The 12-month minimum duration that all apprenticeship standards must meet has become a celebrated cornerstone of England’s modern apprenticeship system. It is an easy shorthand for ministers arguing that the apprenticeships system has improved after 2017.
But it could be argued that the rule lets trailblazers reject proposed standards that could prove useful for businesses. IfATE’s back and forth with firms including the NHS over the level 2 business administration standard is an example of how the minimum duration rule stifles the system.
In addition, the minimum duration rule is also proving an ineffective way to ensure quality. In our experience of working in the sector, multiple providers have been getting away with putting learners through higher-level standards at an unreasonably rapid pace. This allows them to maximise their short-term income but with devasting implications for the learner, employer, and the sector.
We have been inundated with transfer requests, and a quick look through recent Ofsted reports, coupled with a number of providers ‘exiting’ the sector after being found out, adequately demonstrates why this practice is flawed.
The 12-month minimum duration has also meant lower-level apprenticeship standards cannot develop the flexibilities that learners and employers need in sectors with more casual work.
For all these reasons, the rule needs to be reviewed. Instead, the government should introduce a sliding scale approach which bases the minimum duration of an apprenticeship on its level.
Rushing through higher-level standards
Through our experience of delivering ‘Outstanding’ provision between levels 3 and 7, we have come across providers in our subject areas that are delivering training at a suspiciously quick pace.
For instance, we have seen providers offering to fast-track the level 7 senior people professional standard in 18 months. Past the 12-month minimum duration, yes, but far short of the 36 months IfATE says it typically takes to get an apprentice to gateway.
How can you teach learners the necessary skills, knowledge, and behaviours in half the time it ought to take you? Bear in mind, this is from an advertisement for the course; the provider has no idea about each apprentice’s prior learning.
Nor is it an isolated case. We’ve seen scored of operations/departmental manager apprenticeships at 12 to 14 months, instead of the recommended 30.
Flexi-jobs prove the need for flexibility
There must be an equal focus on delivering quality provision at lower levels. However, apprentices and employers concerned with level 2 need much greater flexibility and more support with progression.
The government conceded that the apprenticeship system needed greater flexibility when it created the flexi-job apprenticeship scheme to support sectors where apprentices find it difficult to secure 12 months’ work with one employer.
That same flexible approach should be applied across the system. Level 2 apprenticeships, especially in sectors where casual work is prevalent like hospitality and retail, should not have a 12-month minimum duration. The apprentices need much greater flexibility to learn skills and gain workplace experience.
Another crucial element of lower-level apprenticeships is progression. Level 2 apprentices should be able to pass their qualification then move up through the levels, with each qualification imparting more advanced knowledge, skills, and behaviours. As the complexity of the learning increases, so should the minimum duration.
Importantly, this is a proposal to change the minimum duration, not the maximum. Learners ought to receive a tailored training programme to account for their varying levels of prior learning, or where they simply need more time to pass their course.
A sliding scale of durations
Instead of the mandatory 12-month minimum duration across all standards, there ought to be a sliding scale approach where the duration differs by level.
Our proposal for this scale is as follows, based on a learner with no significant experience or prior learning:
Level 2: Nine months
Levels 3 and 4: 12 months
Level 5: 18 months
Levels 6 and 7: 27 months
This allows for flexibility and progression at the lower levels but means apprentices will receive adequate time – and employers will get proper value for money – especially at higher levels.
A £100-million online platform designed as the “front door” for the government’s flagship Multiply maths scheme for adults has been put on ice.
The Department for Education refused to confirm whether it was still going ahead with its much-delayed procurement for the platform following an FE Week investigation in to the Multiply programme.
The Guardian yesterday reported that the digital platform element, originally planned to launch in 2022, has been shelved while the government “reviews how the wider scheme is working”.
It is unclear whether plans for the platform have been completely axed or merely delayed.
Rishi Sunak introduced Multiply while he was chancellor in 2021. Sunak has made improving maths skills a key mission of his since becoming prime minister – last week he reaffirmed his desire for all students to study maths of some kind up to the age of 18.
Multiply is a three-year programme that provides free courses for adults aged 19 or above who did not have a grade C or above in GCSE maths or equivalent level 2 maths qualification.
An online platform was planned to signpost people to the free courses in their local area, provide a diagnostic tool to assess skills levels and provide online tuition.
A prior information notice published last year ahead of a planned contract tender described it as a “critical pillar” of the bellwether scheme, but the procurement never took place. The DfE has instead paused that part of the programme as it reviews how the overall project is performing.
Funding of £559 million has been set aside for the three financial years to the end of 2024-25 from the UK Shared Prosperity Fund for Multiply. Around £430 million of that has been dished out locally – £270 million in England and £160 million for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
It is not yet clear what would happen with the funding if the online platform doesn’t go ahead.
DfE told FE Week the department was keeping the Multiply online platform “under review” so that it could ensure it was delivering the right offer for learners.
It said it will update on next steps in due course.
Mark Dawe, chief executive of training provider The Skills Network, said: “As an initiative of the now prime minister, and given the recent announcement requiring maths in education through to the age of 18, the decision to suspend progress on the Multiply national digital platform is somewhat of a surprise.
“With a significant number of local authorities requiring physical face-to-face delivery, along with this news, it is yet another example of the DfE veering away from innovative online solutions, while the rest of the word becomes excited by the opportunities that digital and artificial intelligence provide in terms of quality, efficiency and accessibility of skills development.”
Funding allocations to local authorities had been slow, with some only receiving their allocations in December despite having submitted plans in the summer, while contacts were also delayed in reaching providers in some instances.
Elsewhere, prices from providers have varied wildly, and engaging with adults that have low numeracy skills has proved difficult as many do not want to seek help.
DfE data up to the end of February 2023 indicated that 13,500 learners had participated in the scheme so far.
Sue Pember, director for policy and external relations at adult education provider network Holex, said she remained positive about Multiply, as thousands of adults have improved their maths, and said that while an online tool would be useful there were “already a lot of excellent resources for teachers already online”.
On the Multiply programme more broadly, Pember added: “It’s a great initiative and we need to give it time. Any over-zealous bureaucratic processes will settle down but it is important to demonstrate that government funds are being used wisely.”
Applications have opened for colleges in England to apply for capital loans from the Department for Education, following reclassification into the public sector.
Bids can be submitted from today until midnight on May 31 for colleges to apply for loan funding to fill funding shortfalls for capital schemes in the 2023/24 and 2024/25 financial years.
That was because funding rules introduced overnight by the DfE around managing public money said that commercial finance deals would only be allowed by the government in rare circumstances, as it was deemed “very unlikely” by the department that higher private sector borrowing costs would be considered value for money.
Guidance published today as applications opened confirmed that general FE colleges, sixth form colleges and designated institutions are eligible to apply, and there is no limit for the number of applications per college.
The eligibility criteria dictates that for projects to be eligible they must be either already underway or in the advanced stages of planning, have a funding gap as a direct result of restrictions to commercial borrowing arising from the reclassification, and must provide evidence of their original intent to borrow commercially prior to the date of reclassification in November last year.
Projects must improve the college estate or support the delivery of high-quality further education in England, the guidance said.
A cap has not been set on the amount that can be borrowed, with amounts set to be considered on a case-by-case basis and considered in line with evidence of intended amounts of commercial borrowing planned prior to reclassification.
The loans will be paid between June 1, 2023, and March 31, 2025.
The DfE confirmed it had a ring-fenced budget for the scheme, but refused to tell FE Week how much this totalled.
Minister for skills, apprenticeships and higher education, Robert Halfon, said he recognised that reclassification had caused challenges for colleges in financing their capital projects.
“The scheme will enable capital projects to continue as planned, and support the sector in its vital mission of enabling young people and adults to gain the skills they need to climb the ladder of opportunity into further study and work,” he said.
“This fresh support being offered is in addition to over £3 billion of capital investment in England’s college estates and facilities to build a world-class skills system that supports learners and delivers the skills that the economy needs, as well as bringing forward £300 million of payments to improve cash-flow.”
According to the DfE the funding will come from the department’s existing budget. The DfE refused to say how much has been set aside, but it is understood to be based on returns from colleges to two letters sent to accounting officers in November 2022 and March 2023.
The loans can be used on schemes that are being self-funded entirely, or on those which have already attracted other government cash such as T Level capital funding, post-16 capacity funding, FE capital transformation cash, Institutes of Technology or strategic priorities grants from the Office for Students.
For the latter, loans can be used to meet any match funding requirements.
The DfE’s timeline said that colleges should expect to receive notification of bids relating to DfE capital grant funded projects in the summer and outcome of bids for self-funded capital projects (those not to have attracted other government pots of cash) in the autumn.
Projects deemed ineligible include those not related to the provision of further education or training, such as “large atria, commercial activities not related to government funded provision or where the estate is being let to tenants”.
Residential provision will be considered essential to provision, it said.
Ineligible costs include rent service charges, internal staffing costs, routine maintenance costs and supply of loose furniture or equipment.
Interest rates will be charged at the rates for the Public Works Loan Board’s new loan fixed rate for a debt maturing up to one year, which is currently 5.15 per cent.
Julian Gravatt, deputy chief executive of the Association of Colleges said it represented a cheaper form of loan than private borrowing, the interest of which would likely be two or three per cent higher, but said the short time scale for applications will leave “a bit of a scramble” for some colleges.
He added: “It’s a short term thing, which is kind of understandable because no-one knows what’s going to happen to the budget after 2025 [the end of the spending review period], and that’s partly politics.
“What we all really want is for Treasury in a future financial settlement to set out a continuing capital budget for FE.”
However specialist colleges, which remain a part of the private sector and can continue to borrow commercially, have expressed dismay that they are left out of scope of central government capital grants funding, leaving them reliant on more expensive private loans.
Clare Howard, chief executive of Natspec, said that it has “now been ten years since we have received a slither of a capital fund” and had left staff “having to deliver education and training to some of society’s most vulnerable young people in damp classrooms and under leaking roofs”.
She added: “Our students’ education and wellbeing are suffering due to the disrepair of buildings and the lack of new facilities. That is why there needs to be a dedicated capital funding stream for specialist colleges.”
Findings from a ‘groundbreaking’ pilot have indicated that a new approach to teaching GCSE maths resits can radically improve students’ progress and attainment.
The Education and Training Foundation (ETF) today published the outcome of a pilot programme which found that students being taught by teachers on a specific professional development programme made one month of additional progress on their peers, with disadvantaged students making even more gains.
The project, carried out by the University of Nottingham’s Centre for Research in Mathematics Education, encompassed 147 college sites and 7,453 students for post-GCSE maths resits between October 2021 and June last year.
It investigated two levels of intervention – “partial” and “full” which involved teachers working with lesson resources and professional development opportunities based around the ETF’s “teaching for mastery in FE” principles.
The partial intervention featured teachers taking part in online professional development sessions to develop new teaching practices across seven lessons.
Full intervention featured all of the elements of the partial intervention pathway as well as a programme of “lesson study” which saw groups of teachers come together and observe one of the group teaching a class, before discussing the lesson afterwards.
It effectively aims to help tutors adapt their teaching to include principles in the ETF’s Centres for Excellence in Maths programme, which include evaluating prior learning, connecting learning tasks with the curriculum and creating “safe” spaces in classrooms where misunderstandings are accepted.
The report found that students taught by teachers on both the partial and full intervention saw some benefits, but those on the full intervention made one month of additional progress in learning compared to peers in other colleges.
For students on free school meals prior to college, researchers found that two months of additional progress was made.
Those on the partial intervention had slightly improved scores but no discernible increase in learning months, the report found.
The university said that its analysis did detect improvement in GCSE scores, but has only reported its findings in “additional months progress” because that is the benchmark used by the ETF. However it estimated that students on the intervention will have gained around three to five more marks than peers in other colleges.
Steve Pardoe, head of the ETF’s Centres for Excellence in Maths programme, said: “This research is genuinely groundbreaking. It demonstrates that improvements in learner outcomes in maths are possible and points to the importance of ‘mastery’ approaches in unlocking them.”
The Centres for Excellence in Maths was a five-year Department for Education-funded programme that concluded at the end of March aimed at improving level 2 maths outcomes for 16 to 19 year-olds in post-16 providers.
Five “teaching for mastery principles” were formed by the Centres for Excellence in Maths programme to bolster attainment, and include developing an understanding of maths structures, building on students’ prior learning, help students make connections across the curriculum, attain fluency in maths and develop a collaborative and safe culture to build confidence.
Professor Geoff Wake, lead research at the University of Nottingham, said: “The findings of our research are hugely encouraging in pointing to ways we might help the teaching and learning of students who have often found mathematics particularly difficult.
“We hope to be able to build on what we have learned from this research to support such students to gain better outcomes in mathematics GCSE which is known to improve their future life chances.”
Many students with low prior attainment in maths – grade 3 or below at GCSE – do not make enough measurable progress by age 19, the report said.
GCSE resits data released last summer indicated that around a fifth – 20.1 per cent – achieved a grade 4 or higher in 2022 in England, compared to the 38.6 per cent in 2021. However, 2020 and 2021 exams were disrupted by Covid-19 and resulted in teacher-assessed grades being issued.
Last summer’s figures were just 1.1 percent points down on 2019, the last exams series before the pandemic hit.
It comes just a week after the prime minister reaffirmed his commitment to introducing maths to 18, which has seen a task force formed to help advise on future developments that could include a new qualification post-16.
The number of penalties for bringing phones or smart watches into exams for vocational and technical qualifications quadrupled last year.
Ofqual data published this week showed that 750 of the penalties were issued to VTQ students in 2022 compared with around 150 in 2020-21, 200 in 2019-20 and 300 in 2018-19.
For GCSEs and A-levels there were 1,845 penalties in the most recent year compared with 1,385 in 2019.
The regulator said that the volume of formal exams in VTQs is increasing, and the increase could be driven by processes or rules being less familiar following two years of cancelled exams during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Ofqual guidance says that the penalty for bringing mobile phones, smart watches or any other communication or internet-enabled device into an exam can include the removal of marks for that assessment, a student’s disqualification from that subject or disqualification from every subject the student is taking.
Around three fifths of the penalties for VTQ students in 2022 were a loss of marks, Ofqual’s blog said.
The watchdog said that students often take their phone into exams because it is expensive and they do not want to lose sight of it. “They have become so used to having it on them that they don’t even think about it,” the guidance says.
“Not intending to cheat however, or forgetting that it was in their pocket, is not a justification.”
A spokesperson added: “Ofqual takes malpractice very seriously and expects awarding organisations to prevent it and thoroughly investigate allegations of it. Where malpractice is proven, awarding organisations should take swift and effective action to address it and stop it from happening again.”
The regulator confirmed that possession of devices, regardless of whether they have been used or not, could attract penalties.
A spokesperson from the Joint Council for Qualifications, the membership body for qualification providers, said: “The JCQ awarding organisations take action where students are found in possession of unauthorised items in order to uphold the integrity of exams for everyone.
“As in previous years, we have issued guidance to students who are taking exams and would like to take this opportunity to remind all students not to bring any mobile phone device into their examination.”
Previous job: Director of Quality and Curriculum, Capita Learning
Interesting fact: Kathryn ran 10km a day for a year to raise money for Dementia UK. Never to be repeated again though, she says.
Andrew Hartley
Deputy Chief Executive, The Sheffield College
Start date: April 2023
Concurrent job: Executive Director – Commercial and Operations, The Sheffield College
Interesting fact: In his spare time, Andrew is an avid hockey player, as well as a qualified coach and umpire. He plays with his club at Belper and has played at regional level for the Midlands.
A long-serving lecturer has won £90,000 after a college was found to have discriminated against his disability and forced him into redundancy.
Bournemouth and Poole College must pay the compensation to Richard Phillips after he was unfairly dismissed following 25 years of service.
Phillips, who taught English and functional skills, said he had lost the career he loved after three years of “turmoil”.
At the end of an employment tribunal in June last year, Bournemouth and Poole College conceded that it had failed to make a reasonable adjustment to the redundancy process that led to Phillips’ departure.
The tribunal and subsequent remedy hearing held in January heard that Phillips had type 2 diabetes, diagnosed in 2017, and experienced anxiety and depression which predated his redundancy. An agreement to reduce his contract hours to 0.8 full-time equivalent had been agreed in September 2016, with stress cited as the reason in his application.
He was given notice of redundancy at the end of April 2019, working part of his notice with the remainder paid in lieu.
The tribunal report said that the college’s failure to offer a suitable alternative vacancy was also discriminatory.
Last summer’s original employment tribunal, held in Southampton, heard that a matrix scoring system had been used by the college as part of its efforts to determine who should be made redundant from a pool of nine teachers, with two-and-a-half posts being lost.
But Phillips’ absence over five months in 2018 for depression and anxiety meant he was not allocated any score in one part of the scoring matrix because a “PsR” had not been completed during his absence, meaning he had been “treated unfavourably for a reason rising from disability” in the scoring and selection process.
Had it been completed, the report said his score would have been 16 points higher, which would not have put him among the bottom two teachers.
The tribunal report said that “the respondent [the college] would have had a duty to make reasonable adjustments, if it had the requisite knowledge of the claimant’s [Phillips’] disability and he was likely to be placed at the disadvantage referred to”.
Suitable alternative employment could have been found when another English teacher, who had also been in the pool for redundancy selection, resigned after his notice of redundancy but before his dismissal, leaving a full-time vacancy which Phillips could have been offered, the tribunal heard.
Following the remedy ruling, Phillips told FE Week of the “turmoil” of the past three years. He said he had taken a stand against being discriminated against and unfairly dismissed following an unblemished 25-year record and good results.
“In 25 years, I had undergone numerous redundancy procedures; they hang over lecturers’ heads like an annual guillotine. To realise, however, the hand securing the blade is less than reliable is more than concerning,” he said.
“I’ve lost the career I loved through no fault of my own; my health has suffered considerably and possibly irrevocably; and the taxpayer has also paid dearly for solicitors and a barrister to defend the college’s unfair dismissal and disability discrimination against me. There are no winners here.”
The report by employment judge Catherine Rayner said it was agreed that “for the claimant, the stress of being selected for redundancy, having to challenge his selection through the employment tribunal and having to search for new employment were things that flowed inevitably from the fact that the claimant had been discriminated against by the respondent”.
It continued that “whilst we have not found that anyone’s actions were consciously or deliberately discriminatory, we have found a persistent lack of care for Mr Phillips and what happened to him, coupled with a disinterest in ensuring a full and fair process and a total failure to address at all the question of disability despite the claimant raising it with the respondent”.
However, the judge acknowledged that, while the college’s actions had had a negative impact on Phillips’ mental health, the college did not cause the illness.
The remedy hearing heard that Phillips had begun part-time work with the police in November 2019 following his redundancy but had not been able to continue after a few months because of his health. He subsequently worked as a private tutor.
The remedy hearing report said that the college’s liability for loss of earnings ended in September 2020, as from that point on Phillips would have been able to find teaching work to mitigate his losses.
The payout includes more than £52,000 for loss of pension, just under £17,000 for loss of earnings between August 28, 2019, and September 1, 2020, £14,000 for injury to feelings, £4,200 interest on the award and £2,735.79 interest on his loss of earnings.
The college had argued that, while entitled to an award for injury to feelings, much of Phillips’ distress was as a result of his pre-existing health conditions. However Phillips said he had suffered significant episodes of poor health as a result of the redundancy and subsequent employment tribunal.
A spokesperson for the college said: “As is the case for all organisations, unfortunately we periodically need to undertake redundancy exercises as we shape our organisation to meet changing needs and reflect changes in income. We have learned from the specific aspects relating to Mr Phillips’ redundancy and would like to wish him all the best for the future.”
The spokesperson added that there were “not any significant concerns in relation to the college’s finances with regard to the amount awarded”.
The flagship Multiply programme, aimed at adults with poor numeracy skills, is failing to attract learners, reports Jessica Hill. She looks at a £559 million scheme hampered by complicated funding and red tape
Actress Denise Welch was “that scared” of maths at school, she used to throw up before classes. The former star of Coronation Street made the confession last summer at an event organised by Gateshead Council to drum up interest in the government’s Multiply scheme.
Across the country, providers are hoping that people who, like Welch, lack confidence in their mathematical prowess, sign up to Multiply.
But a year on from the scheme’s launch, recruitment has proven challenging and providers have told FE Week of their frustration at the slow pace of the rollout.
Gateshead Council hailed its Multiply roadshow event as a success. It has since used Multiply to train more than 200 adult learners in subjects such as budgeting, maths for work and travel, and language of maths for ESOL learners. It’s also given £125,000 to third sector organisations that have delivered community-based math projects to 70 learners.
The government is spending £559 million in an attempt to boost numeracy skills through Multiply, as part of the new UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) – cash that before Brexit would have been allocated across the UK through EU structural funding.
The three-year programme is designed to provide free courses for anyone aged 19-plus without grade C equivalent in maths GCSE.
But while providers are used to adult education budgets coming through DfE agencies and combined authorities, Multiply is what Learning Curve Group’s commercial director Steve Morris describes as “devolution on speed”: the funding has also been allocated through upper and single-tier councils in non-devolved areas, making it considerably more work for national providers like his to bid into.
The government’s landmark levelling up white paper promised the UKSPF would cut the “levels of bureaucracy associated with EU funds”, but FE Week has heard concerns from training providers that red tape hampers bidding for Multiply.
The scheme is part of the paper’s ambitions for 200,000 more people to have completed high-quality skills training each year by 2030, “driven by 80,000 more people completing courses in the lowest skilled areas”.
Data from the DfE shows up to the end of February 2023, 13,500 learners had participated in Multiply. Skills minister Robert Halfon said last month that “we want to reach far more”.
Slow roll-out
The 81 local and combined authorities that signed up to Multiply submitted investment plans to the DfE last summer. But funding was not then allocated until December in some cases – with a requirement to spend it that financial year. Given what Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority described as “the long delays in [DfE] approving investment plans across the country”, the government agreed any underspend could be carried forward to the end of 2023-24.
A report to Cambridgeshire & Peterborough’s skills committee last month gave the scheme a high-risk “red RAG status”, with its interim associate skills director saying the programme was “behind” at that point.
It is one of several authorities, including Buckinghamshire, deploying outreach buses to promote the scheme.
Cambridgeshire County Council leader Lucy Nethsingha told FE Week local FE providers had been reluctant to divert capacity into the programme because the funding was only for three years, and it “takes time to get these schemes going”.
The assistant principal of a college in the south of England said despite launching its Multiply provision three months ago, it still had to receive a contract from its council, describing the timeframe as “just bizarre”.
Their college has so far enrolled about 70 learners for two-hour taster sessions, with a target of recruiting 400.
Learning Curve Group has tendered for about 20 Multiply contracts nationally and secured 10, including most recently Kent Council. About 330 learners are now enrolled.
Morris said there had been an “issue” with the “very slow” pace of contracting of some councils, with combined authorities proving more efficient.
Some councils were still contracting in March for the 2022-23 financial year about to end, which Morris said “many providers” would think not worth signing up for.
Another training provider also questioned why the DfE had not rolled out the national digital numeracy platform for Multiply promised when it launched the scheme’s prospectus in April last year. DfE said the platform, which would launch “later in 2022”, would “give people the ability to learn at their own place…and pace”, with the opportunity to sign up for “personalised free online tutorials”.
But so far the department has only developed an interim information webpage signposting to existing maths provision via the National Careers Service, and a six-question online numeracy quiz. It did not respond to FE Week’s query on whether it still planned to fully launch the promised platform in the future.
A spokesperson said: “Our focus has been on making sure local areas can deliver the Multiply programme to support people in all parts of the country to gain the vital numeracy knowledge and skills needed to unleash their potential and secure good jobs.”
“You probably needed a degree in maths to be able to understand the intricacies of it,” Morris said. “It’s bloody hard work.”
The director of another training provider working with three authorities on Multiply, who did not want to be named, raised concerns about funding variations. While “some authorities award us money for set-up costs, for others it’s just deliverables on numbers”.
Morris said some councils did not procure for Multiply through “the traditional portals”, which meant Learning Curve “missed out on a few opportunities because we weren’t looking in the right place”. He advised providers to look on council websites as well as normal procurement routes.
Prices charged by providers have also varied wildly; Learning Curve was outbid by another provider on one occasion charging £250 per learner, which Morris says is “probably our cost of learner generation”, while others charged £990 per learner.
One provider is understood to be embedding Multiply into programmes it was already delivering. Learning Curve’s external client services director Tom Aust said this was an approach it could explore if it became “a norm across the sector”.
Finding the learners
Renée Almeida, a 54-year-old audiologist, is doing a Multiply course with Learning Curve.
She has always found numeracy “very scary”, but after separating from her partner needed to manage her own finances.
The online course is boosting her confidence, but, for providers, finding people like Almeida willing to work on their numeracy skills has proved challenging.
The DfE’s own communications toolkit admits that adults with low numeracy are “hard to engage. They often don’t see a problem with their numeracy and are unlikely and unwilling to get help.”
Aust said Learning Curve found the cost of learner generation for Multiply to be “extremely high”, and cautioned other providers to “factor that in when you’re accepting contracts”.
Its research showed 2,000 maths courses already existed before Multiply, and Morris questioned “why people were not necessarily engaging with those existing courses. How do you engage people in something that emotionally their brain tells them they can’t do?”
Morris said it had been easier to generate learners in larger council areas and combined authorities than in “small local councils” where contracts have been for “only 100 learners. Managing that lack of volume is a challenge.”
Learning Curve’s “first port of call” has been to approach previous students, while also relying on referrals and social media promotion.
Aust said engagement could be “extremely difficult”, particularly with small councils.
“You go to the local jobs centre, but they’re inundated with different programmes. They’re quite confused what they should be pushing people towards.”
Another provider, SPS Training Solutions, started using job centres to find participants, then “engaging more with community organisations and more niche cohorts”, explained its director Mehul Shah. “We are looking at people with disabilities and complex needs…but that’s very much in its infancy.”
Some providers are presenting Multiply to employers as anopportunity to upskill staff. Learning Curve tried a “lunch and learn” exercise with one company, where it “invaded their canteen…to set up shop and engage learners”.
But while local employers may embrace Multiply, national companies are hampered by its devolved nature. A source from a nationwide cleaning company is doubtful how it could “engage with providers who can deliver this”.
“Nobody has 70 different contracts [across local government areas] to deliver it nationally. It’s really frustrating, my workforce are the type of people this scheme is probably aimed at.”
Who are Multiply learners?
TheDfE’s Multiply communications toolkit says women are more likely to be among the three in ten people who say they are “not a numbers person”. That is reflected in Learning Curve’s Multiply learner profiles: 81 percent are female – with half of its learners aged 40-60 and 41 per cent 26 to 39.
Learning Curve provides online, hybrid and classroom courses. The most popular have been its numeracy for life courses, which include helping parents support children with homework and managing bills.
Some colleges are understood to be using Multiply as part of pre-apprenticeship provision for learners without existing functional skills, while it has also been used for learners on apprenticeships who failed their initial assessment.
There has been some criticism of colleges’ rollout of the scheme.
A maths tutor for a London college described how its vice-principal had submitted a bid for Multiply provision “at the very last minute” and how its courses were “not necessarily meeting the needs of learners or businesses in our area”.
“I feel like we are just trying to get bums on seats to tick those boxes, rather than actually taking a really in-depth look at what the borough needs,” they said. “It feels very back to front.”
The DfE’s expectation for Multiply is not that learners will necessarily complete the course or come out with a specific qualification, but that providers demonstrate how their confidence has been boosted.
But while take-up had been good from students already attending college – a course on fractions, decimals and percentages was “well attended” by level one and two maths students seeking “extra support” – there had been little interest from outside learners. A course to help learners manage their finances did not drum up enough interest.
But one benefit has been the potential to recruit learners on to other courses. Learning Curve had never created functional skills resources as “there is already tons out there” said Aust. But after requests from online Multiply learners for more, similar content, Learning Curve is working with partners to create a functional skills maths video.
“The learners have been coming to us saying, ‘we enjoy this way of learning.’ It seems to be really popular.”
The first batch of flagship Institutes of Technology have been hailed after recruitment data obtained by FE Week showed they are off to a “flying start”.
Twelve IoTs backed with £170 million of capital cash have launched since 2019, racking up more than 17,000 starts between them – 95 per cent of their combined target.
Four of the establishments – collaborations between colleges, universities and employers that specialise in higher technical training – have exceeded their own targets: two hit 90 per cent or above, with the remainder not far behind.
All IoTs recruited hundreds of students in their first year, with two recruiting more than a thousand.
Experts have praised the “impressive” start as it was achieved during or in the aftermath of the Covid pandemic and against a backdrop of other new technical institution experiments – such as National Colleges, University Technical Colleges and Studio Schools – struggling in their infancy.
Skills minister Robert Halfon said: “As this research shows, IoTs are off to a flying start and have been in high demand, but we are not complacent. I am determined to create a high-skilled, diverse workforce which meets local and employer needs, putting Institutes of Technology at the heart of that ambition.”
‘This could prove very attractive in many localities’
IoTs are a major government project aimed at boosting high technical level skills across England, mostly offering training at levels 4 and 5 in STEM subjects including digital, advanced manufacturing and engineering.
Twelve opened between 2019 and 2022, with nine more in the works for the coming years to cover all parts of the country, backed with an additional £120 million – taking total public spending to £290 million to fund industry-standard facilities and equipment.
Unlike UTCs and National Colleges, IoTs are not direct competition for colleges in the areas they are created. Rather, they are extensions of well-established colleges and universities and can act as a pipeline for student recruitment, with the backing of big-name employers such as Siemens, Nissan, Microsoft, the Met Office and Airbus.
Ewart Keep, emeritus professor at Oxford University’s department of education, said the starts figures suggest that IoTs “seem to have managed to understand the existing pattern of local provision and to have been able to identify genuine gaps that need to be filled”.
He told FE Week that, although the IoT “brand” may be novel, the institutions delivering it and its associated learning offer are not, and “therefore have a much smaller mountain to climb in terms of establishing a presence in the learning marketplace”.
Keep also pointed out that the IoTs have adopted a model where they each focus on a limited number of sectors or occupations but have “not put all their eggs in the basket of a single sector”.
He said that a “mono-sectoral offer” – as demonstrated by the National College for High Speed Rail, which announced its closure this month – comes with “large risks if that sector does not grow or thrive in the way that was originally anticipated”. IoTs have “hedged their bets to some extent”.
Andy Westwood, professor of government practice at the University of Manchester, said that not only do the IoT numbers look impressive against UTCs and National Colleges, but also against recruitment for T Levels where most colleges attracted tens of students in their first years rather than hundreds.
“It’s still early days of course but, overall, this does suggest that IoTs and their partnership model across colleges, universities and employers is a good way of filling what Philip Augar described as the ‘missing middle’,” he told FE Week.
A ‘powerhouse’ of higher technical education
FE Week obtained the recruitment figures through Freedom of Information requests to all 12 IoTs.
West London IoT, led by Harrow College and Uxbridge College (HCUC) and Brunel University, has performed the best, achieving 126 per cent of its target enrolments to date.
The institute’s courses, in the construction, digital and engineering sectors, are offered across four campuses within the college group.
A spokesperson said most students within the IoT are over 18 and on full-time, part-time and apprenticeship programmes, adding that it is a “strong, high-quality pipeline for level 3 students seeking higher technical skills and a popular choice as it provides opportunities for students to further engage with employers and develop industry links”.
West of England IoT operates across seven sites, including four colleges and one university in the region, achieving 118 per cent of its target enrolments to date. It offers courses from levels 4 to 6 in advanced engineering and manufacturing, health and life sciences, and creative and digital high tech.
Paul Phillips, principal at lead partner Weston College said: “I worry that a public sector mentality may damage the innovation and rapid response to skills shortages in the future that have been realised to date.
“At present however we are driving change, and there are opportunities for modularisation, but still a need to recognise that skills needs and qualifications are not the same thing. The IoT has huge potential to influence skills solutions.”
An outlier in the starts figures was South Central IoT, led by Milton Keynes College, which has achieved just 36 per cent of its targets since its launch in 2021/22. However, the IoT explained that this was primarily due to a delay in moving into a new campus that has been pushed back to this summer because of planning permission issues.
The IoT also had an additional 957 “in work skills” part-time students in 2021/22, which do not count towards their target starts figures.
Eleven of the 12 IoTs provided FE Week with both their starts and target figures. The only one that did not was Swindon and Wiltshire IoT, which claimed it could only provide starts figures due to “commercial sensitivity”.
IoTs agreed with DfE key performance indicators (KPIs) for their licence agreements at the point of signing their contracts.
KPIs are met where the licensee meets 90 per cent of the agreed enrolment target from 2021/22, but during the years affected by Covid 19, this was reduced “based on average IoT learner recruitment”.
IoTs told FE Week that the DfE takes a pragmatic approach to starts, with the department adding that it works closely with the institutes to “understand the reason for any underperformance and agree actions on how to improve learner numbers”.
Keep said: “In the longer term, IoTs as collaborations between FE, HE and employers potentially offer support to moves towards a more joined up tertiary model of learning provision, where the boundaries between FE and HE are blurred and new progression routes to higher level vocational skills can be opened up.
“This could prove very attractive in many localities.”
