficiency.

He will be responsible for ensuring a “proportionate, rigorous and fair review that offers recommendations to facilitate continuous improvement”, the government’s announcement said.

A “challenge panel” will also be established to “hear from the lead reviewer, understand the evidence base and challenge emerging thoughts and recommendations in a rigorous and constructive manner”.

This was the year politicians finally realised the value of our sector

I’m ending 2023 far more optimistic than I started.  

In January we were still reeling a little from an autumn statement in which the chancellor had talked a good game on skills but instead invested in schools. It felt like a kick in the teeth and an ominous sign for the future. 

Fast forward 12 months, however, and there is much more to suggest that both colleges and post-16 education are viewed as investible propositions across the political parties.

The positive signs started in July with the additional funding announced by Gillian Keegan, which has already started to support better pay in many colleges. We cannot underestimate the significance of this: for the first time college pay was addressed by DfE alongside schoolteacher pay. This shows a recognition of how important pay is in both settings.

The focus on colleges continued in the prime minister’s speech at the Conservative Party conference when he backed a 10-year programme to transform the 16-to-19 education phase.

This is, of course, easily dismissed as a long-term plan that will not last the imminent general election. But that would be wrong given that the Advanced British Standard (not a great name, but that will not last) is based on principles we have been campaigning on for years. It includes more hours of contact time for every young person, at all levels, and a simpler menu of options across the so-called academic and technical divide to allow more breadth. Importantly, it signals a strong desire to open up technical learning to more young people, of all abilities and backgrounds.

The ABS consultation and developments also give us a prime opportunity to address other longstanding campaign ambitions: pay and recruitment, workload, capital investment, moving from competition to collaboration and better linking apprenticeships with what happens inside colleges and schools.

That ABS announcement was followed by Keir Starmer’s plan to support colleges to take on a new enhanced role as Technical Excellence Colleges, presumably with the investment to match. It built on Labour’s strong focus on increasing awareness of the importance of skills across all of their ‘missions’.  

It’s a nice place to be after too many years of neglect

This theme of stronger recognition continued in October with our Colleges Week parliamentary reception, which felt different to previous years. Alongside Gillian Keegan, we also heard speeches from shadow skills minister, Seema Malhotra, and Lib Dem education spokesperson, Munira Wilson. That’s not particularly remarkable, but their words and clear desire to show how much they recognise, respect and endorse colleges almost felt as if they were competing to prove they were the college sector’s biggest supporter.

It’s a nice place for us to be after too many years of neglect. 

There are plenty of other indications of a stronger understanding of colleges’ vital role and the importance of investment in post-16 education. Take, for example, the engagement we now have at national policy level with universities on developing a reformed tertiary approach. We’ve always believed that the education system needs thriving schools, colleges and universities as anchor institutions, working to their strengths and collaborating to help people navigate to what they want and need. My optimism is that we are starting to see wider agreement on how that might be achieved. 

However, we cannot be complacent; there are still enormous challenges. Funding is still way below 2010 levels, pay lags too far behind schools and industry, qualifications reform could risk the education of tens of thousands, reclassification has brought unwelcome restrictions that hamper colleges’ ability to deliver and public finances look extremely tight for years to come.  

All of that will keep us busy in 2024, but it is a relief to no longer need to keep fighting for a seat at the table; we are now engaged much more closely in policy formulation and implementation.  

That brings its own challenges of course, because none of this is easy and there are rarely clear-cut obvious right (or wrong) policies. Compromise, scarce resources and competing views will always dominate education policy.  

For me, it’s clear the college sector is now a force to be reckoned with in Whitehall. We need to use that influence wisely and carefully, but it’s a much better end to this year than last.

SEND apprenticeship mentor pilot planned by DfE

The government is planning to run a mentoring support pilot for apprentices who have learning difficulties and disabilities (LDD).

Training providers are now being invited to submit an expression of interest to take part in the trial that will be led by the Department for Education.

The DfE said it will test whether offering “targeted expert support, advice and training to the people providing mentoring to LDD apprentices results in a positive impact on the cohort, both in terms of satisfaction, as well as broader areas such as retention and achievement for these apprentices”.

Providers and prospective mentors will be offered a package of bespoke training, advice, and support in how to support people with LDD throughout the pilot, the DfE added.

It comes amid the early success of another pilot for LDD people, which aims to make apprenticeships more accessible through an English and maths exemption.

This one-year trial, launched in May 2023, allows people with a learning difficulty 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 than current policy requires.

Around 20 providers have been trialling a change to the rules that allows special educational needs and/or disabilities coordinators (SENDCOs) to conduct additional assessments and judge whether a learner without an EHCP or LDA – but with equivalent needs – can be approved for this flexibility.

Providers that spoke with FE Week about the pilot last month labelled the rule change as a “game-changer” as hundreds of people who found themselves blocked from apprenticeship opportunities were now enrolling on programmes thanks to the exemption.

The DfE hasn’t provided a timeline for the launch of the LDD apprenticeship mentor pilot, but interested parties have been told to contact lddmentoring.pilot@education.gov.uk for more information.

Advanced British Standard consultation: What you need to know

The government has this morning published its consultation on the Advanced British Standard, which runs until mid-March.

It doesn’t seem to have many more details of how it would all work than what was published when the plans were first announced (you can read our previous round-up here).

The plan to ditch A-levels and T Levels for new “major” and “minor” subjects, including compulsory English and maths, would take TEN YEARS to introduce (which is also ignoring a potential change of government).

Unions said it was “difficult to imagine a more pointless waste of energy and time”. Geoff Barton, leader of ASCL, added it was “headless chicken policymaking”.

Nonetheless, the government has published a 80-page consultation and is encouraging the sector to take part. So what do you need to know?

1. Remind us: what is the ABS again?

It’s worth reading our full explainer here as to the broad aims around the new qualification, which the government says will replace A-level and T Levels.

Instead, the ABS will “create a simpler menu of high-quality options and expectations, for the first time breaking down the divide between ‘academic’ and ‘technical’ study”.

The main aims are clearer post-16 options, more teaching time and a core of maths and English but ensuring students study a wider range of subjects.  

2. There will be two ABS qualifications…

There will be the ABS and the ABS (occupational). Confused yet? 

The first will be for the majority of students working at level 3. It will entail a minimum of three “majors” (academic and technical subjects that directly support progression into employment or further study).

There will also be a minimum of two ‘minors’, with maths and English at either of these levels and some EEP activities (but not much more details on the latter).

The ABS (occupational) is for level 3 students who “are clear they want to specialist in one subject area”, but they may have to do 1,725 hours because of industry placements.

They would study one “major” and one ‘double major’ – both of which are subjects likely to be covered by the current T-levels or alternative academic qualifications (AAQs) – and do two ‘minors’ in maths and English.

3. Industry placements for ‘some’ students

Previous proposals on the ABS were clear that it would mean the end of T Levels and A-levels. 

Writing for FE Week shortly after the prime minister announced the ABS, skills minister Robert Halfon said that T Levels will “be the backbone” of the new qualification, which will “build on the success of A-levels and T Levels.”

All 16 to 19-year-old students would take the ABS, studying a mixture of ‘major’, ‘minor’ and employability, enrichment and pastoral (EEP) activities.

Some, but not all, students following the occupational route (see above) will do an industry placement as part of their ABS programme. 

DfE “envisages” that students who double major in subjects with “occupational entry competence” will take an industry placement. 

The consultation proposes the placements will be “based on the same principles” as the requirements for current T Level students, such as taking place in a workplace relevant to the training and be at least 315 hours.

All ABS students would have 1,475 guided learning hours, more than the current 1,280, over the two-year programme. Programmes could be around 1,725 hours including an industry placement.

4. Level 2 version and more English and maths for apprentices

A level 2 version of the ABS, which doesn’t have its own name yet, will have the same number of teaching hours as the level 3, but officials aren’t sure how to fill the time.

The consultation promises students an “appropriate breadth” of subjects, but they won’t be structured as ‘major’ and ‘minors’ like the level 3 equivalent.

Officials say it will be up to schools and colleges to decide how best to fill the 1,475 learning hours, such as by spending extra time on English and maths.

Students aiming for work or an apprenticeship can take the ‘level 2 occupational programme’ which would last 1-2 years. Or there will be a ‘one-year transition programme,’ similar to the T Level transition year, to progress to the full ABS.

Level 1 and entry-level programmes will not be included.

Young people on apprenticeships are also out of scope of the ABS, but the consultation suggests that officials are looking at extending the number of English and maths teaching hours for 16-19 year-old apprentices to match their classroom counterparts, ie 150-175 guided learning hours per subject. 

5. What would the subjects look like?

There’s not much more apart from broad principles here, but the government says there will be no more “different qualifications offering similar version of the same subject with overlapping content”, for example a subject being offered both as an A-level and AAQ.

Level 3 subjects should “provide stretch and challenge”, be “suitably knowledge-rich”, provided “levels of specialisation” appropriate for 16 to 19-year-olds and have “clearly distinct titles and content”.

Majors will cover at least 90 per cent of the content covered by A-levels with between 300 to 350 guided learning hours (A-levels have 360 hours). Minors will have between 150 to 175 learning hours. Students will also do “at least 150 hours” of employability, enrichment and pastoral (EEP).

Meanwhile, they will also get more time with a teacher “to improve outcomes”. Currently “we expect students to undertake a large amount of independent study, and also offer less time with a teacher”, the consultation adds.

6. ‘Difficult’ for providers to offer ‘full ABS suite’

A bigger breadth of 16 to 19 subjects means “it may be difficult for all providers to offer the full range of ABS subjects”, the consultation adds.

But it adds “as a minimum, our aim is for all young people to be able to access any of the ABS subjects at a provider within a reasonable travel distance of where they live.”

However this will “pose greater challenges in rural areas and other areas with fewer accessible providers” – a problem that has beset the roll-out of T Levels, too.

The consultation only says they will “continue to engage the sector” on the “best ways to overcome these barriers”.

7. Students to get ABS ‘certificate of achievement’

There would still be specific grades for each major and minor. 

But the current favoured option is to have a “certificate or statement of achievement recognising a student has completed their ABS programme and met the minimum attainment conditions to receive an overall award”.

This would “demonstrate to employers and post-18 providers student performance across the full programme. 

“A certificate would note the marks or grade received in individual components, but there would not be an overall aggregate score or grade that sits above these marks.”

Alternative options include a certificate without any minimum conditions required to receive it, or an aggregate ABS score.

8. How to find more teachers? A question for another day…

Education secretary Gillian Keegan in her foreword admits “we will need to support the system to prepare for this change, taking time to build the workforce and provision essential to delivery”. Quite.

DfE has just missed its secondary school recruitment target for the tenth time in 11 years and a £7,000 pay gap between school and college teachers is exacerbating an FE teacher recruitment and retention crisis.

More teaching hours and compulsory maths and English will have “significant workforce implications for providers of 16-19 education, who already face teacher shortages, particularly in STEM subjects”, the consultation states.

So what’s the plan? Alas, not a question for today it seems. Consultation responses “will help us refine the design of the ABS, and in parallel, we will consider how best to step up recruitment and retention of our workforce”.

“We will further develop our plans for the workforce through the ABS White Paper”, which is promised “next year”.

P.S. What about adults?

Nearly a million adult learners take classroom-based qualifications that could be replaced by the ABS, but officials haven’t yet worked out how the new system would work for them. 

One of the 58 consultation questions asks about potential impacts on other groups that take post-16 qualifications, such as adult learners and those in custody. 

An interim equalities impact assessment, also published today, said: “further policy development should take adult learners into account.”

Unique student identifiers should be compulsory across awarding bodies, say researchers

Unique learner numbers (ULNs) should be mandatory and used across all awarding organisations to make it easier for student results to be issued, researchers have suggested.

Ofqual chief regulator Jo Saxton has backed the idea and claimed that if ULNs had been universally used in the summer of 2022 the number of delayed BTEC results would have been reduced.

The Department for Education is understood to be considering how to extend the use of ULNs in the face of long-held barriers that get in the way of a system-wide roll-out, such as cost and data protection.

Sector-wide use of ULNs was called for in a research report published today by ImpactEd Consulting, which investigated steps that “might help to secure parity of treatment for students taking different types of qualification, and to streamline the workload for schools and colleges”.

The research is part of Ofqual’s action plan to support the “safe and timely” delivery of awarding organisations’ results for vocational and technical qualifications (VTQs) after last year’s results debacle that saw around 21,000 BTEC and Cambridge Technical results issued late, leaving students in limbo.

The ULN, launched in 2008, is issued and administered by the Learning Record Service (LRS) and is designed to collate data for students’ personal learning records (PLR), an online record of qualifications and achievements obtained from the age of 13 or 14. It is often compared to the education equivalent of the National Insurance number.

Despite being around for 15 years and the fact that schools and colleges are mandated to use the ULN for individualised learner record (ILR) submissions for all publicly funded qualifications, not all awarding organisations require schools and colleges to provide the number. Instead, some AOs prefer to use their own candidate ID numbers.

Various challenges make using the ULN difficult, the researchers explain, such as students not being aware of their number, learners being assigned more than one number, and students sharing the same number – common for people with shared or similar names and addresses.

According to UCAS, fewer than 17 per cent of higher education applicants currently include their ULN in their applications.

‘Systemic use of ULN benefits all actors in the system’

ImpactEd Consulting proposed an “ideal scenario” where the LRS would record all general and vocational qualifications for all students aged 13 and above and the data exchange between schools, colleges, awarding bodies and the LRS would be based on the ULN. This “one portal” idea would “require collaboration between the DfE, Ofqual and IfATE to ensure alignment over purpose, use cases and data-sharing agreements”.

Such a system would improve the student “experience” for results releases and enrolment periods, reduce risks of human error, provide quick access to previous achievements for colleges, reduce risk around data duplication and fraud for awarding bodies and offer reassurance that student data is matched correctly.

Saxton, who wrote a preface for ImpactEd Consulting’s report, supports the proposal. She said: “Ofqual sees real potential for students, and for all parts of the qualifications ecosystem, including policy makers, in the full use by the whole system of a unique student identifier.

“Had this been fully used in the summer of 2022, it would have been significantly easier to work out which students needed results. As it was, the same student could be identified under different references across awarding organisations and UCAS, making it challenging to identify which results were still needed.”

She added that apart from the “operational clarity” this could help provide, it could also “support the regulator in better understanding awarding organisations’ progress in safe delivery of results, as well as to evaluate qualification choices and use”.

The key, however, is incentivising how awarding bodies can “best be incentivised to support the system-wide adoption”, according to ImpactEd Consulting.

Researchers said there was a big push from the DfE between 2010 and 2012 to make the ULN mandatory for AOs and enforce result uploads to the LRS using the ULN. 

However, use of the ULN could only be mandated for publicly funded qualifications. Adoption of the policy was then “slow” and benefits of a more systemic use “were not communicated sufficiently”.

Additionally, from October 2015, awarding bodies developed their qualifications more independently, without the need to incorporate required units or credits following the switch from the Qualifications and Credit Framework (QCF) to the Regulated Qualifications Framework (RQF).

ImpactEd Consulting said the “removal of set deadlines for qualifications under QCF and the move towards a system that allows students to set the pace of their learning” also meant that “co-ordination across AOs became less of a priority and that the roll-out of the ULN lost traction”.

Researchers found current issues facing awarding bodies to adopt ULNs include the cost of updating awarding body software systems, a lack of clarity about who is best placed to drive the effort – Ofqual or DfE, GDPR, and completeness of the data.

Awarding bodies are also concerned about their commercial interests. ImpactEd Consulting explained that the “benefits to any individual AO of rolling out the ULN do not outweigh the cost of making changes to their MI systems and training staff which is why this initiative requires government leadership”.

The researchers concluded: “Our conversations underline that increased systemic use of the ULN benefits all actors in the system, even if it does require some upfront investment and potential change of processes. At the same time, it is also apparent that the current approach, whereby it is up to AOs to decide whether or not they use the ULN for VTQs, is not working.

“To break out of this spiral and move the roll-out of the ULN forward, there is a need for different government agencies to come together to align on key priorities.”

Saxton suggested the DfE has started work in this area. She said: “Ofqual welcomes the Department for Education’s work considering the existing ULN.”

The DfE told FE Week it is making no changes to the ULN, but it is looking to make the ULN “more visible to students and easier to access going forward”.

Skills devolution: Five ways to ensure communities are in the driving seat

As the biggest single capital project in the history of the FE sector, it should be no surprise that The Manchester College’s stunning new City Campus has attracted a steady stream of visitors since it opened.

In October, hundreds of the UK’s most talented young apprentices in fields such as digital construction, cyber security and culinary arts gathered for the WorldSkills UK national finals, taking place in the city for the first time.

Seven months before this, the campus hosted Andy Burnham, Mayor of Greater Manchester, and national levelling up minister, Dehenna Davison for the signing of the City Region’s trailblazer devolution deal. As Mr Burnham told guests: “[We] have achieved a significant breakthrough by gaining greater control over post-16 technical education, setting us firmly on the path to become the UK’s first technical education city region.”

If the UK is to achieve its ambition of building a high-skill, high-wage economy, these two events show us what we need to achieve – international standards of excellence in technical education – and how to achieve it – through skills devolution.

In the autumn statement, chancellor, Jeremy Hunt announced plans for four new deals which will result in some 57 per cent of England’s population living under devolution by 2025. Labour, too, has pledged to offer further powers to current and future combined authorities, with Sir Keir Starmer vowing to “give power back and put communities in control”.

In our own back yard, LTE Group is proud to be at the forefront of Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s exciting plans to develop the country’s first fully integrated technical education system. And as a national group of skills providers operating across England and Wales, we have a unique insight into the differences in how skills policy operates under different combined authorities.

A new report by the LTE Group centre for policy and research, which draws on insight and intelligence from across the group to support and shape the development of innovative education, skills and employment policy, offers five recommendations for how devolution and skills policy should evolve to enable colleges and providers to flourish.

1. Prioritise commissioning, not control

A framework to bring commissioners together in a coordinated way, while retaining colleges’ autonomy to balance the demands of national and regional funders as well as their own stakeholders, would enable colleges to flourish as anchor institutions at the heart of their communities.

2. Facilitate coordinated post-16 capacity planning

In each combined authority region, a strategic capacity planning process that brings together FE providers, schools and national and regional commissioners should take place annually to ensure two key objectives are met: that capacity can meet current and future demand, and that no student misses out on a post-16 place whether they wish to pursue an academic or technical pathway.

3. Ensure funding stability while enabling innovation

Guaranteed inflation-based annual funding uplifts for all apprenticeships and AEB-funded provision, alongside the protection of combined authorities’ ability to adapt their own funding rates and rules to respond to regional need, would provide a sustainable framework for high-quality provision.

4. Guarantee fair, sustainable pay

Colleges, representative bodies and unions should form a working group to develop a new approach to pay and conditions to allow the sector to attract the high-skilled professional specialists it needs. The next government should commit to closing the gap in average teacher pay between schools and colleges within five years.

5. Ensure the employer-led system takes a broader view

As well as exploring growth areas and skills gaps, LSIPs should draw on a broader range of evidence when making recommendations for future skills provision. This should include migration trends, physical and mental health in the wider community and the need to address in-work poverty and support over-50s back into the workforce.

The tension lying behind the devolution process is the need to allow combined authorities to innovate and respond to their own unique economic circumstances, while ensuring that no parts of the country are left behind as a result of the atomisation of skills policy. I hope this report offers a blueprint how the next government can strike this balance.

The full report, Skills devolution: Putting communities in control? is available here