Tackling the problem of employer demand for reskilling

According to the World Economic Forum, 44 per cent of the skills employees need to perform their roles will have changed by 2025, and nine in 10 workers will need some form of reskilling. In that context, the results of two recent UK surveys are concerning. They reveal that 61 per cent of employees feel they don’t have the skills they need for the next five years and 26 per cent haven’t participated in workplace training for a decade.

The work and employment expert group, ReWAGE recently carried out an analysis of existing research for Gatsby Education. We found that there is an urgent need to upskill and reskill adult workers to enable the UK to meet the upcoming challenges facing its future prosperity and productivity, and that there could be huge risks in failing to take action.

Successive governments and employers have all agreed that training is valuable, but as the statistics demonstrate this is not always backed up with practical action.

Government can do a lot to encourage the upskilling of jobs: shaping practice in the public sector, encouraging initiatives such as the NHS Skills Escalator and ensuring that official contracts prioritise good employment practices. It also needs to actively support employers to work collaboratively and upskill workers.

But first of all we need to have an honest appraisal of systematic problems and fully embrace the fact that employers, while being part of the problem in the way that they are increasingly choosing to ‘hire in’ skills rather than upskill existing employees, are also a crucial part of the solution.

The key issue here is how to move employers from the role of ‘customers’ in the skills system to that of co-producers. Many excellent employers do take the lead in this area, but there is a clear need for a sustained conversation with employers about their contribution to what should be a joint enterprise, as well as a recognition that some employers need more basic support before they can tackle upskilling.

We lack a system for training workers in the theory and practice of workplace learning

Local Skills Improvement Plans (LSIPs) are a potential vehicle for nurturing this more in-depth conversation and moving the dialogue between training providers and employers to a new level. By encouraging employers to focus on increasing skills-based training and measuring increased numbers of apprenticeships and adult training, their involvement can evolve beyond simple links to colleges and local providers and into the stimulation of further skills-based training within their own organisations.

A great deal of learning happens in the workplace and attention needs to be paid to the development of those responsible for formal training, enabling them to develop their skills and expertise in both the subject matter and the educational process.

But let’s not forget the important role of informal training. In the UK, while individuals do mentor and develop others there is little support available for these activities. Many employees do these things well, but relying on individual interest, effort and talent is both unreliable and unsupportive. We lack a system for training workers in the theory and practice of workplace learning.

By contrast, an integral part of Germany’s ‘Meister’ (master craftsman) qualification – the stage after apprenticeship – is learning to teach, support and develop people as they learn skills at work. As a result, every German workplace includes senior workers who have learned to develop others and who see it as part of their job.

Improving links, collaboration and co-operation between adult training and education, private training providers, FE colleges and universities is also key, as is using independent advice on skills to drive policy.

The department for education’s unit for future skills (UFS) is already actively improving the quality of information on skills. It would be helpful to build on this through an independent body, working closely with the UFS but outside government and modelled on the lines of the low pay commission, to provide policy recommendations.

In the meantime, it’s clear that that the dialogue between providers and employers facilitated by LSIPs must move to the next stage. Employers can’t simply rely on colleges and others to adapt to their needs. They too must adapt to make learning a reality for their employees.

Maths to 18: A welcome opportunity to refresh and engage

It’s more than a week since Rishi Sunak’s pledge for all young people to study “some form of maths” to the age of 18. With detail distinctly absent, we know that the prime minister wants the planning done within this parliament and implementation in the next. This timing is an opportunity for consultation, for policy makers to consider the complexity of the issue, and to deliver a well-informed, fit-for-purpose national strategy.

There are several big issues. Aside from the fact that the policy would require significant additional funding, many commentators have highlighted the shortage of maths teachers and the struggle many colleges face to staff their existing maths classes. Currently, around 43 per cent of our FE learners study maths; colleges would need double that number if the policy is to be qualifications-based. What calibre of teachers are needed, where will these teachers come from, and what training do they need? The rapid decline of maths specialist teachers in FE will need to be reversed. We will also need further investment in high-quality CPD programmes to support effective teaching.

And then there’s the curriculum. Are we looking at stand-alone maths or functionality? Is it vocationally-specific maths, or transferable skills?

Fundamental to this is meeting the diverse needs of learners, only a small minority of whom will have actively chosen to study maths. Around 40 per cent of young people fail to achieve a GCSE grade 4 in maths at 16, with vast majority re-sitting in FE colleges. Fewer than 20 per cent of these achieve a grade 4 each year, and sadly a significant proportion actually decrease in grade.

Then there’s the 60 per cent who do achieve a GCSE grade 4. Some progress to A level and others study level 3 core maths qualifications, but uptake is very low. Will progression for them simply mean to a higher level, or focus on greater application of skills? Wherever the policy leads, a greater variety of options for learners will be essential.

Fundamental to this is meeting the diverse needs of learners

The Centres for Excellence in Maths (CfEM) programme was tasked by the department for education with delivering sustained improvements in level 2 maths attainment in colleges. Working with 21 colleges and their networks, covering 95 per cent of colleges nationally, this five-year project provides a clear steer on how any future policy might enable engagement and attainment in FE maths. The project focused particularly on an adapted form of mastery teaching, alongside building networks of maths professionals across colleges, which proved invaluable.

One of the principles key to this programme’s success has been ‘belief in success’, developing a culture in which everyone believes everyone can succeed. To achieve this, particular effort was made to upskill teachers to use coaching, mindset and resilience strategies with their learners. This has implications for initial teacher training and CPD and demonstrates the need to value and foster the soft skills of maths teachers as a priority.

In addition, many CfEM colleges are reporting success with teaching for mastery approaches that emphasise conceptual understanding, reasoning and problem solving. Those with low grades appear to benefit disproportionately from the use of visual models and representations to support their understanding. The colleges are currently developing a set of mastery lessons for GCSE re-sit and functional skills teachers which will be available to the sector by the end of March. Such approaches need to be embedded more fully in FE maths practices at all levels.

Importantly, delivering the prime minister’s ambition will depend upon full engagement with a frustrated profession. In a recent ETF survey of 4,252 staff, 82 per cent of respondents told us the most rewarding aspect of their job is inspiring students, changing lives and making a difference. But the survey also revealed widespread challenges with lack of funding (31 per cent), recruitment (19 per cent) and the changing sector landscape (18 per cent).

Only a policy that recognises this, has practical application and is grounded in evidence will truly meet the needs of the sector and its learners.

Approval process for T Level alternatives finally revealed

Technical qualifications other than T Levels will need to pass three layers of approval to be funded from August 2025.

A new approvals process for “alternative” qualifications has been launched today, with awarding organisations being given just one month to register their interest.

Technical qualifications will need to pass a series of employer demand tests applied by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE), new content and assessment conditions from Ofqual and then a funding review and final decision by the Department for Education. 

The government is proceeding with its controversial reforms to level 3 qualifications in England which will see hundreds of qualifications scrapped to make way for its flagship T Level courses. 

Technical and academic qualifications other than T Levels or A-levels could still be offered, though they are now known as “alternative qualifications” and must be approved through a complex new process to be publicly funded from August 2025.

In a statement to Parliament today, skills minister Robert Halfon said: “We have listened to feedback and recognise the need for additional qualifications, including alternative qualifications such as some BTECs designed to be taken as part of a mixed study programme including A-levels. 

“These alternative qualifications are an important part of how we will support diverse student needs and deliver skills that employers need for a productive future economy, in areas that A-levels and T Levels do not cover.”

The government has selected the size and subjects of qualifications it may approve and revealed some of its criteria for approving both alternative academic and alternative technical qualifications. 

Any alternative technical qualification for example must pass “occupational relevance and employer demand tests” laid out by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education. For academic courses, evidence must be provided which proves the qualification is in demand and will deliver progression to higher education. 

The government has not said how many alternative qualifications it intends to fund from 2025. 

A DfE spokesperson said: “Our reforms are intended to help more people to progress into work, an apprenticeship, or on to further study.

“T Levels are the new gold standard technical qualification. The changes we are making through our review will make sure only top-quality qualifications that lead to good outcomes for students, and meet the skills needs of businesses, are approved for public funding.”

Funding for qualifications that overlap with waves three and four of the T Level rollout* is still set to be withdrawn from August 2025, but it’s not yet known which qualifications will get the chop. 

A provisional list isn’t expected until spring 2023 despite awarding organisations being asked now if they have alternative qualifications they want to submit for approval.

Tom Bewick, the chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies, said the additional layers of bureaucracy this creates for the awarding sector should be monitored “very carefully”.

He told FE Week: “This new process introduces an additional layer of bureaucracy in England which previously did not exist. We’ll need therefore to watch the impact on the sector very carefully.

“FAB’s members are committed to ensuring as streamlined approach to the approvals process as possible.” 

Qualifications that have already been earmarked for funding removal, either because they have had low or now enrolments, or have already been deemed to overlap with T Levels, cannot be re-submitted for approval. 

The government has already confirmed the 106 qualifications that will lose their funding first, from August 2024. These are qualifications that were found to have overlapped with the first T Levels in education and childcare, digital and construction. 

More qualifications are expected to be added to that list when the Institute concludes a content review of the health and science T Level, which was beset with assessment problems last summer, later this month. 

Jennifer Coupland, chief executive of IfATE said: “It is fantastic to get the level 3 employer-led approvals system off and running. It will raise standards and boost confidence in skills training among employers as all IfATE approved qualifications will meet latest industry standards. 

“In time IfATE approval will be synonymous with high quality technical qualifications and apprenticeships.”

Awarding organisations only have until February 10 to register their interest in submitting an alternative qualification for approval for delivery in 2025. The formal submission window will open on July 3 and close on July 31. 

*legal, finance and accounting, engineering and manufacturing, business and administration, hair and beauty, catering and hospitality, creative and design, agriculture and animal care

Source: Department for Education

DfE will now allow working from home in some T Level placements

The government has watered down its rules on T Level industry placements – including by allowing up to a fifth of hours to be delivered remotely in certain subjects.

Updated delivery guidance published today states that there is only an “expectation” that students will “spend the majority of their placement hours in-person, within an external workplace setting”.

Previous rules had made clear that all placements, which must be a minimum of 315-hours (45 days), “cannot be delivered virtually/remotely, except for work taster activities”.

The Department for Education played down the new wording, telling FE Week that it means all T Level students can undertake a maximum of 35 hours of work taster activities as part of their placement remotely – a rule that has been in place since the launch of the qualification – and pressed that the remaining hours must be delivered in person.

However, the DfE has made clear that in six of the 23 available subjects, 20 per cent of a student’s industry placement hours can now be done remotely. The remote working can even take place from a learner’s home in “exceptional cases”.

The subjects where this hybrid approach can be applied are accounting; digital; finance; legal services; management and administration; and media, broadcast and production.

For example, a digital student undertaking a 315-hour industry placement can spend up to nine days of it remotely.

Explaining the rationale behind this decision, the DfE’s guidance said: “The hybrid (remote) placements approach can be used in office-based environments where a hybrid way of working (i.e., where some of the time is spent working remotely) has become an established practice/way of working.

“This approach aims to facilitate greater access to a wider range of employers as providers will be able to access businesses outside of their immediate local area.”

It comes after the DfE allowed students who started a T Level in 2020 and 2021 to complete a chunk of their industry placement remotely in light of the pandemic.

The move was aimed to help ease ministers’ and sector leaders’ fears of convincing enough businesses to host students for the 315-hour or 45-day placements, a long-held concern that was exacerbated by Covid-19.

Minister for skills, apprenticeships and higher education Robert Halfon said: “We’re introducing greater flexibility to help more employers deliver industry placements, including allowing some placement hours to be delivered remotely for office-based T Levels, to ensure that both businesses and learners are able to get the most out of the industry placement.

“As we expand T Levels, industry placements need to follow suit, and these changes will ensure that businesses of all sizes, across all industries, can continue to offer high-quality, accessible placements to all students.”

Today’s updated delivery guidance said the location of the remote hours of an industry placement must take place in a “suitable environment”, such as a dedicated office space at the provider’s setting.

In exceptional cases, students can undertake placement hours from home “if the provider is satisfied students have an appropriate environment to work from and there are no safeguarding concerns”.

The provider and the employer must agree which elements of the placement can be achieved through remote working in advance of the placement starting.

Providers “must be satisfied that employers can fully commit to supporting the student throughout, preferably with experience of offering this type of provision for young people”, the guidance said.

The DfE has also retained the rule that industry placements can be split across a maximum of two employers.

DfE adds 16 organisations to register of flexi-job apprenticeship agencies

A fresh wave of 16 organisations have joined the government’s register of flexi-job apprenticeship agencies following the latest round of applications where only half of bids were successful.

The register was launched in February last year, with those organisations effectively acting as employers for apprentices in industries such as construction and creative arts where they cannot be placed for a year because of the short-term nature of projects.

The organisations provide an anchor for the administration and support of apprentices, who work for several different companies over the duration of their course.

Fifteen organisations were included on the register at the launch, but two dropped off by October and another one joined.

The Department for Education opened applications in the autumn for new additions, confirming it had received 30 applications. At the time, it said it hoped to test the approach in new sectors.

The updated list published last week included 16 fresh names, while no more have quit the register.

The new names include those in industries such as pharmaceutical, sports and life sciences, along with more names in already represented sectors such as construction and engineering. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) has also made the list.

According to the DfE, HMPPS’s inclusion on the list is to facilitate flexi-job apprenticeships for prisoners once a programme has been developed.

It comes following a change in legislation which allowed prisoners to start work as apprentices in October.

Up to 300 prisoners are expected to be recruited onto apprenticeships by 2025.

The DfE said that the 16 new additions had all identified barriers that had prevented employers taking up apprentices.

However, all 16 have joined the register only, and not been given any grant funding. It raises questions as to whether any more grant funding will be forthcoming for future additions.

According to the DfE, around £5 million in grant funding has been given to 11 organisations on the register since its launch.

It said that it currently had no plans for further grant funding for flexi-jobs.

For the existing agencies on the register, the DfE said five have opted to expand the sectors or regions they deliver in: Evolve Apprenticeships Ltd, Inspire ATA Ltd, Mid Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce, TrAC, and En:Able Futures.

In October, FE Week reported that two organisations – HR Provider Ltd and Nottingham College Services – were no longer on the register.

HR Provider did not comment on its reasons, but Nottingham College Services said it withdrew from the scheme due to low demand.

ScreenSkills had previously raised concerns over future funding uncertainty, explaining that film and TV industry firms already pay the apprenticeship levy, apprentice wages and associated on-costs, and would not be realistic to expect them to fund a support service like ScreenSkills once government grant funding dries up.

Sara Whybrew, apprenticeship and policy consultant said its grant funding arrangement runs until the end of March with no further grant funding beyond that, meaning its “current FJAA model may be wound down, but we’re still exploring options”.

It has reiterated its position that it would like to see some of the levy ringfenced to fund intermediary body services to aid employers and manage apprenticeship opportunities.

Colleges with high energy bills will get discount under reduced scheme

Colleges will soon be able to tap into a new energy support scheme – but only those with the highest bills will get a discount after government slashed the level of financial help.

The current £18 billion energy bill relief scheme, which includes colleges and other education institutions, runs out in March.

But the new ‘Energy Bills Discount Scheme’ announced last night, which will run until March 31 next year, includes businesses, charities and the public sector.

The government confirmed that colleges are included, in a move likely to be welcomed by the sector amid significant wider cost pressures and soaring utility bills.

However, fewer colleges and education institutions are likely to be eligible, and those covered will receive much less support than under the existing bill relief scheme.

Under the new scheme, only those paying above £107 per megawatt hour for gas or £302/MWh for electricity will receive help, automatically applied to bills.

The previous scheme had significantly lower thresholds of £75 per unit of gas and £211 for electricity.

Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, called the announcement “welcome clarity after months of uncertainty” about whether schools and colleges would receive any help beyond March at all.

But he added: “While it is right that there is a discount for those with the highest bills, we are concerned that many schools and colleges may not be eligible for this.”

Wholesale prices now falling

The government noted wholesale prices had fallen significantly in recent months. The measures will still help some of those “locked into contracts signed before recent substantial falls…and provide others with reassurance against the risk of prices rises again”.

Price thresholds are around half of what colleges renewing in August faced when the market spiked, keeping their costs down.

But the government is also no longer guaranteeing it will cover all costs above its thresholds, potentially raising costs further for those on particularly expensive tariffs.

The unit discount will be capped at £6.97 per megawatt hour for gas, and £19.61/MWh will be applied to electricity bills. Support under the new scheme is capped at £5.5 billion.

The government said the lower level of support “strikes a balance between supporting businesses over the next 12 months and limiting taxpayer’s exposure to volatile energy markets”.

16-19 base rate to rise by just 2.2% from August 2023

Post-16 providers will see a 2.2 per cent increase in the national base rate for full time students aged 16 and 17 from August 2023 – equivalent to just an extra £100 per head.

The Department for Education announced the below-inflation rise today, which means the rate for full time 16- to 17-year-old learners on college courses of 580 hours or more will increase from £4,542 to £4,642 in the 2023/24 academic year.

The uplift also applies to those aged 18 and over with high needs.

The DfE said the new rate will continue to fund the extra 40 hours per student requirement introduced this year, adding that it aims to publish updated guidance on this rule, including monitoring and reporting requirements, by the end of next month.

In addition, the funding bands for T Levels have also been upped by 12.4 per cent, or between £1,174 and £1,624, depending on number of study hours.

It comes as part of the £1.6 billion funding commitment in the three-year spending review period up to 2024/25.

The DfE said that programme cost weightings have also been increased for engineering and manufacturing, construction and digital subject areas (see table below) to help providers, colleges and sixth forms with the additional burden of recruiting and retaining teachers in those sectors.

The overall cash boost is worth around £125 million for 2023/24 – £85 million from the 2.2 per cent increase and £40 million in the subject-specific funding.

2023/24 programme cost weightings (PCW), with 1 being the base rate of funding

Elsewhere, the high value courses premium remains at £600, as does the advanced maths premium – cash for additional students studying specified level 3 maths qualifications.

But industry chiefs have said the funding uplift doesn’t go far enough.

Association of Colleges chief executive David Hughes said any increase was welcome but a “well-below-inflation rise is nowhere near what is needed”.

He added: “The decade of funding cuts has been made even worse with soaring energy costs and inflation, resulting in colleges simply not being able to pay enough to recruit and retain the staff they need. At the same time the economy is being held back by jobs going unfilled in exactly the sectors and roles which colleges can train and educate for if they are funded properly to do so.”

James Kewin, deputy chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association also said the uplift needed to be a lot higher, and said that some changes could “dampen the impact of the rate rise”.

“We would also like to have seen a much-needed increase to bursary and free meal funding and will continue to make the case for adequate student support funding alongside a major increase to the funding rate,” he said.

Robert Halfon, minister for skills, apprenticeships and higher education, said: “Our ambition is to transform young people’s life chances by giving them the chance to climb the education and skills ladder of opportunity.”

DfE plans £6.5m upgrade of Sheffield office

The Department for Education (DfE) will spend £6.5 million refurbishing its office in Sheffield, but insists the work has nothing to do with fears of overcrowding and difficulties during an evacuation last year.

The work on the office in St Paul’s Place will “modernise and refresh the office, increase capacity, and address building condition, including assets approaching the end of their useful life”, it said.

Capacity has become more of an issue at DfE offices across England since an edict last year ordering civil servants to return to the office for at least 80 per cent of their working week.

FE Week revealed how the DfE overall had twice as many workers as desks, forcing staff to work in corridors and canteens. As of last year, Sheffield had 790 desks for 1,489 staff.

Complaints about overcrowding at Sheffield came to a head last year when the office was evacuated after the discovery of a suspicious package.

Civil servants claimed at the time that overcrowding had left them struggling to leave the building.

But the DfE told FE Week that refurbishment had been in the planning phase since 2020, whereas the bomb threat occurred in May 2022.

The department did not have concerns about overcrowding in “any of our offices”, it said.

“The slower than usual evacuation was due to a unique set of circumstances that were not linked to any perceived overcapacity or overcrowding of the office,” the department said.

Work on the building will include upgrades to its mechanical, engineering and plumbing systems, which the DfE said were running at capacity and “not efficient”.

This would include “increasing toilet provision, improving the heating, cooling and ventilation systems, and moving the building to be in line with net zero carbon guidelines”.

Monopoly fears over plans to bring EPAs and professional qualifications together

Plans to integrate professional qualifications with apprenticeship end-point assessments could shrink the assessment organisation market and create monopolies for industry bodies, experts have warned.

The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) launched a consultation last month on proposals to make mandatory professional qualifications and end point assessments (EPAs) work better together.

The aim is to curb the number of learners leaving their apprenticeship having secured their industry qualification but before completing their EPA, a tendency that is contributing to the 50 per cent drop-out rate in apprenticeships.

IfATE has proposed measures to include at least one part of a professional industry qualification with the EPA, having found evidence that learners were walking away from apprenticeships after securing the necessary qualification to work in the industry.

The institute reckons around 40 per cent of apprenticeships mandate at least one qualification.

Many have backed the principle of the planned changes, but some have warned of problems. One end-point assessment organisation forecast that it could shrink the market.

Jake Tween, director of apprenticeships at DSW Consulting, which has been one of two EPAOs for the insurance practitioner standard – one of those trialled with the new arrangements in 2022 – said: “There is a risk of creating monopolies. If you have qualification bodies that are EPAOs, they will become the de facto EPAOs.”

At least two sources have told FE Week that some degree of “bundling” was happening in the industry, whereby EPAOs that are also industry bodies offer discounts on membership or similar benefits, which should be costed separately.

One said it has caused fears within the industry that some EPAOs will pull out, potentially leaving gaps in key sectors.

Elsewhere, Tween said communication needed to be improved so the EPAOs, training providers and employers were all aware of the rationale for which elements of the professional qualifications were included in the EPA.

He said it needed “the goodwill of the parties involved to agree how it should work” on the insurance practitioner standard last year.

In addition, he said that at least one large provider was no longer offering that standard because of the complexity of the arrangements.

Tween said “a far more elegant solution” was to leave the timings of assessments as they are but withhold certification of the professional qualification until after the EPA has been completed.

Simon Ashworth, director of policy at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said integrating the assessment and awarding of professional qualifications into EPAs was “a welcome step” where practical.

“Currently some apprentices and employers game the system. They get their professional qualification and leave before taking their EPA.

“That’s not good for providers, EPAOs or the apprenticeship brand,” he said.

But he also warned that wider concerns needed careful consideration. “Specifically the impact on availability of EPAs as not all EPAOs are awarding organisations, potentially further blurring the cost of professional memberships, end-point assessments and now on-programme qualifications, and clearly the need for providers to undertake more activity post-gateway which is not currently recognised or funded,” he added.

IfATE is currently seeking the views of the industry, with its consultation closing on February 17.

Under the proposals, employer trailblazer bodies will need to submit a rationale and supporting evidence to demonstrate that a standard needs a professional qualification.

Sam Callear, IfATE deputy director for policy and new concepts, said qualifications and EPAs “haven’t always worked together as well as they could”.

He added: “We think we can improve the balance and relationship between the study and assessment needed to achieve these specific qualifications and the study and assessment that is needed as part of the apprenticeship.”

IfATE said consultation responses would be analysed and any changes published in the spring, but stressed it will work with trailblazers to assess the best time to apply any changes if it goes ahead with the plans.

Graham Hasting-Evans, chief executive of NOCN – another EPAO for the insurance practitioner standard which has already undergone the integration – said it was a positive step and had been carried out sensibly.

“An important step in the revision of the assessment plan has been the enforcement that qualification units must not be completed before gateway,” he said. “This change and integration now more formally ties the apprentice to both the EPA and the qualification.”

Emily Austin, chief executive of the Association of Apprentices, also welcomed the consultation: “Anything that can be done to simplify the process and reduce the burden on learners is a good thing and could have a significant, positive impact on completion rates.”

She added that it must be agile, however, as “one size does not fit all”. The process also needs to be easy for employers, providers and EPAOs to navigate.