FE can lead us out of the permacrisis if we work together

We often think of self-defence as skills we learn individually to protect ourselves from immediate danger, providing us with agency in difficult situations. Outside of actions like collective bargaining, it’s much rarer to think of self-defence as a collective skill we learn, practice and deploy in times of crises.

Whether it’s allowing groups to use college kitchens to cook and distribute community meals during Covid-19 or opening up a warm bank as energy prices soar, the need for spontaneous and localised responses as self-defence against economic and social disasters that punctuate this enduring crisis we’re living through feels like a skill we need to master, together.

Community self-defence isn’t new. The building of solidarity across communities as a means of survival through reciprocal exchange of services, support, supplies and skills has always been practised. Whether it’s coastal communities coordinating the first volunteer lifeboat services, or a network disseminating supplies in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, community-led localised disaster responses are often far more effective than waiting for the bureaucracy of government or top-down actions of charities. During the Covid-19 pandemic, you probably heard of this self-defence referred to as “mutual aid”, where the community takes the lead in protecting itself.

During 2020 as part of a research project, I spoke with workers across further education about their experiences of mutual aid in their day-to-day work. Participants talked about how competition between providers led to some of them feeling isolated in their roles and how it was easier to connect to other FE workers further afield. They added that communities like #UKFEChat (a weekly online discussion group – set up by the indomitable Sarah Simons) provided a space both to develop themselves and to share with others across the profession, building a horizontal community out of necessity and creating a space for survival against the ‘hostile attempts to paint the profession in a poor light’.

Mutual aid isn’t about limping on from disaster to disaster

The research discussions also explored mutual aid taking place within communities during the pandemic, and the parallels and possibilities it held for the further education community. One participant noted that they hoped the similar horizontal community building they had experienced out of necessity during the pandemic would help to ‘demonstrate the agency that people have in their communities’. Others discussed how we could develop adult community learning in ways that drew on what was happening within the local mutual aid groups, where people were learning a range of different skills and knowledge from each other, from gardening to navigating the welfare system.

As lockdown hit, some colleges and training providers were quick to respond to community need and embedded themselves within their local mutual aid networks, offering use of their catering teaching facilities, making PPE and providing free short courses. This pivot provided a space for FE to facilitate learning that met people’s much broader needs as opposed to the narrower focus on skills and employability. 

But practising mutual aid isn’t about establishing a new normal as quickly as possible and limping on from disaster to disaster. Instead, it’s a way of wedging open those cracks within our current system and building practical solidarity across our communities to re-make our world. It’s the way communities have always defended themselves, but it’s often so buried under bureaucracy that it seems radical.

So often we see the most straightforward route of change-making is to make immediate demands of the people who are often responsible for the mess we’re in. With another general election on the horizon, understandably the sector is starting to strategise and lobby. 

But whatever shade of politician and policy change comes our way every few years, we will still need to protect ourselves from those big social, economic and environmental disasters that have become the benchmarks of our current settlement. We’re not going to do this with a blueprint or a strategic plan, but instead by finding ways to strengthen our interdependence locally and develop emergent ways of responding to community needs. 

There’s no better place than in further education to learn the skills and tools to build the world we want to see – from the bottom up, without permission from anyone but each other. 

The government’s muddled messaging over skills risks undermining its whole agenda

In November 2017, I told the Association of College’s Annual Conference that “further education (FE) is central to the challenge of delivering a prosperous future for this country after Brexit”. Much has changed since. We’ve had to grapple with the economic and educational impact of the pandemic, not to the mention the near constant political changes in Downing Street and the DfE. Yet what I said back then remains true. The importance of FE to the country’s future has never been clearer.

Fortunately, the list of Conservatives throwing their rhetorical weight behind skills and further education has grown considerably. Rishi Sunak, Jeremy Hunt, Boris Johnson, Gillian Keegan and more have said they want to help the country to re-skill and upskill. They quite rightly see increased skills levels as a means of driving growth, supercharging productivity, tackling regional inequality and improving life chances.

Technical and vocational education and training is certainly the key which can unlock the country’s economic potential. But in setting out their pro-skills agenda, the government’s communications approach is not showcasing the sector to its fullest. They are treating skills as amorphous and theoretical when they are in fact firmly rooted in local education and training organisations.

On average, colleges work with more than 500 local businesses. They are often a leading employer in their own right. Independent training providers are equally pivotal in supporting learners and driving economic growth both locally and regionally. Yet this importance is not reflected by the government, or indeed the national media. It is on government to more clearly set the tone and state how they will make skills growth a reality.

During my time as apprenticeships and skills minister, it became clear to me that it was incumbent on government to recognise and champion skills from the grassroots level up. Without this constant advocacy and adequate finance, the gap between academic and vocational education will not be bridged.

A sea change in communications is needed

Every August, thousands of learners receive results for vocational and technical qualifications, but they are never given the spotlight those studying GCSEs and A Levels receive. This is in spite of the fact V-Certs, BTECs, Cambridge Technicals, T Levels and more make up a significant proportion of the results received during this period. Skills ministers make valiant attempts to gain more press coverage but this needs to be replicated across government.

What’s more, initiatives to put technical education in the shop window can either fall flat or be short-lived. Why, for example, do occasions like National Apprenticeship Week and National Careers Week so often come and go with so little attention?

A sea change in communications is needed. Government, and particularly the incumbents of numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street, must make a more robust effort to champion these courses with new audiences.

We have long talked about tackling the stigma associated with technical education, but a positive, accessible story is still not being told. Gillian Keegan is heavily invested in skills, and the product of an apprenticeship herself. It is not churlish to say that government could be making much more of this to influence perceptions of the sector.

The narrative power of technical education is evident: it delivers brilliant individual stories and a wider economic narrative. Finding a way to connect these dots is a challenge government must finally rise to if it is serious about changing perceptions around skills and turbocharging its economic and educational ambitions – irrespective of political parties.

The challenge is often picked up by colleges and independent training providers, the vast majority of whom do a brilliant job of marketing themselves. But more can always be done, whether that’s through working locally via social media, with local radio and media outlets or enlisting the support of those with the skills to help get the message across. Schools could arguably do more too.

I am genuinely optimistic about the future of vocational and technical education and training. But to make the most of the sector’s potential, we need vocal champions right at the top of government to start telling a more powerful story.

FE is bucking the trend on the attainment gap. What could it do with more funding?

Last month, the department for education released new analysis of attainment and progress to the age of 25. Hidden in this statistical release was a good news story. The department’s analysis shows that the proportion of young people who achieve a good standard of English and maths by the age of 19 is the highest on record at 74.9 per cent.

This increase in achievement of basic skills qualifications in English and maths has been driven by the country’s post-16 sector. Progress in these subjects between the ages of 16 and 19 is now the highest on record. Two decades ago, fewer than 6 per cent of young people who had not passed GCSE English and maths at 16 had gone on to achieve them by the age of 19. Today, that figure is almost six times higher.

Progress in English and maths in post-16 education has been on an upward trajectory since 2014 when the condition of funding was introduced. Notably, the department’s analysis also shows that more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are passing GCSE English and maths in 16 to 19 education than their peers. This bucks the longstanding trend for the country’s attainment gap, which emerges early and typically widens as children progress through the education system. Instead, our 16 to 19 education sector is having some success in narrowing the attainment gap in GCSE English and maths.

This is a huge testament to our further education sector. This is the part of our education system that serves a significant proportion of 16- to 19-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds and 90 per cent of young people retaking GCSE English and maths. And it is the part that typically gets on with the job with little fanfare and funding.

Real-term cuts across the FE sector stand at 8 per cent. Teachers in colleges get paid on average £7,000 a year less than their peers in schools. There was no additional funding for FE in the Autumn Statement, and notably there has never been Pupil Premium funding for 16- to 19-year-olds. Across every metric, funding to support students from disadvantaged backgrounds nose dives at 16.

The financial context makes this progress all the more impressive

This financial context makes the increase in attainment and progress in basic English and maths skills and the subsequent narrowing of the attainment gap all the more impressive. By any measure, these improvements have been achieved on nothing more than a shoestring.

Of course, there is still more progress to be made. Despite these improvements, 2 in 3 young people who miss out at school still have not achieved a Level 2 qualification in English and maths by the age of 19. Moreover, the narrowing of the gap is only slight at 3 percentage points. It could and should be closed further.

But policymakers should take note. Imagine what could be achieved in FE if the sector was properly funded. What might we expect the sector to deliver if FE teacher pay matched that of schoolteacher pay and colleges could compete for qualified staff? And how much more might we close attainment gaps if funding for disadvantaged 16- to 19-year-olds matched that of school-aged young people?

Those working in the FE sector have long known about its potential to be transformational for social mobility. Research too is catching up, with the latest studies in cognitive neuroscience suggesting there is a “window of opportunity” for learning in late adolescence and early adulthood.

This week, former minister for apprenticeships and skills, Anne Milton has written of the need for the highest levels of government to back the sector. This latest analysis from the department should be the catalyst for the new narrative she rightly calls for. There can be no stronger evidence to justify better funding than this narrowing of the attainment gap in English and maths – proof positive of the vital role colleges play for young people, the economy and society.

Construction training body takes wrecking ball to subcontracting

One of the largest providers of construction apprenticeships has ended its troubled subcontracted provision and dropped from Ofsted ‘outstanding’ to ‘requires improvement’.

The Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) tumbled from the watchdog’s top grade, which it achieved twice in the 2010s, in a report published this week.

The executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Education and chaired by former Education and Skills Funding Agency chief Peter Lauener, has been among the biggest providers of subcontracted provision in further education for the past decade.

But Ofsted’s latest report revealed it has stepped away from the practice after finding ineffective oversight, with inspectors stating that leaders “focus too heavily on contract compliance and not on the quality of education”.

CITB confirmed it is winding down its subcontracted delivery, which it currently undertakes with 24 partners in areas like carpentry and joinery, construction skills and bricklaying.

The organisation said the decision was linked to government policy in 2021, which demanded providers in FE significantly reduce their subcontracted provision after scandals and cases of poor oversight were brought to light.

Ofsted’s previous report on CITB from 2017 showed it had 9,000 apprentices on its books, but the report from this week showed just 629.

The company claimed this did not, however, represent a dramatic decrease in its direct provision.

A spokesperson said: “The number of learners reduced from 9,000 because we made a strategic decision to withdraw from managing subcontracting providers. In 2017 the significant majority of learners were in subcontracted provision, rather than our own CITB apprenticeships.

“We reviewed our strategy for apprenticeships delivery and took the decision in 2021 to discontinue our subcontracted provision. We now focus on specialist apprenticeship delivery in niche provision that it would be difficult or prohibitively expensive for other providers to deliver.”

The CITB spokesperson said that Ofsted’s report also included “many examples of high-quality practice” at the organisation, adding that it has “committed investment to improve our training for apprentices and continue to transform provision with a focus on improving performance monitoring, supporting staff to deliver quality, specialist learning and, providing high-quality careers guidance”.

Ofsted’s report comes months after CITB’s accounts revealed it faces a clawback of up to £10.3 million to the ESFA following an audit of historic non-compliant apprenticeships data.

New provider ‘power’ over EPAOs risks ‘race to the bottom’

A new rule that puts the power of choosing apprenticeship end-point assessment organisations (EPAO) into the hands of training providers will cause a “race to the bottom” on quality, officials have been warned.

The Department for Education announced this week that from August 1, the register of EPAOs will merge with the register of apprenticeship training providers (RoATP) and be called the “apprenticeship providers and assessment register” (APAR).

Included in the move was a “bombshell” statement, as described by one EPAO, that will make training providers responsible for choosing which organisation should do the end-point assessment for their employers’ apprentices, rather than the employer itself.

Experts told FE Week that providers have always been the main “influencers” when it comes to EPAO selection, although officially it has always been the employers’ choice and they usually pick from a “beauty parade” of offers.

But the new rule will empower providers to “game” the system by “using their right to negotiate the prices for EPA”, according to Terry Fennel, chief executive of awarding body and EPAO, FDQ Ltd.

He said: “Fundamentally now employers are more interested in quality assured services for their apprentices over price for EPA, therefore they are more likely to ‘shop around’ to find the best EPAO. However, providers often behave in reverse, putting ‘price’ over anything else so they will ‘barter’ with EPAOs to get the bottom price.

“If the max charged for an EPA is £2,000, but the EPAO is beaten down to £1,000 the difference is pocketed by the training provider therefore they have commercial incentive to always go with the lowest price.”

The price of an EPA is usually between 11 to 20 per cent of an apprenticeship funding band.

Helen Shinner, managing director of 1st for EPA, agreed with Fennel.

She told FE Week: “Many believe that this change is simply formalising what already occurs. While it’s true that many providers advise employers, we find that having the final decision does keep employers engaged in the process. Plus, they hold the power to switch EPAO if they see the need.

“The big concern is that the change may create a temptation for providers to use as few EPAOs as possible, to keep processes and systems to a minimum. While this may seem like a simplified approach, there’s a danger of taking the easiest route, rather than the best one.”

Shinner continued: “This will hit particularly hard for providers serving niche markets, where they may find that it is the niche EPAOs that hold the assessment expertise, as well as superior customer service. The ultimate result may be a drop in quality and impact apprentice certification.

“The message is: provider beware – don’t sacrifice long term quality and reputation for ‘quick wins’.”

Charlotte Bosworth, managing director of Innovate Awarding, an EPAO that is part of the Lifetime Training Group, said she didn’t see this move as “much as a concern as others”.

Her biggest concern is if EPAOs are “tiered” on the new APAR register so the assessment organisations are “deemed as a subcontractor”.

“This could lead to providers wanting to drive down the price of end-point assessment and create a system where EPAOs are competing mostly on price, which will end up impacting on quality,” she said.

The DfE said further information and guidance on both changes for employers, providers and EPAOs will be made “in the next few weeks”.

Scandal-hit Brooklands College’s accounts finally surface

Brooklands College has finally published accounts for the first time in four years.

The Surrey-based college was stung by an apprenticeship subcontracting scandal that came to light in 2019 following investigations by FE Week.

Left with a £25 million debt demanded by the government’s Education and Skills Funding Agency, the small college, which brings in just £11 million in income annually, has spent years negotiating a repayment deal that would prevent it from going bust.

In recent months the college has unveiled plans for a £45 million re-development, which includes selling an historic building and land for homes, to pay back the debt.

Even though the college is waiting on the local council to agree to planning permission, the plan, approved by the ESFA, has moved the college’s financial health up from ‘inadequate’ to ‘good’ and enabled the accounts for the past four years to be approved and published.

The accounts reveal the £25 million debt has been “discounted” to £23.1 million and can be repaid in the next three years.

“The amount due to the ESFA shown as a long-term creditor of £23m is supported by a repayment agreement and will not be called in for three years unless the development of the state enables this to be repaid sooner,” its latest accounts state.

They also show the principal that led the college at the time of the subcontracting scandal, which took place between 2014 and 2018, Gail Walker, received “compensation” of £14,175 when she after she resigned. The accounts state this was for “statutory redundancy only”.

Another 92 courses face the chop to make way for T Levels

Ninety-two courses taken by over 17,000 students face the axe as the government reveals its latest hit list of level 3 qualifications.

Popular courses for 16- to- 19-year-olds in engineering and manufacturing are set to lose their funding from 2025 as officials continue to clear the way for their flagship T Level qualifications.

The qualifications sentenced to defunding today rival wave 3 of the T Level rollout. They include Pearson’s BTEC national foundation diploma in engineering, the BTEC national extended diploma in engineering and IMI’s diploma in light vehicle maintenance. Over 8,200 young FE students enrolled on those qualifications in 2020/21.

Teaching of wave 3 T Levels began in September 2022, bringing in business and administration, legal, finance and accounting and engineering and manufacturing. Those students will complete in 2024. Overlap qualifications will be removed the year after in 2025.

Skills minister Robert Halfon announced this morning the Department for Education had identified 92 level 3 qualifications in total that overlap with wave 3 T Levels and will therefore lose their funding. See table below for the full list.

The DfE previously announced that 134 other level 3 courses that overlap with waves 1 and 2 of T Levels also face defunding.

“We are reforming technical qualifications as the current qualifications do not consistently progress young people to related employment,” Halfon said.

“Removing funding from technical qualifications which overlap with T Levels will ensure young people can feel confident that they are studying technical qualifications which will prepare them for jobs in their chosen occupation.”

DfE data shows that of the 92, 36 had no enrolments and 24 had fewer than 100 enrolments in 2020/21. Enrolment data “wasn’t available” for six qualifications.

The remaining 26 qualifications recorded 16 to 19 enrolments totalling 17,120 in 2020/21.

Pearson, which offers the popular BTEC, is the most affected awarding organisation, with 12,010 enrolments in in 2020/21 across 18 qualifications earmarked for defunding. 

EAL and IMI are the next most affected awarding organisations, with 2,150 and 1,180 enrolments on affected enrolments respectively. 

Pearson’s managing director for vocational qualifications and training, Freya Thomas Monk, told FE Week: “Our BTEC nationals in business and enterprise are highly regarded by learners and employers and we welcome that they are not on the provisional list of qualifications that was published.”

On the 18 Pearson qualifications that have been listed, Thomas Monk said: “We will be writing to our customers shortly with what this announcement means for them and their learners.”

Pearson confirmed it will not appeal to save any of the qualifications. 

Other awarding bodies impacted by the wave 3 overlap list have until July 6 to appeal.

The most popular qualification on the list is Pearson’s Level 3 national foundation diploma in engineering, with 3,790 enrolments in 2020/21. 

The qualification features as one of 75 applied general qualifications already deemed ineligible for consideration as an alternative to T Levels based on analysis by the Sixth Form Colleges Association (SFCA). 

James Kewin, SFCA deputy chief executive, said the inclusion of engineering courses on the latest list “serves as a reminder of the sort of popular and respected courses that young people will no longer be able to access in the future”.

Data obtained by a freedom of information request by the Protect Student Choice campaign, which SFCA leads, found that 68 per cent of 16 to 18 years olds currently studying applied general qualifications are enrolled on courses that will not be funded in the future.

“Ministers have reneged on their commitment to only defund a small proportion of AGQs and taken the extraordinary step of preventing 55 per cent of these qualifications from even starting the approval process,” Kewin said.

“This high-handed approach and steadfast refusal to acknowledge concerns about the direction of level 3 reform will leave many young people without a viable pathway at the age of 16.”

A provisional list of qualifications that overlap with the fourth and final wave of T Levels will be published “later this year”.

Kewin said: “We are now at a critical juncture at the reform process and we need ministers to start listening before irreparable damage is done to the life chances of tens of thousands of young people. A change to the defunding process is the absolute minimum we need, but delaying a bad idea does not stop it from being a bad idea – AGQs have a vital role to play alongside A levels and T levels in the future.”

DfE said the final wave 3 overlap list will be published “in the autumn” following decisions on appeals from the awarding bodies.

IMI and EAL were approached for comment but did not reply at the time of going to press.

Table listing 93 courses overlapping with wave 3 T Levels

Our MBacc will redress policy’s academic bias

I am all in favour of helping young people who want to go to university to do so. But after decades of education policy dominated by the University route, under governments of all colours, 36 per cent of young people make that choice in Greater Manchester. Which begs the question: what about the 64 per cent who don’t?

Our surveys of GM teenagers provide an answer to this question and make for difficult reading. Too many are left without a sense of direction or hope for their future, and feeling like second-class students.

We are determined to change this. Last week, seizing on the opportunities presented by the trailblazer devolution deal we recently agreed with the government, I unveiled plans for the UK’s first integrated technical education system with the aim of giving young people two clear, equal paths at 14: one academic, one technical.

Young people wishing to go to university have a clear path. The English Baccalaureate – or EBacc – is based on the GCSEs most favoured by universities. From there, they progress to A Levels and use the UCAS system to find a university place.

But there is no equivalent for the young people who wish to take technical qualifications and a more direct route to the world of work.

To create this balance, we are proposing a Greater Manchester Baccalaureate or MBacc, which would sit alongside the EBacc and be based on GCSEs and other qualifications most favoured by Greater Manchester employers. Our aim is to maximise people’s chances of getting valuable qualifications and a good job in the growing success story of the Greater Manchester economy.

There will be a range of views on what should and shouldn’t be included in the MBacc, so I am keen to hear from employers and educators. Following consultation, and subject to agreement with the government, our ambition is to start in September 2024. 

Too many feel like second-class students

For my part, I don’t envisage two rigid, parallel routes but an approach with as much commonality as possible that will offer young people plenty of academic and technical options at 16 and the ability to switch between the two.

Here’s my starter for ten to get the discussion going. I would propose that the MBacc has three core, compulsory subjects: English, maths and – because practically every job in the GM economy is to some extent a digital job – either computer science or an alternative ICT qualification. Beyond that, students could choose from existing EBacc subjects and, critically, also subjects that are often currently excluded. That could be engineering, business studies or any of the creative subjects that have been worryingly downgraded over the past decade or so. 

The MBacc’s aim is to lead people to a productive destination. To that end, we will build our integrated system around seven gateways reflecting the strongest areas of the Greater Manchester economy. These include sectors like manufacturing and engineering, digital and technology, and health and social care. Each of the gateways will lead to a group of quality T Levels, other technical qualifications, apprenticeships and degree apprenticeships.

This approach will only work if young people have access to wider careers and life advice to make informed decisions, and enrichment opportunities to help them become ‘work-ready’. It is also underpinned by ‘Our Pass’ – our free bus pass for 16- to 18-year-olds which opens up cultural and sporting activities, but also greater choice of education providers.

My belief is that a system of this kind, which offers a path for everyone, will help raise overall levels of attainment and school performance. If more students feel school is taking them somewhere and are constructively engaged at key stage 4, that can only be beneficial for all students.

My sense is our secondary headteachers feel the same way. James Eldon, headteacher of the Manchester Academy in Moss Side, told our launch event last week that he had invented his own version of the MBacc because he didn’t feel he had enough to say to students and parents at options evenings. It made the case for change more powerfully than anything else.

We can no longer afford our historic snobbery about technical education. Devolution to the English regions finally gives us the chance to get this right – and fix another issue Westminster has long neglected.

Six specialist colleges honoured at Natspec Innovation Awards 2023

Six specialist colleges have been awarded for initiatives that help students with learning difficulties and/or disabilities to live independently, support their community, and forest bathe.

Natspec, which represents specialist colleges across England and Wales, announced the winners of the Natspec Innovation Awards during a virtual ceremony today.

Among the winners were Chadsgrove Educational Trust Specialist College, which won the student voice award for its student ambassador programme that led projects to support local organisations such as foodbanks.

Student ambassadors donated fresh produce grown in the college’s garden as well as non-perishable goods to the local foodbank. Awards judge and disabled rights campaigner Alex Johnson said learners conducted “outstanding work in giving back to the community”.

Hedleys College in Newcastle won the curriculum innovation award for its work with its local police force to introduce a more accessible police cadet programme.

Learners experienced what it is like to be a police officer, such as taking part in a swearing in ceremony and went behind the scenes with patrollers.

Derwen College was awarded for its innovative partnership working for its partnership with video production company Rocking Horse Media to produce content on the college campus with students.

Meanwhile, Hartlepool specialist college Catcote Futures, won the mental health and wellbeing award for its project to immerse learners in sensory forest bathing, an initiative where students planned trails to walk among trees and nature.

Former SEND Policy Lead at the Association of Colleges and awards judge Liz Maudslay praised the project.

She said it “made me realise how much we as teachers are concerned to ensure our students are continually learning and ‘doing’ and can sometimes forget that it is also important that they are supported in simply ‘being’”.

A redeveloped on-campus bungalow at Portland College kitted-out with accessible technology control such as Amazon’s Alexa and Samsung Bixby won the innovative use of technology award. The Mansfield-based college taught learners how to use to technology for tasks like heating, blinds, lights, and the weekly shopping as part of its SMARTHome project, to promote and eliminate barriers preventing their students from living independently.

Finally, the innovative routes into employment award went to The Hive College’s traineeship programme. Judges said the programme, which combined English, maths and ICT with occupational studies tuition and a work placement, “provides an ideal pathway into apprenticeships”.

Natspec chief executive Clare Howard said: “During such straightened times, after the specialist post-16 sector has already faced years of underfunding, it is inspiring that our member colleges are not just making do but are brimming with new ideas and practices.”

The eight-strong judging panel included: former Ofsted inspector Nigel Evans; Jeff Greenidge, director for Diversity for Association of Colleges; Rohan Slaughter, senior lecturer in Assistive Technology at the University of Dundee; Jane Hatton, Founder and CEO of Evenbreak, a social enterprise run by and for disabled people; and Yolande Burgess, Strategy Director for London’s Communities at London Councils.

The winners will be presented with trophies at the Natspec National Conference on Tuesday 13 June. They also will receive a £250 CPD bursary.