Dismay as AEB funding boost excludes key skills shortages – and women 

Sector leaders have criticised the government for excluding key skills shortage areas in their list of adult education (AEB) subjects in line for an in-year 20 per cent funding top-up.

Experts have also complained that the chosen subject areas are male dominated, while courses more likely to be taken up by women, such as in hospitality and health and social care, have been excluded.

It was announced last week that adult education providers will receive a 20 per cent top-up this year and next on their earnings for adult education budget (AEB) courses in six subjects: engineering, manufacturing technologies, transport operations and maintenance, building and construction, ICT for practitioners, and mathematics and statistics.

Skills minister Robert Halfon said he was aware that the FE sector was facing “financial pressures in key subjects like engineering, mathematics and construction, which is why we’re giving an additional significant boost in funding for these essential courses”.

But other skills shortages areas, like health and social care, hospitality and agriculture were excluded from the 20 per cent funding top-up.

The government is aware of a need for more training in the health and social care workforce. Two of the 20 standards selected for a funding increase by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education that came in May were for adult care. 

In January, health and social care was identified as a “priority” subject area in line for an AEB funding rate increase. But that uplift doesn’t come until 2024, which has left leaders frustrated that the sector has been excluded from funding boosts this year and next. 

Jane Hickie, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers said: “Given unprecedented rates of inflation, any uplift in funding rates should be welcomed. However, it’s disappointing that some areas haven’t received additional funding.

“It is frustrating in particular that care has missed out – especially as this was a sector which was identified as having extra costs when apprenticeship uplifts were announced.”

Susan Pember, policy director of adult education body HOLEX, said that skills needs in health and social care will be local priorities through the local skills improvement plans (LSIPs), and providing extra funding now would rebalance beneficiaries between males and females.

“Although the extra funding rates are welcome it does seem that the majority of the extra will go to courses where the majority of learners (outside of IT and science) are men. 

“HOLEX would have wished health and care was prioritised as it is a government priority sector and will feature in most of the LSIP’s. 

“The health and care area is one of the key progression pathways for women and selecting it for extra funding would have helped the area increase capacity for when the LSIP’s are in place.” 

FE Week analysis of education and training enrolments indicates that twice as many male learners will benefit from the 20 per cent top-up than female learners.

The figures show 15 per cent of all education and training enrolments were in the sector subject areas holding the six chosen top-up subjects. Ten per cent were men and 5 per cent were women.

The difference was most pronounced at level 1, with figures showing that males were four times more likely than females to be in subjects that will benefit from the 20 per cent top-up.

Similar criticisms were levelled at the DfE in 2021 when it launched its skills bootcamps programme in male-dominated sectors, leading to a series of recommendations from its equalities impact assessment to bring in more female learners.

The department did not confirm that an equalities impact assessment had been carried out but told FE Week that it did consider its public sector equalities duty when deciding which courses to prioritise for extra funding. 

The six chosen tier 2 sector subject areas were chosen to mirror the 16 to 19 high value course premium, which the DfE felt was the best way to target the limited funding available.

A spokesperson said: “These subjects are where providers are likely to need the greatest support in recruitment and retention and where the new funding rates in 2024 to 2025 will give the biggest increase.”

However, this doesn’t explain the absence of extra funding this year for health and social care which in 2024 receives one of the largest increases in its funding weighting.

Sector leaders believe the reason is more likely affordability.

Where is the money coming from?

FE Week reported in last week’s edition that funding increases for this year and next will come from underspends within the existing budget.

Stephen Evans, chief executive at Learning and Work Institute, said that missing shortage sectors proved the need for a bigger overall budget for adult education.

“Adult skills funding is set to be £1 billion lower in 2025 than it was in 2010, so any increase in funding rates means fewer learners without a budget increase. That said, we can’t pretend inflation doesn’t exist, so the government is right to raise funding rates.

“It’s unfortunate they’ve only chosen the courses they have, when health, social care, retail, hospitality and other sectors are just as in need of more learning. Time for the government to increase overall funding.”

Employer and apprentice feedback ratings for providers revealed

Almost every apprenticeship provider has an average employer feedback rating of ‘good’ or ‘excellent’, FE Week can reveal.

A total of 97 per cent of the 1,609 providers in England have the top employer grades, while 96 per cent of those with an early rating from apprentice feedback have the same.

The government launched a Trip Advisor-style review tool in 2018 to let employers rate specific aspects of the service they receive from apprenticeship providers, such as communication, initial assessments, apprentice progress and facilities.

Providers are rated by each employer on a four-point scale, ranging from ‘excellent’ (four stars) to ‘very poor’ (one star).

An overall star rating is generated on the government’s apprenticeship training website.

The former skills minister Anne Milton believed that allowing employers to leave reviews of training providers would be a better indicator of quality than “tick box” inspections, which she said “often miss the point”.

Following a Freedom of Information request from the Apprenticeships Data Insights service, operated by the FE Week publisher LSECT Ltd, the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) has shared the full list of ratings for the first time (see end of article).

It shows that there are 1,609 providers with a rating, of which 44 have a ‘poor’ rating.

Providers receive a ‘good’ or above rating for employer feedback if they achieve an average of 2.3 stars.

The ESFA explained that agency officials average the overall score up or down at .3 rather than .5 as would be the case in a simple average. This was in response to provider concerns when the service was launched that a simple average could disadvantage them when feedback volumes were lower and a single or small number of negative reviews could have a disproportionate impact.

Some of the providers with poor ratings are no longer in business, including MiddletonMurray and 3aaa.

The feedback ratings can also be used as a quality indicator under the ESFA’s apprenticeship accountability framework.

According to the framework, those with scores of less than 2.5 stars are placed in a ‘needs improvement’ category and could become subject to enhanced monitoring, which involves management conversations with government officials, the development of improvement plans, and potential referrals to Ofsted.

Critically, the average feedback rating shown on the government’s apprenticeship training platform is cumulative. The ESFA uses the academic year average rating to determine whether a provider triggers the employer feedback threshold.

Employers give their answers through a section within the digital apprenticeship system called “feedback on training providers”. They are also sent an email invitation to complete the feedback survey every 90 days.

Jane Hickie, the head of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said: “Although we aren’t surprised by these results – previous employer feedback surveys have shown similar outcomes – we are really pleased that the ratings paint such a positive picture of training providers.

“This once again shows the benefit of a demand-led system where providers work closely with employers to design and deliver skills provision.”

A similar tool was launched for apprentices last autumn after years of delays. Apprentices are asked for feedback on their training provider’s communication, organisation and support, as well as for an overall rating.

The ratings will also be used as an intervention trigger in the future, but the ESFA will not set a threshold for intervention until the data has “sufficiently matured”.

FE Week has seen data that shows 387 providers have received an overall apprentice rating to date, and of those, 17, or 4 per cent, have a ‘poor’ rating.

The training provider with the highest star rating in 2021/22 was Lifetime Training. The company has received feedback from 1,464 employers and generated a ‘good’ rating of 3.2 stars. It also has 540 reviews from apprentices that generated the same score.

Kaplan Financial Limited has received the most employer feedback with 2,517 submissions, which resulted in a ‘good’ rating of 2.8 stars.

Click here to download the full spreadsheet of feedback ratings for each provider.

The devil lurks in the detail of government’s lifelong loan response

Nudged by the chair of the education select committee in parliament last week, ministers had little choice but to release their overdue consultation response on the lifelong loan entitlement. But was it worth the wait?

We now know there will be maintenance loans for part-time adult learning and modules, and that the ELQ rule which barred people with previous qualifications from getting financial support will be abolished. This is critical to overcoming massive challenges for upskilling and reskilling. So, some angels in LLE’s architecture – but devils are already busy down below in the details. 

One issue is that maintenance loans will only be available for in-person courses and not for distance learners. This cuts across strategies for more digital learning and thousands of learners may miss out. The Open University’s vice chancellor Tim Blackman has already sounded the alarm, (the OU teaches almost half the UK’s part-time undergraduates) but other FE and HE providers could also be hit, seriously blighting them and an economic recovery. 

The DfE tone is often grudging and raises more questions than answers

The LLE response admits LLE should provide “options relevant to industry/society” and “should be as flexible as possible and centred on learners’ choice rather than employer needs”. In detailed responses to DfE’s questions (all 48 of them) the respondents have doubled down on this, particularly regarding questions on employer-relevance as a basis for LLE eligibility and the new modularised study for LLE.

Yet the DfE tone is often grudging and raises more questions than answers. They say the LLE will “also focus funding on those most likely to repay their loans”. How will that be measured? What is its rationale (except a minor cringe to the Treasury)?

It places obstacles in front of the very people they want to have better skills and better jobs to boost productivity. 

On how the much-criticised advanced learner loans (half of which have not been taken up and clawed back year-by-year by the Treasury) transfers to funding through the LLE, they say there must be “clear employer endorsement for the qualification”. 

But what about the millions of self-employed workers and small businesses? These are categories growing faster in the digital world. Not to mention people wanting to get off universal credit and into employment. How are they catered for? It needs changing fast.

The biggest threat to the LLE and lifelong learning isn’t just the devils in the current policy detail. 

The lack of joined up thinking between DfE and DWP is a huge mistake

If we do not pump a steady stream of adults (as well as young people in the 16-24 age range failed in the system) into that pipeline, we will be seriously handicapped in achieving the economic revival and social cohesion we need. At present, that pipeline is blocked.

The disappointing responses from government scything many post-16 qualifications and the brutal way ministers have tried to emasculate BTECs so T Levels might have no competitors, means many potential learners won’t even get to level 3 — let alone level 4+ where LLE kicks in. And the lack of joined up thinking between DfE and DWP, both setting their face against grants for disadvantaged people, is a huge mistake. 

This week I was at a masterclass lecture (organised by the Higher Education Policy Institute) from Andreas Schleicher, director for education and skills at the OECD. With sweeping charts and research slides, he said an ageing population will reduce the flow of young people into tertiary education from 2030. 

Schleicher said the number of part-time students in the UK was going the wrong way. And with only 1 in 10 older adults – not just in UK – in learning at work, continuous learning for life must be central to economic and social wellbeing. 

With 5-6 million people lacking basic skills and 800,000 young people still NEETs, those are words worth weighing as the LLE and its implications hit home.

Blame game over T Level delay

Fresh scrutiny has been levelled at the T Level rollout after the education secretary was forced to delay four of the new flagship courses just six months before they were due to launch.

Gillian Keegan announced on Thursday that three T Levels to be offered by awarding body NCFE from September 2023 – in hair, beauty and aesthetics; craft and design; and media broadcast and production – have been pushed back by a year because of quality concerns.

Another T Level, which is being developed by Highfield in catering, has been delayed to 2025 at the earliest.

The decision was taken jointly between the Department for Education and the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE). Keegan said that T Levels will be approved only when “we are sure they are good enough”.

“As such, there is more work for awarding organisations to do before IfATE and Ofqual can be clear that these T Levels are capable of meeting the high quality bar required by both organisations to enable them to be taken into delivery, and that will not be possible in time for launch this September,” she said.

The remaining two T Levels due for rollout this September – Pearson’s T Level in legal services and the City and Guilds-developed course in agriculture, land management and production – will launch as planned.

It marks the latest controversy for the T Level brand following problems with last summer’s first-year health and science exams, which were found to be unfit for purpose and saw 1,100 students regraded.

Tom Bewick, chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies, said awarding organisations (AOs) welcomed the delay but insisted that quality alone was not the issue.

“In my view, it is disingenuous of the education secretary to tell parliament that the decision to delay is driven solely by ‘quality concerns’ related to providers and AOs who are, after all, the developers and not the accountable bodies for the success of these qualifications,” he said.

Senior civil servants had concerns about delivery timescales and the taxpayer value for money as far back as 2018, Bewick said.

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said it was right the DfE ensured T Levels were of a high quality, but warned that colleges will be “massively disrupted” by the development. “Alternative arrangements will now need to be made urgently,” he said.

Jerry White, City College Norwich principal, told FE Week there “should have been a go/no go decision in September”.

“We have got applicants who we have been working with for months, they’ve applied and in many cases they have been interviewed and offered a place. We now have got to go back to them and discuss what an alternative might be. In some cases there isn’t an obvious alternative because some of those qualifications are not there anymore,” he said.

Rachel Curry, principal and deputy chief executive of The Manchester College, said the timing – during the recruitment period – left her “frustrated” and created “uncertainty”.

Vicki Illingworth, executive principal at Chichester College Group, said the DfE had “clearly listened to feedback from providers following the challenges around the health T Level last year,” but warned there was a “potential reputational impact that colleges could face by not delivering courses that were promised”.

The DfE’s permanent secretary Susan Acland-Hood apologised to students and colleges for the delay.

“I talk to T Level students quite often about the fact that they are pathfinding with us and helping us to develop qualifications. But I don’t think we should ask them to take an unreasonable risk on qualifications where there is a challenge with quality,” she told a Public Accounts Committee meeting on Thursday.

NCFE said it was “confident in the quality of the technical development to date” for its delayed T Levels but agreed that slowing the rollout would ensure that “T Levels support every student to reach their potential”.

A spokesperson from Highfield said it supported Keegan’s decision.

“It’s essential that we take the necessary time and effort to ensure that everything is developed to the highest quality standards that should be expected by both providers and students. It is also imperative that as part of the development process, we give providers sufficient time to prepare for programme delivery,” the spokesperson added.

The DfE confirmed that cash from the T Levels specialist equipment allocation for wave four, due to be paid by the end of this month, will still be paid to providers for courses that have now been delayed to 2024, as long as they commit to delivering those courses and student numbers remain the same. That cash can be spent by the end of December 2024.

For those due to receive money for the catering T Level, the DfE said it will be making contact to reclaim the funding.

However, it still leaves questions over the T Level capital bids, which can take months of work to prepare.

City College Norwich said it had put in a bid to refurbish its kitchens ahead of the catering T Level, which had already included expense on consultants and architect’s drawings, but now expects the department to park this process.

How can ITPs monitor and improve learner engagement?

Independent Training Providers (ITPs) are under pressure to ensure that the apprenticeships they provide are deemed to be of high quality, minimising withdrawal rates and adhering to the Accountability Framework’s achievement rate targets.

However, research by The St Martin’s Group has demonstrated that not all of the reasons why a learner withdraws are within the ITPs control. Indeed, a lack of support from employers was the most common reason for non-completions (37 per cent).     

But how can an ITP manage the aspects that are in their control to increase engagement and deliver the best outcome for learners?   

Blended learning

Blended learning is here to stay and can provide the agility an ITP needs to maintain engagement levels. Virtual classrooms remain predominant, with 97 per cent of organisations now using them as part of their training strategies.   

Following the pandemic rush to online delivery, ITPs have now had time to test and assess which components of online learning work best, enabling them to establish a high-quality and effective delivery model with an improved experience for learners.  

When an ITP understands the multiple touchpoints they have with learners, they can maximise engagement in every moment. The most successful learning programmes include a mix of resources, including:  

  • Pre-recorded multimedia like videos and podcasts that appeal to those who like or need to access and revisit learning materials on their own terms.
  • Live lessons delivered by experienced tutors are great for people who learn best by listening, interacting and asking questions.
  • Live learning workshops like interactive Q&As and breakout sessions, which are an opportunity to spot learners who are falling behind and take quick action. 
  • Written resources like handouts and guides that support and build on what’s been discussed in lessons and workshops. 
  • Quizzes in the form of SCORM content that reinforce the learning objective and instantly capture results.  

Many other changes are currently happening in the industry, such as faster delivery of learning  which could have a huge impact on engagement levels for apprentices. This involves providers recognising prior learning so that their course content becomes more relevant to apprentices and their learning needs, which could result in learners becoming fully competent sooner.

Easing enrolment and onboarding

Making sure that a learner feels supported and integrates well into their learning are core aspects of the onboarding process.  But trainers should also make sure that they’ve spent time discussing in depth the learner’s ambitions and that the learner understands what’s required of them during the apprenticeship programme.

One of the reasons learners can become disengaged is because the course didn’t live up to their expectations. Making sure that they’re on the right course that will help them reach their goals and that they’re not disillusioned about what it entails will give them the best chance for success. (Not to mention that this is among Ofsted’s key criteria.) 

Monitoring engagement

When tracking the progress of learners, it’s important to monitor engagement levels in real time as a key aspect of their overall performance. If a training manager and employer can see the engagement of every learner on their programme via live data dashboards they can identify learners who may be struggling, intervene and work together to put strategies in place to support them and  minimise withdrawals. 

As mentioned before, engagement is multi-faceted, but ITPs can measure aspects that are within their control such as how regularly learners communicate with their trainer, how speedily they have completed submissions, any positive feedback they’ve received from managers as well as performance metrics.

Working with employers

All parties – learner, employer and training provider – need to be on the same page to prevent non-completion. From enrolment to end-point assessment, employers need to support and understand learners, and be flexible to enable them to complete their on-the-job hours.   

As digital transformation and blended styles of learning continue to transform the apprentice’s journey, the ability to benchmark engagement levels across training providers will allow them to test and learn new ways of empowering that flexibility.

It’s a metric that will not only improve the individual learner’s experience and outcome but will also determine how providers successfully deliver apprenticeships in the future. 

The real reasons half of apprentices drop out of their scheme

In November 2022, a think tank report using government data found that almost half of apprentices (47 per cent) are now dropping out of their scheme, and a huge 70 per cent of those who drop out report problems with the quality of their training – equivalent to an astonishing 115,000 apprentices every year. But what does poor quality mean to them?

RateMyApprenticeship plays host to over 40,000 reviews of these programmes, which are fundamental to helping young people across the country learn, understand and explore their future career options. So we delved into our nine years of data to reveal the key reasons apprentices are dropping out of their schemes.

Leadership matters

“The apprenticeship programme is not well structured. There is never any set meeting with my assessor and she’s really busy so it’s hard to get regular meetings. The units aren’t really explained and I teach myself the content to complete the apprenticeship.”

This student is not alone. Only 14 per cent of apprentices in our sample felt the mentoring they were offered was well-managed. Informal support is always highly regarded by all apprentices, and it’s important to ensure an apprenticeship scheme incorporates both consistency and structure. Senior managers acting as coaches and junior employees mentoring through buddy systems were cited among the higher-rated reviews.

Skills for life

“I feel the qualification merely asked me to answer questions to show the knowledge I already should have to fulfil this role rather than adding to these skills. I don’t feel as though the scheme has taught me any new skills.”

Over the past five years, we’ve seen a substantial increase in the number of apprentices rating their learning highly, from 23 per cent to 29. But that means some 70 per cent still don’t. 

The best-rated programmes offer apprentices responsibility and practical experience, allowing them to develop a blend of soft skills and technical skills. Apprentices see their scheme as part of a long-term continuous growth plan.

Part of a culture 

“I have not been invited to any social or team event at work since the second month of my employment, and even that was only by accident.”

One of the main considerations for young people who follow this route is missing out on the university experience. Networking opportunities, extra-curricular activities and an inclusive culture go a long way to ensuring young people feel valued and that they belong.

In addition, learners are passionate about an organisation’s impact and purpose. CSR and sustainability initiatives are often cited in higher-rated reviews as empowering and communicating a wider purpose to their programme.  

Passion projects

“The work is mundane at times, although I did not expect to come into this apprenticeship and love all the work I did.”

With low unemployment levels, apprentices have high expectations of the company and programme they join. They want to feel engaged and inspired, proud of their work, and match up the work that they do with a broader overall company mission.

Encouraging apprentices to pursue passion projects alongside their everyday tasks can enhance the enjoyment of their schemes. This could be joining a social impact teams, shadowing other members of the business or supporting other tasks that aren’t part of their assessed activities.

Cushioning the cost

“My salary just covers my outgoings each month. It costs a lot of money to get here each day by car, therefore I have to get alternative transport but this is still quite expensive.”

More than one-third (38 per cent) of apprentices found their travel costs challenging. To make an apprenticeship programme more viable, organisations need to think longer-term and pay their apprentices enough to minimise financial pressures.

If they do, research suggests they’ll get more out of the apprentice too. A recent report from ISE shows organisations in the graduate labour market offering interest-free loans, sign-on bonuses and transportation allowances to help cushion the rising cost of living.

Drop-out rates represent a massive loss of time and talent for businesses. But the solutions can’t be found among employers and providers alone. It’s crucial we listen to apprentices themselves to drive up quality as apprenticeships take centre-stage in the nation’s economic planning.

Skills bootcamps struggle to attract learners as devolved areas lower sights

Appetite for skills bootcamps appears to be dwindling as mayoral combined authorities report slower take-up and revised targets for the latest wave of courses.

Competition with the government’s own £60 million national programme and lack of public awareness has been cited among the reasons.

Wave three of the skills bootcamp programme – short courses up to 16 weeks in areas of skills shortages – is underway, with learners in this cohort needing to enrol by the end of the month.

Some combined authorities have struggled to hit their target numbers. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority’s latest skills committee report said its forecast learner numbers had been revised down to 840 learners from 1,780.

West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) reported 1,607 enrolments against a target of 3,450. It has a predicted out-turn of 2,500 depending on provider performance.

Both pointed to the digital bootcamps where the predicted shortfall was highest, and highlighted competition from the national programme.

The WMCA said the DfE had funded 5,000 places in the region, and six of the national providers were also awarded contracts by the combined authority, which it said led to capacity issues.

WMCA said it had not been made aware of national allocations until its own contracts had already been awarded.

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, which has bid for lower numbers for wave four funding, also found some providers were more inclined to accept the larger national contracts.

The authority is lobbying for longer-term funding to encourage providers to invest in programmes.

A spokesperson said the authority remained “very supportive” of bootcamps because of the “real benefits for employers, people’s career opportunities and for growth”.

North of Tyne Combined Authority, which had a target of 1,700 wave three bootcamp enrolments, has recruited more than 1,000 learners to date. It expected more starts before the end of the month but did not specify how many.

Greater London Authority said it did not know final delivery numbers until learning had been completed, with data expected in the summer.

However, it reported that funding agreements from the DfE were delayed, leaving bootcamp providers with only six months to deliver the courses.

Greater Manchester Combined Authority said its information for wave three will be published by the end of the year.

Combined authorities for the West of England, Liverpool City Region, West Yorkshire and Tees Valley did not respond to requests for comment.

Other reasons behind the shortfalls include a tight labour market where potential earners can secure jobs without attending bootcamps.

Authorities also said more work was needed to build awareness for the courses locally and nationally.

The DfE said the overall target for the national and local programme was 36,000 learners.

A spokesperson said the department was “well on the way to meeting our target for skills bootcamps thanks to both the local and national programmes,” adding: “We are constantly communicating with local authorities and the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive.”

Despite the take-up issues, West Midlands confirmed it had secured a 97.5 per cent completion rate against a target of 80 per cent and had already recorded 51 per cent positive outcomes within two months of completion – a figure set to rise as providers have six months to submit data.

DfE figures published in December indicated that it had exceeded its target numbers of bootcamp learner starts in 2021/22, reporting 16,120 against a 16,000 target.

Of those, 4,740 were on the HGV bootcamps which attempted to quickly train drivers to address the national haulage driver crisis.

December’s figures did not include completion or outcome data.

DfE funding conditions guidance for wave three of the skills bootcamps programme indicated that milestones one and two – learner start and learner completion – must be achieved by March 31, 2023, and learner outcomes achieved within six months of the end of the final year.

It said that 45 per cent of funding is claimable upon learner start, 35 per cent on learner completion and 20 per cent on learner outcome being reported.

How to make your digital development programme ‘go faster’

My college had always planned to launch its digital development programme in September 2020, but the advent of the pandemic meant we had to go further, faster. As we responded to the need to deliver learning online for a prolonged period, I was in the privileged position of strategically leading this digital transformation with a team of specialists.  

As I often am when I reflect on leadership, I was immediately taken back to a book I’d read in 2012 and which has shaped my thinking ever since: Will it make the boat go faster? by Olympic gold-medal winning rower, Ben Hunt-Davis and executive coach, Harriet Beveridge.  I could only over-simplify the book’s ideas here, but its key questions never fail me when I’m  entrusted to make change at any level, especially an institutional one. 

My starting point for consideration was therefore to ask if my institution would benefit from a clear strategy and approach to the use of edtech. Would it improve teaching, learning and assessment and enhance provision? In the context of the pandemic, when it was that or nothing, the answer was a no-brainer, but the question forced me to reflect on our specific needs beyond our present context.

The next step was naturally to get a broad and deep insight into the edtech tools currently used in our organisation, without judgement. Where were they being used really well and how? Where were they less prevalent and why? What was being used and what was the impact on learners?

To that end, I triangulated as much data and information as possible. Quantitative data through student voice, the quality department and the management and information (MIS) department were a good start. I followed these up with gathering qualitative data through focus groups. The picture became clearer, but I became aware of a blind spot: I speak with teachers on a regular basis and assumed I understood their views. A survey of staff allowed me to analyse and synthesise the priorities of 254 staff. This challenged my assumptions, completed the picture and refined my strategic priorities. 

For rowers to pull together, their coaches must do the same

The key lesson was that, to make this boat go faster, we needed to tailor our development programme to the needs of rowers with very different experiences, needs and abilities. Our first aim would be to get everyone rowing in the same direction, from a starting point of ‘digital explorer’ to a self-actuating level of ‘digital innovator’. With the college’s digital and e-learning team and coaches, we devised the steps along the way: ‘digital adopter’ and ‘digital leader’. We then set about creating content within each level to enable staff to gain the skills and confidence to thrive.

This part of the process was the most rewarding, but also the most heated. For the rowers to pull in the same direction, the coaching team must do the same, so it’s crucial to invest time in creating consensus before moving to implementation.

The next phase was to develop the quality of the CPD training to support staff development towards our goal of becoming an edtech-savvy organisation. Sessions were tailored in response to the data and views gathered in the research phase, and we offered synchronous and asynchronous opportunities for staff to engage.

In the summer of 2020, 1,300 attendees had commenced their journey through the programme. Staff could track their engagement, see their progress and receive badges on completion of certain levels, which was really well received, and we have continued to review, refine and evaluate the provision.

Based on this process, the boat didn’t just go faster (launching months before its target date and in the midst of the pandemic). It brought more people along with it and it is still travelling in the direction it was set, with agile course corrections along the way.

As James Earl said in these pages recently, we have to get beyond edtech knee-jerk and bolt-on solutions. Doing so requires a long-term development plan like this, based on a genuine understanding of organisational needs.

This article is one of a number of contributions to The Staffroom from the authors of Great FE Teaching: Sharing Good Practice, edited by Samantha Jones and available from SAGE.

Functional skills are not fit for the purpose of qualifying apprentices

Apprenticeship completion rates averaged 51.8 per cent for standards in 2020-21 in contrast to a government target of 67 per cent, prompting skills minister, Robert Halfon to say to FE Week last month that “achievement rates are one of my priorities and we’re working very hard to try and improve that”. To do so, he will need to look closely at functional skills.

A significant factor in non-completion is the many thousands of learners who cannot achieve their functional skills, which are a mandatory part of an apprenticeship unless the learner has a grade 4 or above GCSE or an equivalent-level qualification.  The damage of course is really being done to apprentices because they are struggling to get through functional skills; they are failing and leaving, which is disheartening, frustrating and damaging for learners, providers and businesses.

Employers regularly comment that functional skills, as structured, are too in-depth for their current needs. For example, why do chefs need functional skills with the current breath required, which they are never likely to use in their chosen career path? Should we really be requiring them to:

  • use coordinates in 2-D, positive and negative, to specify the positions of points
  • draw and interpret scatter diagrams and recognise positive and negative correlation
  • draw 3-D shapes to include plans and elevations (a new requirement)?

Unless you are regularly using or applying these skills in your everyday working life, you will simply not retain them or commit them to your long-term memory, which leads to higher failure rates in exams and reduces the perceived value for learners and employers. This is not skills for life; it is teaching to a test. This results in learners being demotivated when they cannot see the value of what they are being taught. It also has a negative effect on apprentices’ mental health when they walk away from completing their apprenticeship because of knowledge they know they will never need or use.

This is not skills for life; it is teaching to a test

There needs to be an urgent review of the curriculum for functional skills to ensure that what is required is more relevant to apprentices and the majority of employers. We should also consider ‘fusion skills’ as an alternative. These are competencies, characteristics and tools which individuals need to flourish today are gaining momentum. They include oral communication skills, problem solving, organisational skills, resilience and creativity and arguably equip learners to operate in today’s world much more practically than our current set of functional skills.

Another long-standing issue with functional skills is that the funding is insufficient. As part of an apprenticeship, £471 per learner simply does not cover the base costs of delivery. Once registration and certification costs and a decent platform have been secured and paid for, together with any resit costs, circa £400 remains to cover either English or maths.

This can’t possibly be enough to help someone who has already been let down by the system. It is only sufficient to cover a maximum of four learner visits (not all learners can learn remotely, of course) whereas to cover monthly taught sessions, the cost would be more like £150 per month or £1,800 per annum. This underlines the extent of the current shortfall and why the functional skills qualification is failing.

The government should establish a free online system for every learner who wants to do functional skills, similar to the portal built for “Multiply”, with free access given to all providers.  

There are other complicating factors. Because of the time needed to coach a learner through functional skills, some employers are now starting to prescribe passes in English and maths before taking on learners, and even though we have a serious skills shortage in this country, migrants struggle with functional skills when their underlying skillsets are often excellent.

Clearly it’s time for another wholesale review of functional skills (curriculum, funding and platform) with strong employer input if we want to  improve the apprenticeship brand.