Latest news from FE Week

‘Consultation not referendum’: Oliver defends Ofsted’s ‘Big Listen’

Ofsted’s “Big Listen” is a “consultation” not a “referendum”, chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver has said, as he defended the exercise following criticism from unions.

In a letter to National Association of Head Teachers general secretary Paul Whiteman, seen by FE Week, Oliver said he wanted to “dispel” the concern that data from the consultation “will be interpreted by Ofsted as a mandate to avoid change”.

Ofsted launched the “Big Listen” – a 12-week consultation on further inspection changes following the death of headteacher Ruth Perry – earlier this month.

Whiteman wrote to Oliver today to express “significant concerns”.

The primary issue is “many of the aspects of the current approach to inspection that our members are most concerned about are not addressed through the sections of the survey that will produce quantitative data”, he said.

The “most obvious example” is the lack of a “direct or clear question” about the use of single-phrase judgments to describe school and college performance.

“Whilst there are free text boxes provided, our concern is this will only provide qualitative information, which could get easily lost or overlooked in comparison with the far easier to present results derived from the multiple-choice questions.”

‘Significant challenge’ over single-phrase judgments

Oliver acknowledged Ofsted had received “significant challenge on whether we were right or not to have a question on single-word judgments”.

In a letter that again shows the watchdog has moved on from its previous closed shop approach, he added: “The absence of a specific question in the consultation does not mean we are not listening to feedback from your members – and others – on the issue of single-word judgments.

“One respondent is so determined to use the available text boxes to ensure we hear the message that they have included ‘GET RID OF THE ONE WORD JUDGMENTS’ as their gender, sexuality and religion, for example.”

Oliver also aadded that he interpreted “that there is a concern that data from the consultation, for example general support for giving a clear judgment on the quality of education, will be interpreted by Ofsted as a mandate to avoid change”.

But he added: “I want to categorically dispel that view. The consultation, alongside the independent research and the wider engagement we are conducting as part of the Big Listen, is a starting point for real action and improvement at Ofsted.

“We will use the full range of feedback and research to inform how we improve, which we will set out in our response to the Big Listen.”

‘Missed opportunities’

In his letter, Whiteman also described other “missed opportunities to really understand what respondents think about key issues relating to inspection”.

For example, the questions on notice periods “have been drafted in an extremely vague manner, whereas there was an opportunity to directly ask something far more precise such as ‘how much notice should a school / setting be given before an inspection is carried out?’.”

The NAHT also has “significant concerns about the way some questions have been designed and framed”, and feels questions are “leading”.

“More importantly, respondents are not being asked how effective the current approach to inspection is at measuring these things, or about the very different forms a ‘clear judgment’ could take.”

But Oliver insisted that the Big Listen is “first and foremost a listening exercise”.

“I don’t want to give the impression that we are conducting a referendum instead of a consultation. We are not naïve about the likely sample of respondents to our consultation.

“We know any ‘vote’ would not be representative of the views of all those we want to hear from. That said, we genuinely want to gather views on all matters relating to our work, from a broad church of respondents, which is why having an open consultation is so important.”

Labour must answer key questions about its Growth and Skills Levy

Superficially, Labour’s policy to introduce a Growth and Skills Levy – where employers could spend up to 50 per cent of their payments on non-apprenticeship training – is proving very attractive to many employers and their representative bodies.

Levy-paying employers continually complain that they can’t spend their levy payments on apprenticeships. A training programme other than an apprenticeship will also, in many cases, be the skills solution that is needed by an employer and employees.

Labour’s Shadow Skills Minister, Seema Malhotra MP, is quite right to suggest that employers usually spend less than half of their levy payments on apprenticeships. She is also right to note that since 2017 billions of pounds generated by the apprenticeship levy have been retained by or returned to the Treasury. Such funds, however, have been used to fund other government expenditure.

UVAC has long argued that every pound raised through the levy should be used to fund apprenticeships, with under-spend used for other skills programmes. We welcome the shadow minister’s comments in this area.

There are however problems or, at best, unanswered questions concerning these plans.

In an excellent analysis last September, FE Week noted that In 2022/23 the apprenticeship levy raised £3,580 million. After expected transfers to the devolved nations this left a total of £2,972 million for England. In 2022/23, £2,458 million was spent on apprenticeships. Do the simple maths (2,972 – 2,458) and you are left with £514 million of ‘spare’ funds for other training programmes.

But with Labour’s proposal, if levy-paying employers spend 50 per cent of their levy payments on other training programmes, this would only leave £1,486 million to be spent on apprenticeships. UVAC would ask Labour for a commitment that they will match or exceed the current government’s spend on and budget for apprenticeships.

This is a massive issue. Under the current system, apprenticeships for non-levy paying employers are funded by levy funds that are paid by levy-paying employers that they do not use on their own apprenticeship programmes.

The skills sector is fragile. It needs certainty and clarity

As levy-paying employers will obviously spend significantly more of their levy payments under a Growth and Skills levy than they do now, Labour needs to guarantee that the apprenticeship funding currently available for non-levy paying employers will remain stable or increase when their reforms are introduced.

There are of course many potential answers to the above issues. Labour could simply accept that there will be fewer apprenticeships. This seems unlikely. Alternatively, Labour could raise the levy rate from 0.5 per cent of payroll or increase the number of employers required to pay the levy.

Employers would, of course, argue against such a proposal. But Labour could in return point out that UK employers typically spend far less on the training and development of their employees than their OECD counterparts. A Growth and Skills Levy would also provide employers with far more opportunities to spend their payments than the current system.

UVAC would encourage Labour to invest more funds from general taxation in skills provision. This may be resisted by shadow treasury ministers, but spending on apprenticeships and skills is ‘investment’. Better-trained employees are more productive; employers can pay more in wages and make greater profits. This equates to a bigger tax take for government and a return on investment.

One final request UVAC would make of Labour is that it should discuss its proposals in detail with all types of employers and providers, colleges, independent training providers and universities.

It was concerning that the shadow apprenticeships and skills minister, in her keynote address at the Annual Apprenticeship Conference 2024, made no mention of universities in delivery alongside her reference to colleges, training providers and employers.

The skills sector is fragile. It needs as much certainty and clarity as possible in policy proposals and recognition of the contribution by all types of providers to maximise provider investment and engagement in the skills agenda.

Labour’s ‘securonomics’ is a golden opportunity for our sector

Rachel Reeves gave a speech last week that could be hugely significant for the work-based skills sector. It opened the door to showing her and the Labour team just what we can contribute to their plan for the nation.

Securonomics: joining the dots

In delivering the 36^th annual Mais Lecture at Bayes Business School, Reeves laid out Labour’s burgeoning economic strategy under the title of ‘Securonomics’. The approach applies to everything from the tax framework to investment strategy and from planning reform to employment rights.

The name signals that growth comes from giving people, companies and the country the security they need to achieve more (and more sustainable) growth.

Tantalisingly for the work-based skills sector, skills got a lot of attention during the speech. As well as restating known policies like the Growth and Skills Levy, devolution of adult education budgets and the creation of Skills England, she also laid out many of the dots that will need to be joined up to create the unified skills strategy we seek.

Sector-led input on how to join up these dots represents a golden opportunity to drive home our key asks.

An essential sector

Securonomics, we learned, has three key imperatives: stability, investment and “reform to unlock the contribution of working people and the untapped potential throughout our economy”. In case that last one is too vague, Reeves later added that “addressing the skills gap is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for economic success”.

So she ‘gets’ skills as a high-level issue, one that is as much about equality and happiness as it is about GDP and productivity. She talked about breaking free from “a vicious cycle in which inequality widens while growth stutters.”

We must reinforce this message at every turn: Skills means growth!

The everyday economy

Refreshingly, while Reeves name-checked the usual suspects of political rhetoric on skills (“creative industries, professional and financial services, AI and other digital technologies, life sciences, and renewable energy”), she also celebrated “the everyday economy”. Here, she listed often overlooked sectors in skills discourse: “retail, care, transport, delivery, utilities, and more.”

Nuclear engineers and AI programmers can’t do their best work if there is no one to care for their parents, look after their children, service their vehicles or brew their coffee. Pressing home this point creates an opening for us to make the case for increased funding and qualification reform for these vital “everyday economy” sectors.

Exporting our expertise

Reeves’s securonomics acknowledges that post-Brexit Britain must export as much as it can in those sectors where we have a unique advantage. Correct! And FE is one of those sectors.

Whether that’s in the form of awarding and qualifications, software, advisory services or training providers, government should treasure the skills sector’s global reach. Imagine how much more we could do if we were feted, funded and regulated as well as , say, the life sciences, AI or offshore technology.

Beware mini-Whitehalls

While there is broad recognition that devolving to localities and regions can be valuable, there is real fear that it will lead to a proliferation of mini-Whitehalls. One is plenty!

Reeves argues that devolution works because it means decisions are made at the best level for information and insight. That’s a quarter of the story; there’s also the power of local passion, the resilience that comes from strong relationships and the determination of focused action.

Devolution that’s all about “analysis” and “decisions” is a poorer vision than one centred on action and results.

Beyond sticking plasters

Finally and crucially, Reeves argues that if you lack resilience, you can only respond to shocks by applying sticking plasters. She sees ‘securonomics’ as the way for the country to be strong enough to respond to such shocks strategically and effectively.

The same applies to the work-based skills sector: insufficient funding, disproportionate regulation and ever-changing schemes have undermined our resilience. Witness the number of providers who have been forced out of business.

If the likely next Chancellor wants securonomics to work, she will do well to start with the security and resilience of the skills sector. Given the attention, support and funding it needs, it can be a key part of the foundation for our whole country’s future success.

Revealed: The 8 trainers that will pilot teacher degree apprenticeship

The government has named eight teacher trainers that will pilot the new teacher degree apprenticeship from next year.

Six universities, plus two partnerships between universities and other providers, will be funded to pilot the route for would-be maths teachers who do not hold an existing degree.

The government announced last month that a long-awaited degree apprenticeship will launch next year.

The four-year course, which would see apprentices achieve both a degree and qualified teacher status, will be piloted with “up to” 150 trainee maths teachers from September 2025, before a wider rollout.

Apprentices will spend around 40 per cent of their time studying and the rest of the time in the classroom. Ministers particularly want to see teaching assistants trained up via the route.

Education secretary Gillian Keegan said the pilot was a “vital step and will help to recruit and develop great teachers, and I’m delighted that these providers have been selected to help us to deliver this”.

Off-the-job salary costs covered

Under the pilot, the government will provide grants to cover the training. In the wider rollout, training costs will be covered by the apprenticeship levy.

Schools that employ trainees as part of the funding pilot will also receive “financial incentives to support with trainee salary costs to cover the proportion of time trainees will spend off-the-job, studying towards their qualifications”, the DfE said.

Schools and teacher trainers are also free to “design and deliver” teacher degree apprenticeships across all primary and secondary subjects “within the same timeframes as the funding pilot and in future years”.

However, those doing so would not receive grant funding or financial incentives to cover part of the apprentices’ salary.

The DfE said evidence from the funding pilot “will be used to inform considerations on any future expansions of funding grants for the teacher degree apprenticeship”.

It comes after Schools Week reported last week how proponents of the route believe it presents a “glorious” opportunity for those without a degree to train to teach, will help bring under-represented groups into the profession and give schools a much-needed option to spend levy funding.

But they face an uphill battle to convince sceptics about the quality of the route, as unions warn it must not erode teachers’ pay and conditions.

The providers

Nottingham Trent University
Staffordshire University, in partnership with Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire Teacher Education Collective (SSTEC)
University College London (UCL)
University of Brighton
University of Huddersfield
University of Nottingham
University of Wolverhampton
Xavier Teach Southeast, in partnership with the University of Sussex

Unions demand 10% FE staff pay rise in 2024/25

Unions have called for a 10 per cent pay rise for FE staff next year, or a £3,000 salary increase, to keep up with the pace of inflation.

The demand comes from the five trade unions representing FE workers, who submitted the 2024/25 pay claim yesterday.

It calls on college bosses to address the 40 per cent real terms pay decline for FE staff since 2009/10 and the “steep” rises in the cost of living.

The demand is above the 3.4 per cent consumer price index and 4.5 per cent retail price index inflation rate in the year to February 2024.

It is also above the 6.5 per cent AoC pay recommendation to colleges last year.

The pay demand claimed that colleges can pay for this using the £470 million 16 to 19 funding awarded for 2023/24 and 2024/25.

Unions have also called for a £30,000 minimum starting salary for FE lecturers, matching schools.

“FE needs sustained investment to tackle the recruitment and retention challenges. The starting salary for a teacher in FE 2023/24 on the AoC pay scale is £27,789. Following the implementation of the school teacher’s pay review body this year, the starting salary for a new school teacher in England is £30,000.”

Unions also maintained some demands from last year such as colleges having class size recommendations, a “national policy on the delivery of guided learning hours” and to have a binding national pay agreement.

New claims include a demand for staff to have two mental health days per year and a commitment to close gender, ethnic and disability pay gaps.

“Despite women being the majority of staff, there is a substantial gender imbalance across the lecturers’ pay scale. Women are overrepresented at all four points in the lower half of the pay scale and underrepresented at all of four points at the top of the scale,” the unions stated.

“Our demand is that joint work takes place to analyse the current FE gender pay gap and that this work should also include ethnic and disability data.”

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said college funding rates have not kept up with inflation and encouraged unions to “focus their energies” on demanding the government raise the funding rates.

He said: “We thank the unions for their pay claim and look forward to meeting with them in May to discuss it. AoC and its members share the same aim as the unions, to improve college pay. That’s why we work so hard to persuade the government to invest more and to increase the funding rates per student.

“Unfortunately, college funding rates for next academic year have, once again, not kept up with the rate of inflation. Our concern is that the already unacceptable pay gaps between college lecturers and school teachers and with industry will widen further unless the government invests more to raise funding rates for colleges.

“We will do everything we can to secure that extra investment and would encourage the unions to focus their energies on that as well.”

Apprenticeship funding rules 2024/25: Changes you need to know

Additional learning support funding is set for reform and functional skills requirements for SEND apprentices will be relaxed next year, according to new proposed apprenticeship funding rules.

The Department for Education is also introducing a new subcontracting threshold and plans to review “more flexible approaches” to active learning.

Draft apprenticeship funding rules for 2024/25 were published today and revealed a series of proposed changes.

Here’s what you need to know:

Funding claims for learning support made easier

From the next academic year, the government will move reviews for additional learning support from monthly to every three months.

Officials will also allow an assessment for learning support to happen at any time during the apprenticeship instead of just at the start.

Providers can claim learning support funding to make “reasonable adjustments”, such as specialist equipment and extra staff, to support an apprentice who has learning difficulties or disabilities so that they can complete their apprenticeship.

It is a fixed amount of £150 per month which can only be claimed by the provider for each month where reasonable adjustments are delivered, evidenced and result in a monetary cost.

ALS funding claims can, however, be a difficult area for providers which has led to several cases of large clawback.

The DfE said its 2024/25 reforms will “reduce bureaucracy associated with claiming learning support”.

Importantly, the ALS changes will apply to existing apprentices not just new starters.

SEND pilot flexibilities rolled out

The government will allow all providers to use a flexibility that allows apprentices with learning difficulties but without a pre-existing education health and care plan (EHCP) or statement of learning difficulties assessment (LDA) to work towards a lower level of functional skills.

Under current rules, apprentices must achieve level 1 English and maths functional skills qualifications if they’re on a level 2 apprenticeship and did not pass the qualifications at GCSE. And if a similar learner is on a level 3 or higher apprenticeship, they must achieve functional skills at level 2.

Those with an EHCP or LDA can, however, work towards and pass the lower level of functional skills English and maths at entry level 3.

Over the past year around 20 providers trialled 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.

Pilot providers previously told FE Week how this “game-changing” reform was allowing hundreds of people who found themselves blocked from apprenticeship opportunities to enrol on programmes thanks to the exemption.

The DfE said today that following this “positive” pilot, “we are extending English and maths flexibilities for apprentices who have learning difficulties or disabilities but no Education, Health and Care Plan, to study a more suitable level of English and maths”.

£30k subcontracting threshold

DfE will also introduce a new £30,000 threshold for subcontracting from August, today’s rules state.

A provider will be allowed to use a subcontractor that is not on the published apprenticeship provider and assessment register (APAR) but who will deliver “less than £30,000 of apprenticeship training and on-programme assessment under contract across all main providers and employer-providers between 1 April and 31 March each year”.

The DfE said this will make it “easier for providers to bring in industry specialists to deliver training by introducing greater flexibility in subcontracting arrangements”.

Onboarding and progress monitoring admin reduced

Initial assessment will be integrated with development of an apprentice’s training plan, the DfE said, which will “reduce the number of documents employers and providers need to review and sign”.

Providers will also “no longer need to ask employers to sign off each progress review”.

5% co-investment payment lag

Prime minister Rishi Sunak announced this month that the 5 per cent co-investment for non-levy paying employers taking on apprentices aged 16 to 21 will be scrapped for new starts from April 1.

DfE has however warned that the associated changes to its payment systems will take “several weeks” to introduce.

This means that providers will continue to receive monthly payments representing 95 per cent of the agreed price for training and assessment until June when backdated payments for April and May for the 5 per cent balance of funding will be made.

Active learning review

The DfE is reviewing the “minimum requirement” for active learning, which refers to off-the-job and English and maths training.

Today’s draft rules said the department will begin seeking views in April about potential changes, as it is “keen to explore changes which support more flexible approaches to the delivery of training, such as front-loaded or block release training, as well as providing more flexibility for employers”.

Our adaptive curriculum is a model for upskilling and reskilling the UK

The North East Institute of Technology (NEIoT) with lead partner New College Durham and collaborating FE institutions Middlesbrough College, East Durham College, and Tyne Coast College, along with industry stalwart Esh Group, is pioneering a project, ‘Retrofitting for the North East’. an innovative initiative that promises to redefine the future of retrofitting across the region.

This transformative journey began with the recognition of a skills deficit within the retrofitting sector. Working closely with regional employers and education partners, NEIoT identified an urgent need for a highly skilled workforce capable of meeting the growing demand for energy-efficient and sustainable living environments.

Retrofitting has become a critical aspect of sustainable development, key to future-proofing homes and meeting our net-zero goals. This is leading to growing demand for skilled professionals such as retrofit installers, advisors, assessors and coordinators to transform existing properties.

The impact on the construction industry is significant; forecasts indicate a requirement for 500,000 skilled retrofit operatives by 2030. Employers will need to upskill and reskill significant numbers within their workforce, and retrofitting will be an essential aspect of young learners’ education.

With almost 3.4 million homes in the North East and Yorkshire Energy Hub areas outlined for domestic retrofit in the coming years, NEIoT’s adaptive approach not only aims to bridge the current skills gap but establish the groundwork for sustained industry-education relationships and continuing development of additional courses to meet future industry needs.

A pivotal aspect of this adaptive curriculum approach involves the engaged participation of members from the NEIoT Construction & Built Environment Employer Advisory Board. This board consists of representatives from the construction industry, including both SMEs and large companies, as well as associated employer representative bodies (ERBs).

We are establishing sustained industry-education relationships

These industry professionals offer invaluable insights, guidance and feedback to shape curriculum development and delivery. Regular meetings of the advisory board and retrofit sub-group facilitate knowledge-sharing sessions, cultivating a sense of community and shared responsibility to address the needs of learners and employers.

By integrating industry expertise, the NEIoT educational offerings will align with industry standards and best practices while incorporating the latest developments in retrofitting technologies and methodologies.

Working with organisations such as Green Leaf Engineering, North Star Housing, Livin Housing, believe housing, and Constructing Excellence North East, the NEIoT and Esh Group have ensured that the courses are not just theoretical; they will address the practical skills needs of the sector and offer mentorship opportunities.

Implementing this adaptable methodology has presented challenges, including navigating regulatory frameworks, securing buy-in from stakeholders and overcoming logistical hurdles. However, the relationships established through our collaborative efforts to overcome these have solidified our commitment and determination to succeed. The NEIoT consortium has embraced adaptability as a guiding principle, emerging stronger and more resilient.

A suite of nationally accredited courses has been meticulously developed to cover the retrofitting process. Delivery of NEIoT Retrofit Courses for Installers, Advisors, Assessors, and Coordinators ranging from level 2 to level 5 will start throughout 2024. These courses will be standardised in terms of delivery, cost and resources across all NEIoT campuses, ensuring a consistent regional experience.

Employers can be confident that their employees will gain from a high-quality, NEIoT-branded, accredited learning experience. And workers can be confident the skills and knowledge they gain will be industry-standard.

This initiative illustrates that tackling skills shortages is about more than just education; it’s about cultivating a community of proficient professionals to instigate change.

As the retrofit offer nears completion, NEIoT and Esh Group will be engaging in discussions on sharing course development and delivery across the National IoT Network, aiming for broader adoption and scalability of the adaptable methodology.

Backed by substantial government investment, these IoT collaborations between FE and HE providers and industry are leading the way in meeting business and education needs by establishing regional collaborations for skills excellence.

Embracing adaptability is indicative of a significant shift in education and workforce development to empower learners and innovate our way to resilience and excellence.

So connect with your local IoT, and start leading change in your community.

Revealed: The 8 colleges in DfE’s funding simplification pilot

Eight colleges have been named as participants in a Department for Education (DfE) pilot aiming to simplify funding, audit and reporting rules.

From 2024/25 the colleges will be given more flexibility over funding rules and some ringfenced budgets across adult and 16 to 19 provision.

They will also be allowed to deliver skills bootcamps without the need to bid for funding through procurements.

The pilot will be used to judge how wider changes can be made to the way colleges are funded and audited.

However, details of how rules will be simplified for participants are yet to be confirmed.

The eight colleges are spread across the south, midlands and north of England.

• Basingstoke College of Technology, Hampshire

• The Bedford College Group, Bedfordshire

• Bridgwater and Taunton College, Somerset

• Exeter College, Devon

• Loughborough College, Leicestershire

• Middlesbrough College, Middlesbrough

• Sunderland College, Tyne and Wear

• TEC Partnership, North East Lincolnshire

The launch of the pilot comes as part of the DfE’s wider reforms which aim to simplify FE funding and accountability – including a merger of several adult skills budgets into the single adult skills fund in 2024/25.

In an appeal for volunteer colleges in January, the DfE said the pilot will help it deliver adult skills funding “and improve predictability”.

It will also “capitalise on the reduced funding rules and ringfences to simplify how we audit and assure FE funding as well as simplify back-end data processing”.

The DfE added that it will develop options with a view to test several simplifications for apprenticeships, which could “include simplifying onboarding, testing new funding approaches and streamlining end point assessment processes”.

A separate apprenticeship expert provider project that aims to reduce time and resources helping small employers through the system.

Media provider praises ‘new era’ of inspection after jumping to ‘good’

A film and media training firm has jumped from Ofsted ‘inadequate’ to ‘good’ after exiting apprenticeships and moving into skills bootcamps delivery.

All Spring Media Ltd endured what managing director Martina Porter described as a “traumatic” inspection 18 months ago that resulted in the lowest possible judgment.

The Buckinghamshire-based provider accused inspectors of “lacking industry expertise” and went on to file legal action after the government threatened to terminate the company’s apprenticeship contract over the disputed result. But the provider eventually withdrew its claim.

After the fiasco, All Spring Media continued delivering a range of entry-level and CPD programmes, specifically for production-related roles in the screen industries. It then won a skills bootcamps contract with Hertfordshire local enterprise partnership in September 2023 which brought the provider back into scope Ofsted.

The provider secured ‘good’ grades across the board in a report published today.

Inspectors found that the 24 learners “rightly recognise how the skills bootcamp is providing them with the required skills and industry introductions essential to them achieving their ambitions”.

The report added: “Learners enjoy their learning and build positive relationships with their trainers, peers and with those working in the sector.”

Inspectors also praised leaders for having “designed a programme of learning logically to build the fundamental knowledge learners need to work in the television and film industry” and as being “clear in their ambition to provide opportunities for learners from diverse backgrounds to access the sector”.

Porter said: “Our team was understandably apprehensive before the inspection due to the unjust nature of the first one. However, the inspectors arrived with a different approach, putting our team at ease and wanting to learn about our industry. We hope this is the start of a new era of collaborative inspections from Ofsted.”