How FE can turn the recruitment crisis into an opportunity

In the midst of the many challenges facing further education, there is an opportunity for the sector to seize some control within the broader education landscape. Modernising its recruitment and retention strategy could see the sector take its rightful place in local and national workforce planning.

We hear daily of skills gaps in engineering, computing, childcare, hospitality, management and, of course, teaching. These gaps are keenly felt across the country and all eyes are increasingly on FE to produce tomorrow’s workforce in these areas specifically. The tension, less obvious to those outside our sector, is that those skills gaps translate directly to the front of the classroom too. And therein lies the problem: How can the sector take this opportunity if it lacks the staff to grasp it?

Rigorous workforce planning is crucial. The labour market is complex and jobseeker expectations have shifted substantially in a short space of time. Adapting to this shift could hold the key for colleges to broaden their provision without sacrificing quality.

Greater flexibility

One thing FE can offer that other educational institutions can’t is flexibility. Historically, part-time positions have been seen as precarious by both employers and employees. Colleges keen to tie down lecturers with sought-after skillsets and lecturers looking for the security of a full-time position have long been the norm.

However, with so many colleges speaking highly of their staff with industry experience, now is the time to lean in. FE is well-placed to embrace blended careers and flexible working. Research shows the upcoming workforce is more values-driven and socially conscious than previous generations and desires greater autonomy over their working week. A week split between working in industry and imparting expertise can be good for all involved; Students receive expert teaching, colleges recruit lecturers to address the skills gap and staff can enjoy the flexibility of true dual-professionalism.

Better intelligence

If government is setting the questions and FE has the answers, then labour market intelligence has to be the source material – the data behind the decision-making.

Many colleges have five-year strategic plans, but labour markets are shifting at an unprecedented rate and funding streams are unpredictable. An 18-month outlook, with local employment data as your north star, will help with curriculum forecasts and, in turn, highlight any potential gaps in staffing.

If there are demographic changes, an uptick in SMEs or new flagship businesses in town, we must be ready to respond, to determine whether we have a suitable talent pipeline and the time to upskill staff as required. With resignation deadlines approaching, many are planning for September 2023. How many, I wonder, are planning with equal rigor for September 2024?

External Collaboration

Drawing on labour market intelligence, colleges can determine if it’s in their interest to grow a provision depending on local demand from students and employers for a specific skillset.

As you look to grow key provisions, it can be difficult to secure the depth of knowledge needed to develop curriculum, especially as level 3 and 4 programmes increasingly include modules where highly specific knowledge is required.

Strategic partnerships between colleges and groups could go beyond sharing best practice towards sharing key staff. This may not always be an entirely comfortable arrangement, but adults returning to education can make student numbers less predictable and a visiting lecturer or expert on-call approach might be a more viable guarantor of quality in the short term.

Internal Communication

The final elements of a fit-for-purpose recruitment and retention strategy for the new world of employment are to ensure HR teams grasp the college’s curriculum plan, and that technology is being used optimally to secure the right candidates.

It is by working together towards a medium-term staffing plan across all parts of a college (including HR, curriculum and business management) that FE can create the most thorough, holistic and effective recruitment strategies.  

More of the same isn’t going to solve a shortage of lecturers in our sector and private sector pay growth is likely to continue to outstrip education in the immediate future, especially in those sectors relying on shortage skills.

But FE has one advantage: the ingenuity and bandwidth to respond better than other areas of education, if only it seizes the opportunity.

How leading from the middle can have national impact

After working in the Nuclear Industry for eight years, I now manage the day-to-day operations at the National College for Nuclear, northern hub building at Lakes College and lead the curriculum team delivering from the facility.

My approach to curriculum design and delivery is informed by both my experience in industry, and the appreciation of what it is like to work while studying for a qualification, as I did for my degree. It is about pace, ensuring students only cover certain content once they are in a position to understand and connect it with what they have already learned. That is achieved with case studies, something that would be far more difficult to do effectively without industry experience.

Our department has developed a range of higher qualifications directly in line with the needs of the employer base in our locality. This was not an easy process. We began by creating sector-specific industrial liaison groups that engaged employers to identify key areas for curriculum development and content.

These groups allowed us to focus on curriculum design and awarding body liaison – in our case with the University of Cumbria – knowing that what we were developing would align with what employers were seeking. Importantly, they continue to meet now that the curriculum is being delivered, helping to maintain an understanding of the industrial context our learners will progress into and identifying up-to-date case studies for use in the classroom and assessments.

In five and a half years, we have gone from having no students and no curriculum to having eight foundation degrees, two higher national diplomas and four honours degree top-ups, all validated by the University of Cumbria. We also deliver 11 higher apprenticeship standards. Of 96 students who have completed full honours degrees, 55 achieved a first, 34 a 2:1 and seven a 2:2. Additionally, 154 students have completed their higher apprenticeship, with a first-time pass rate of 88.46 per cent.

We focus on giving students experiences rather than delivering to them

We attribute these successes to our academic and apprenticeship delivery models, not least our own  ‘NCfN Experiential Learning Model’, built on the original Kolb model, with additions including assessments and a requirement for constant reflection. Our model was developed through research as part of an ‘Outstanding teaching, learning and assessment’ project.

The result is that we can focus on giving students experiences rather than delivering to them. For example, our nuclear behaviour training sets students a week-long scenario in which they take control of an ongoing situation, stabilise and then recover a plant to normal operations. As facilitators, we can change the situation at any moment, affecting how students go about their task.

As part of the experience, we use radio waves to set up a simulated radiological field with which we can replicate different situations. Students gain a better understanding of why they are learning particular things, but also what working in the nuclear industry is like and how they react under pressure.

We also do things differently with our apprenticeships. Our model is based on coaching rather than assessing, with colleagues who, though not qualified in the technical areas they are coaching, are highly qualified and skilled as coaches. They are the main link between the academic team and the employer and pull everything together as a cohesive package.

Crucially, we seek to share our experiences with the sector. This isn’t always straightforward because of our geography, but my 2020 award of a technical teaching fellowship by the Education and Training Foundation and the Royal Commission for the Exhibition in 1851 have changed that. For example, our department is being utilised as case study material in the T level and apprenticeship professional development frameworks.

That collaboration is vital for us and, I believe, for the sector. A professional community allows us to overcome the barriers of location and seed best practice for all learners. More than that, it rightly values the power of classroom practitioners and middle leaders to effect system change.

Find out more about technical teaching communities of practice at bit.ly/444Afnm

ITPs are crucial players in ensuring apprenticeship inclusivity

There is no doubt that for school leavers, the option of apprenticeships is growing in popularity when compared to university degrees. A recent article in The Times reported that on average there are seven applications for every undergraduate place at Oxford and six at Cambridge. By comparison, 17,000 teenagers applied for 215 apprenticeship vacancies at the banking group Lloyds in 2022. The picture was similar at oil and gas giant, BP where 1,253 applicants competed for 33 apprenticeship vacancies, and at PwC where there were 5,919 applicants for 589 apprenticeships.  

The prospect of a full-time job on completion of the course and a future without the burden of student debts is undeniably attractive, especially in times of austerity. However, while the middle classes clamour for apprenticeship places at these firms, we must not lose track of what the apprenticeship model was designed for – to generate a pipeline of trained professionals which our country desperately needs and importantly to drive opportunity and a clear career path for disadvantaged youngsters.

Apprenticeships drive diversity

Apprenticeships receive acclaim not just because of the contribution they make to businesses by increasing their skills base and productivity, but also to improving the diversity of the workforce. The aim of removing barriers to entry and opening opportunities for all brings new ideas and a better reflection of customers and the communities they operate in.

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DE&I) is currently high on the corporate agenda. Employers are setting their own targets and we see our role as an Independent Training Provider (ITP) as pivotal in ensuring that they can meet them.  

We provide many of our employer partners with benchmarking data that allows them to understand the diversity of their apprentices against their total workforce data. We can also tell them how they’re performing against similar sized organisations in the same sector. This information helps to identify under-represented groups and to shape action in improving diversity, equity and inclusion.

Thousands served

For example, we’re working with McDonald’s UK & Ireland to ensure that its apprenticeship programme leads by example and provides an inclusive experience for all involved. The programme offers a complete career pathway to manager level and beyond and is showing how growing and upskilling the workforce through apprenticeships is having a positive impact not just on the business but on the communities in which it operates.

McDonald’s is looking to grow the number of apprentices it supports to 3,000 by December 2024, with the majority set to come from level 2 and level 3 enrolments. Lifetime will be using DE&I benchmarking to ensure that the apprenticeship programme effectively represents the diverse workforce across the business.

Building on success

Apprenticeships provide a career pathway with clear progression opportunities, irrespective of background. Across all learners, the story for retention tells a positive story: 86 per cent are still working in the same sector and 77 per cent are still working for the same employer.

But Lifetime’s destination data also shows a nuanced picture regarding diversity and inclusion. Between 2018 and 2023, we found that 84 per cent of learners from an ethnic minority said their apprenticeship had helped their career, compared with 76 per cent of those from a white background. With regards to continuing career progression, a higher percentage of learners from an ethnic minority (62 per cent) said they are interested in a higher level apprenticeship compared to those from a white background (53 per cent).

As apprenticeships become more popular, ITPs have a very clear role in shaping the diversity of organisations and ensuring these programmes play the part they were designed to in providing opportunity for all.

By helping employers set – and meet – realistic targets and demonstrating how they’re performing in this area by providing benchmarking data to shareholders, employees, potential employees, and the wider community, ITPs can act as a guiding light. By helping to grow and diversify workforces, we can allow organisations and communities to reap all of the benefits that come with that.

The minimum apprenticeship duration requires reform

The 12-month minimum duration that all apprenticeship standards must meet has become a celebrated cornerstone of England’s modern apprenticeship system. It is an easy shorthand for ministers arguing that the apprenticeships system has improved after 2017.

But it could be argued that the rule lets trailblazers reject proposed standards that could prove useful for businesses. IfATE’s back and forth with firms including the NHS over the level 2 business administration standard is an example of how the minimum duration rule stifles the system.

In addition, the minimum duration rule is also proving an ineffective way to ensure quality. In our experience of working in the sector, multiple providers have been getting away with putting learners through higher-level standards at an unreasonably rapid pace. This allows them to maximise their short-term income but with devasting implications for the learner, employer, and the sector.

We have been inundated with transfer requests, and a quick look through recent Ofsted reports, coupled with a number of providers ‘exiting’ the sector after being found out, adequately demonstrates why this practice is flawed.

The 12-month minimum duration has also meant lower-level apprenticeship standards cannot develop the flexibilities that learners and employers need in sectors with more casual work.

For all these reasons, the rule needs to be reviewed. Instead, the government should introduce a sliding scale approach which bases the minimum duration of an apprenticeship on its level.

Rushing through higher-level standards

Through our experience of delivering ‘Outstanding’ provision between levels 3 and 7, we have come across providers in our subject areas that are delivering training at a suspiciously quick pace.

For instance, we have seen providers offering to fast-track the level 7 senior people professional standard in 18 months. Past the 12-month minimum duration, yes, but far short of the 36 months IfATE says it typically takes to get an apprentice to gateway.

How can you teach learners the necessary skills, knowledge, and behaviours in half the time it ought to take you? Bear in mind, this is from an advertisement for the course; the provider has no idea about each apprentice’s prior learning.

Nor is it an isolated case. We’ve seen scored of operations/departmental manager apprenticeships at 12 to 14 months, instead of the recommended 30.

Flexi-jobs prove the need for flexibility

There must be an equal focus on delivering quality provision at lower levels. However, apprentices and employers concerned with level 2 need much greater flexibility and more support with progression.

The government conceded that the apprenticeship system needed greater flexibility when it created the flexi-job apprenticeship scheme to support sectors where apprentices find it difficult to secure 12 months’ work with one employer.

That same flexible approach should be applied across the system. Level 2 apprenticeships, especially in sectors where casual work is prevalent like hospitality and retail, should not have a 12-month minimum duration. The apprentices need much greater flexibility to learn skills and gain workplace experience.

Another crucial element of lower-level apprenticeships is progression. Level 2 apprentices should be able to pass their qualification then move up through the levels, with each qualification imparting more advanced knowledge, skills, and behaviours. As the complexity of the learning increases, so should the minimum duration.

Importantly, this is a proposal to change the minimum duration, not the maximum. Learners ought to receive a tailored training programme to account for their varying levels of prior learning, or where they simply need more time to pass their course.

A sliding scale of durations

Instead of the mandatory 12-month minimum duration across all standards, there ought to be a sliding scale approach where the duration differs by level.

Our proposal for this scale is as follows, based on a learner with no significant experience or prior learning:

  • Level 2: Nine months
  • Levels 3 and 4: 12 months
  • Level 5: 18 months
  • Levels 6 and 7: 27 months

This allows for flexibility and progression at the lower levels but means apprentices will receive adequate time – and employers will get proper value for money – especially at higher levels.

DfE puts Multiply online platform on ice

A £100-million online platform designed as the “front door” for the government’s flagship Multiply maths scheme for adults has been put on ice.

The Department for Education refused to confirm whether it was still going ahead with its much-delayed procurement for the platform following an FE Week investigation in to the Multiply programme.

The Guardian yesterday reported that the digital platform element, originally planned to launch in 2022, has been shelved while the government “reviews how the wider scheme is working”.

It is unclear whether plans for the platform have been completely axed or merely delayed.

Rishi Sunak introduced Multiply while he was chancellor in 2021. Sunak has made improving maths skills a key mission of his since becoming prime minister – last week he reaffirmed his desire for all students to study maths of some kind up to the age of 18.

Multiply is a three-year programme that provides free courses for adults aged 19 or above who did not have a grade C or above in GCSE maths or equivalent level 2 maths qualification.

An online platform was planned to signpost people to the free courses in their local area, provide a diagnostic tool to assess skills levels and provide online tuition.

A prior information notice published last year ahead of a planned contract tender described it as a “critical pillar” of the bellwether scheme, but the procurement never took place. The DfE has instead paused that part of the programme as it reviews how the overall project is performing.

Funding of £559 million has been set aside for the three financial years to the end of 2024-25 from the UK Shared Prosperity Fund for Multiply. Around £430 million of that has been dished out locally – £270 million in England and £160 million for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

It left £129 million for the online platform and a programme to build up evidence of what works in addressing adult numeracy.

It is not yet clear what would happen with the funding if the online platform doesn’t go ahead.

DfE told FE Week the department was keeping the Multiply online platform “under review” so that it could ensure it was delivering the right offer for learners.

It said it will update on next steps in due course.

Mark Dawe, chief executive of training provider The Skills Network, said: “As an initiative of the now prime minister, and given the recent announcement requiring maths in education through to the age of 18, the decision to suspend progress on the Multiply national digital platform is somewhat of a surprise.

“With a significant number of local authorities requiring physical face-to-face delivery, along with this news, it is yet another example of the DfE veering away from innovative online solutions, while the rest of the word becomes excited by the opportunities that digital and artificial intelligence provide in terms of quality, efficiency and accessibility of skills development.”

An FE Week investigation earlier this month found that delivery on the ground for Multiply had been mired in red tape and complicated funding.

Funding allocations to local authorities had been slow, with some only receiving their allocations in December despite having submitted plans in the summer, while contacts were also delayed in reaching providers in some instances.

Elsewhere, prices from providers have varied wildly, and engaging with adults that have low numeracy skills has proved difficult as many do not want to seek help.

DfE data up to the end of February 2023 indicated that 13,500 learners had participated in the scheme so far.

Sue Pember, director for policy and external relations at adult education provider network Holex, said she remained positive about Multiply, as thousands of adults have improved their maths, and said that while an online tool would be useful there were “already a lot of excellent resources for teachers already online”.

On the Multiply programme more broadly, Pember added: “It’s a great initiative and we need to give it time. Any over-zealous bureaucratic processes will settle down but it is important to demonstrate that government funds are being used wisely.”

DfE opens applications for colleges capital loans

Applications have opened for colleges in England to apply for capital loans from the Department for Education, following reclassification into the public sector.

Bids can be submitted from today until midnight on May 31 for colleges to apply for loan funding to fill funding shortfalls for capital schemes in the 2023/24 and 2024/25 financial years.

The Office for National Statistics reclassified general FE colleges as public sector back in November, which resulted in many colleges having to put key campus projects on hold.

That was because funding rules introduced overnight by the DfE around managing public money said that commercial finance deals would only be allowed by the government in rare circumstances, as it was deemed “very unlikely” by the department that higher private sector borrowing costs would be considered value for money.

Last month the DfE confirmed it would launch its own loan scheme for colleges for a limited period of time to help address the issue.

Guidance published today as applications opened confirmed that general FE colleges, sixth form colleges and designated institutions are eligible to apply, and there is no limit for the number of applications per college.

The eligibility criteria dictates that for projects to be eligible they must be either already underway or in the advanced stages of planning, have a funding gap as a direct result of restrictions to commercial borrowing arising from the reclassification, and must provide evidence of their original intent to borrow commercially prior to the date of reclassification in November last year.

Projects must improve the college estate or support the delivery of high-quality further education in England, the guidance said.

A cap has not been set on the amount that can be borrowed, with amounts set to be considered on a case-by-case basis and considered in line with evidence of intended amounts of commercial borrowing planned prior to reclassification.

The loans will be paid between June 1, 2023, and March 31, 2025.

The DfE confirmed it had a ring-fenced budget for the scheme, but refused to tell FE Week how much this totalled.

Minister for skills, apprenticeships and higher education, Robert Halfon, said he recognised that reclassification had caused challenges for colleges in financing their capital projects.

“The scheme will enable capital projects to continue as planned, and support the sector in its vital mission of enabling young people and adults to gain the skills they need to climb the ladder of opportunity into further study and work,” he said.

“This fresh support being offered is in addition to over £3 billion of capital investment in England’s college estates and facilities to build a world-class skills system that supports learners and delivers the skills that the economy needs, as well as bringing forward £300 million of payments to improve cash-flow.”

According to the DfE the funding will come from the department’s existing budget. The DfE refused to say how much has been set aside, but it is understood to be based on returns from colleges to two letters sent to accounting officers in November 2022 and March 2023.

The loans can be used on schemes that are being self-funded entirely, or on those which have already attracted other government cash such as T Level capital funding, post-16 capacity funding, FE capital transformation cash, Institutes of Technology or strategic priorities grants from the Office for Students.

For the latter, loans can be used to meet any match funding requirements.

The DfE’s timeline said that colleges should expect to receive notification of bids relating to DfE capital grant funded projects in the summer and outcome of bids for self-funded capital projects (those not to have attracted other government pots of cash) in the autumn.

Projects deemed ineligible include those not related to the provision of further education or training, such as “large atria, commercial activities not related to government funded provision or where the estate is being let to tenants”.

Residential provision will be considered essential to provision, it said.

Ineligible costs include rent service charges, internal staffing costs, routine maintenance costs and supply of loose furniture or equipment.

Interest rates will be charged at the rates for the Public Works Loan Board’s new loan fixed rate for a debt maturing up to one year, which is currently 5.15 per cent.

Julian Gravatt, deputy chief executive of the Association of Colleges said it represented a cheaper form of loan than private borrowing, the interest of which would likely be two or three per cent higher, but said the short time scale for applications will leave “a bit of a scramble” for some colleges.

He added: “It’s a short term thing, which is kind of understandable because no-one knows what’s going to happen to the budget after 2025 [the end of the spending review period], and that’s partly politics.

“What we all really want is for Treasury in a future financial settlement to set out a continuing capital budget for FE.”

However specialist colleges, which remain a part of the private sector and can continue to borrow commercially, have expressed dismay that they are left out of scope of central government capital grants funding, leaving them reliant on more expensive private loans.

Clare Howard, chief executive of Natspec, said that it has “now been ten years since we have received a slither of a capital fund” and had left staff “having to deliver education and training to some of society’s most vulnerable young people in damp classrooms and under leaking roofs”.

She added: “Our students’ education and wellbeing are suffering due to the disrepair of buildings and the lack of new facilities. That is why there needs to be a dedicated capital funding stream for specialist colleges.”

‘Groundbreaking’ progress for GCSE maths resit students in pilot, researchers claim

Findings from a ‘groundbreaking’ pilot have indicated that a new approach to teaching GCSE maths resits can radically improve students’ progress and attainment.

The Education and Training Foundation (ETF) today published the outcome of a pilot programme which found that students being taught by teachers on a specific professional development programme made one month of additional progress on their peers, with disadvantaged students making even more gains.

The project, carried out by the University of Nottingham’s Centre for Research in Mathematics Education, encompassed 147 college sites and 7,453 students for post-GCSE maths resits between October 2021 and June last year.

It investigated two levels of intervention – “partial” and “full” which involved teachers working with lesson resources and professional development opportunities based around the ETF’s “teaching for mastery in FE” principles.

The partial intervention featured teachers taking part in online professional development sessions to develop new teaching practices across seven lessons.

Full intervention featured all of the elements of the partial intervention pathway as well as a programme of “lesson study” which saw groups of teachers come together and observe one of the group teaching a class, before discussing the lesson afterwards.

It effectively aims to help tutors adapt their teaching to include principles in the ETF’s Centres for Excellence in Maths programme, which include evaluating prior learning, connecting learning tasks with the curriculum and creating “safe” spaces in classrooms where misunderstandings are accepted.

The report found that students taught by teachers on both the partial and full intervention saw some benefits, but those on the full intervention made one month of additional progress in learning compared to peers in other colleges.

For students on free school meals prior to college, researchers found that two months of additional progress was made.

Those on the partial intervention had slightly improved scores but no discernible increase in learning months, the report found.

The university said that its analysis did detect improvement in GCSE scores, but has only reported its findings in “additional months progress” because that is the benchmark used by the ETF. However it estimated that students on the intervention will have gained around three to five more marks than peers in other colleges.

Steve Pardoe, head of the ETF’s Centres for Excellence in Maths programme, said: “This research is genuinely groundbreaking. It demonstrates that improvements in learner outcomes in maths are possible and points to the importance of ‘mastery’ approaches in unlocking them.”

The Centres for Excellence in Maths was a five-year Department for Education-funded programme that concluded at the end of March aimed at improving level 2 maths outcomes for 16 to 19 year-olds in post-16 providers.

Five “teaching for mastery principles” were formed by the Centres for Excellence in Maths programme to bolster attainment, and include developing an understanding of maths structures, building on students’ prior learning, help students make connections across the curriculum, attain fluency in maths and develop a collaborative and safe culture to build confidence.

Professor Geoff Wake, lead research at the University of Nottingham, said: “The findings of our research are hugely encouraging in pointing to ways we might help the teaching and learning of students who have often found mathematics particularly difficult.

“We hope to be able to build on what we have learned from this research to support such students to gain better outcomes in mathematics GCSE which is known to improve their future life chances.”

Many students with low prior attainment in maths – grade 3 or below at GCSE – do not make enough measurable progress by age 19, the report said.

GCSE resits data released last summer indicated that around a fifth – 20.1 per cent – achieved a grade 4 or higher in 2022 in England, compared to the 38.6 per cent in 2021. However, 2020 and 2021 exams were disrupted by Covid-19 and resulted in teacher-assessed grades being issued.

Last summer’s figures were just 1.1 percent points down on 2019, the last exams series before the pandemic hit.

It comes just a week after the prime minister reaffirmed his commitment to introducing maths to 18, which has seen a task force formed to help advise on future developments that could include a new qualification post-16.

Penalties soar for taking devices into exams

The number of penalties for bringing phones or smart watches into exams for vocational and technical qualifications quadrupled last year.

Ofqual data published this week showed that 750 of the penalties were issued to VTQ students in 2022 compared with around 150 in 2020-21, 200 in 2019-20 and 300 in 2018-19.

For GCSEs and A-levels there were 1,845 penalties in the most recent year compared with 1,385 in 2019.

The regulator said that the volume of formal exams in VTQs is increasing, and the increase could be driven by processes or rules being less familiar following two years of cancelled exams during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Ofqual guidance says that the penalty for bringing mobile phones, smart watches or any other communication or internet-enabled device into an exam can include the removal of marks for that assessment, a student’s disqualification from that subject or disqualification from every subject the student is taking.

Around three fifths of the penalties for VTQ students in 2022 were a loss of marks, Ofqual’s blog said.

The watchdog said that students often take their phone into exams because it is expensive and they do not want to lose sight of it. “They have become so used to having it on them that they don’t even think about it,” the guidance says.

“Not intending to cheat however, or forgetting that it was in their pocket, is not a justification.”

A spokesperson added: “Ofqual takes malpractice very seriously and expects awarding organisations to prevent it and thoroughly investigate allegations of it. Where malpractice is proven, awarding organisations should take swift and effective action to address it and stop it from happening again.”

The regulator confirmed that possession of devices, regardless of whether they have been used or not, could attract penalties.

A spokesperson from the Joint Council for Qualifications, the membership body for qualification providers, said: “The JCQ awarding organisations take action where students are found in possession of unauthorised items in order to uphold the integrity of exams for everyone.

“As in previous years, we have issued guidance to students who are taking exams and would like to take this opportunity to remind all students not to bring any mobile phone device into their examination.”

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 422

Kathryn Wills

Director of Quality, Babington

Start date: April 2023

Previous job: Director of Quality and Curriculum, Capita Learning

Interesting fact: Kathryn ran 10km a day for a year to raise money for Dementia UK. Never to be repeated again though, she says.

Andrew Hartley

Deputy Chief Executive, The Sheffield College

Start date: April 2023

Concurrent job: Executive Director – Commercial and Operations, The Sheffield College

Interesting fact: In his spare time, Andrew is an avid hockey player, as well as a qualified coach and umpire. He plays with his club at Belper and has played at regional level for the Midlands.