Latest news from FE Week

Resits: Colleges can do a lot – but they could do much more with some flexibility

A parent of one of my FE students once demanded to know why we were ‘forcing’ his son to continue studying maths and English at college alongside his vocational subject.

What I said to him then very much remains the case today: every young person needs these skills to reach their full potential. Whatever their ambition or aspiration, developing confidence in these core subjects will make a monumental difference students’ ability to achieve career and life goals.

FE colleges have a huge responsibility here, often needing to completely re-engage and re-motivate young people who feel very negatively towards continued study of maths and English. Many feel like they’ve spent years failing at school, have low confidence and little interest in lessons.

There is also the issue of timing. For students joining us in September, it’s extremely difficult to retake exams with us at the first possible opportunity in November. This is due to the complexity and the cost of re-registering them, as well as not having the time to properly assess learning needs or get the information we need from their old schools.

Some young learners will be able to return to their school to resit in November, but this is dependent on the school’s policy. The result is that most young people moving into college needing to resit their exams will have to wait a whole year, having to focus on maths and/or English study alongside their vocational programme. Maintaining interest and motivation during this period is not easy and requires huge buy-in from students and their families, as well as talented and committed tutors.

Other difficulties include not having easy access to the data we need to ascertain where students’ knowledge gaps are. We run our own diagnostics, but exam board feedback sits with the schools and unless you can get it from them, GDPR makes it challenging to obtain.

This is not good enough, and measures must be taken to address it

For all these reasons, resit success at colleges is understandably limited, which is evident in the outcomes. This year, just 16 per cent of students re-taking GCSE maths passed with at least a grade 4, and 26 per cent for English – some 5 per cent down on pre-pandemic levels.

This is not good enough, and measures must be taken to address it. At LSEC, we are starting to see real progress in our outcomes in spite of the challenges the sector faces. We have implemented a range of tactics focused on supporting students.

Central to our approach is targeted and personalised learning. We use diagnostics to see where knowledge gaps exist and focus our teaching heavily on these. Using the awarding organisation’s result analysis tool helps us identify areas learners find most challenging so we can tailor teaching to their needs.

The Covid recovery fund has also given us the opportunity to provide additional tuition and workshops, immersing learners in study and providing exceptional support.

And, importantly, we use our most experienced teachers, who are briefed and trained by our director of English and maths to ensure the highest quality of teaching and learning.

But what the sector needs is more flexibility in terms of when to enter students for resits and appreciation of the associated costs. For example, could there be an entitlement for students to resit at school if they so wish?

Alternatively, could students resit their exams at college, but remain registered at their school (or even dual-rolled)? This would take the logistical issue of resits away from schools, while maintaining accountability.

A third option would be a later re-take, in January or February. This would give colleges time to assess students’ needs and get all the necessary arrangements in place, including access to school-held data. In turn, this would facilitate more targeted teaching, the implementation of additional support where needed – and a faster road to exams.

The importance of ensuring every learner gains a qualification in maths and English is paramount and I support it unequivocally. But it’s clear outcomes need to improve, and while colleges can do a lot, they could do so much more with a little more flexibility to operate.

AI will march into every aspect of education – but what are the consequences?

From bot exam markers to snooping surveillance tech, we look at some of the most eye-catching technology on sale to educators at this year’s ed tech Bett conference, as the regulatory world rushes to catch up with AI advances.

Bringing exam marking into the AI age

The makers of an AI tool which marks both handwritten and typed exam papers and provides detailed feedback, claim it will “revolutionise” how exams are marked.

Vision Marker is the brainchild of father-son duo Barry Lambert, a chief examiner who has written over 50 GCSE papers, and Dr James Lambert, a machine learning boff who previously ran an algorithmic hedge fund.

The pair are marketing their tool as a “co-pilot” for marking rather than a complete teacher-less solution. Dr Lambert claimed to be unaware of any regulations prohibiting the use of an AI tool as a sole exam marker.

However, Ofqual said this is “not allowed”, although “awarding organisations may decide that AI can support the marking process”.

The Lamberts claim their tool is capable of co-marking all 420 million questions submitted each summer for key stage two and GCSE maths and English papers.

Vision Marker is currently being used in 25 schools to co-mark such practice papers, and the Lamberts are working with exam boards as well as some multi academy trusts and higher education institutions around using their services in the future. However, they won’t reveal which ones.

AQA’s chief executive Colin Hughes said in November that his organisation was interested in the potential for AI to mark exams, describing it as being “very easy” to have “machines marking human markers”. But “public confidence” was stopping them from doing so.

Other AI-powered marking tools coming onto the market include Blees AI, based in Canada and London, Graide, a University of Birmingham spinout with a new platform for marking essays and reports for universities, and KEATH.ai, a platform developed by University of Surrey researchers.

But Dr Lambert claims Vision Marker is distinctive because it can mark handwritten exams, even noting where words are scribbled out, and in the quality of its feedback, which can come with “varying levels of encouragement”.

Dr Lambert believes this feedback could prove invaluable in showing college students retaking their maths and English GCSEs where they are going wrong. “The time pressures mean feedback is never given at exam level. But detailed feedback is essential for student development.”

While manual marking takes weeks to complete, which Dr Lambert claims “delays result to students and hinders their outcomes”, Vision Marker could deliver exam results “in a couple of hours out to the entire nation”.

He claims their tool has proven itself to be “more accurate than [human] markers”, who are “prone to error making in these highly repetitive tasks”.

Teachers use exam marking to top up their wages each summer, with AQA paying between £500 and £1,000 per exam. Some may be alarmed at the prospect of being replaced by AI. But Dr Lambert claims they are “paid below minimum wage for what they do” and that their tool “turns markers into moderators” as they “use the [learner] feedback to agree or disagree with our system.”

He believes this means their technology will not be subject to the “black box effect” currently concerning the central banking market, in which it can be hard to understand how a particular AI model arrived at its conclusion.

“It’s the regulator’s dream rather than their nightmare because we have a fully auditable process of how and why marks are awarded.”

Surveillance sensors

Schools and colleges are using surveillance equipment to crack down on vaping, bullying and rowdiness in hidden areas, such as toilet blocks.

Companies are selling sensors to schools and colleges that can detect not just nicotine and THC, but also listen out for keywords and “noise incidents”.

Triton’s 3D sense pro and HALO Smart Sensors, made by the US company IPVideo (owned by Motorola Solutions), both actively listen for pre-programmed words through a machine learning algorithm. The sensor triggers an alert sent to staff members when they are heard.

The 3D Sense Pro sensor has 10 built-in keywords (such as ‘help me’ and ‘stop it’) it detects, and leaders can also choose ten “customisable” keywords it can listen out for. One company selling the 3D Sense Pro, Emergency Protection, described on its website how keywords and phrases were “constantly added through OTA [over-the-air] updates”. Similarly, Halo smart sensors come pre-loaded with five keyword phrases and educators can request to include others.

After the AI learns different pronunciations of new keywords, the software is updated so these words can be detected by all Halo sensors in schools and colleges nationwide, said Jon Glover, a manager at Halo sensor seller Millgate.

Kay Firth-Butterfield, a lawyer specialising in AI, said parents and young people should be contacted and asked for their consent first before this technology is rolled out.

But a sales representative for Schoolwatch, a UK seller of the 3D Sense Pro, said users did not need to get permission from parents to use the sensors, because they were not storing or collecting any personal information. The devices can integrate with CCTV too.

When activated by a vaping sensor, the cameras can capture every student leaving the bathroom.

Schoolwatch’s website describes the algorithm as “actively listening” to pupils.

The Halo 3C-PC version can even count the number of people in a room.

Madeleine Stone, senior advocacy officer for Big Brother Watch, said that “secretly monitoring bathrooms is a gross violation of privacy and would make students and parents deeply uncomfortable.

“No [education provider] should consider spying on private conversations and doing so is highly likely to be unlawful. This misguided surveillance poses a clear safeguarding risk and should be allowed nowhere near UK schools.”

FE Week put the spying concern to Schoolwatch’s managing director Andrew Jenkins. He said they had had “many conversations” at Bett about this issue, with “the main worry” being whether verbal exchanges were live monitored or recorded.

“The answer is no … when triggered, staff will receive an alert via SMS, push notification, and email. Nothing is saved, nothing is recorded, and nothing can be reviewed.”

Halo Smart Sensor screen showing its capabilities

A Triton spokesperson said: “The aim is to provide an additional layer of security against threats like bullying or sexual assault in these areas, reinforcing a safe environment. It’s important to communicate to students and educators that the system is designed to enhance safety, not to monitor everyday conversations.”

The 3D sense pro model, which includes the keyword and noise detector functions, are the most expensive (£999) and least popular sensor model that Schoolwatch sells. It has sold nine of these to schools, which Jenkins said are “focussed on stopping vaping not audio detection” while Millgate has sold 30 to 40 Halo Sensors to schools and colleges.

The number of young people using vapes has tripled in the last three years, with concern growing over the use of vapes laced with THC. Last year, East Surrey College was handed a ‘requires improvement’ rating over “poor behaviour” which included students vaping in the building.

A student at one college last year wrote on an online forum, the Student Room, how his college toilet vaping had set off a fire alarm and caused everyone to be evacuated. They said that on their level two construction course, vaping had “basically become the cultural norm”.

Meanwhile, on social media, students describe ways to outsmart the sensors by blowing smoke away from them and covering them in plastic wrap.

But some sensors use AI which recognises when it is being compromised and acts on it in hostile ways. IPVideo’s website says Halo sensors’ speaker and light can be programmed to “blink or shriek” when it is being tampered with.

A representative for Millgate said because the “AI technology” gets “used to its surroundings”, the sensor would send an alert if a student “tried to spray deodorant on it” to “mask” their vaping.

Halo sensors can send alerts when noise gets above a specific volume, and detect gunshots and explosions.

IPVideo’s website suggests educators can install them in locker room, classrooms and dorm rooms as well as bathrooms.

St Joseph’s College in Stoke-on-Trent placed Halo Sensors in two toilet blocks in September. After deputy headteacher Charlotte Slattery said they became “very active in the first few weeks”, it installed five others elsewhere. The school were “more interested” in the vaping alert than the sensor’s keyword and noise detection features, although they use those too.

A recent report in the LA Times found that in the US, the sensors are not always effective.

Michael Allman, a board member at California’s San Dieguito Union High School District, said that “in a way”, a pilot programme had been “too successful as the sensors went off so frequently, administrators felt it was useless to review security footage each time”.

At the Coppell Independent School District in Texas, sensors are part of a prevention strategy in which students can receive $50 for reporting vaping by peers. “They were turning each other in right and left,” said Jennifer Villines, the district’s director of student and staff services.

AI robot tutor

The learning platform Tassomai claims it’s new virtual tutor, Mai, can do almost anything that a human tutor does, but for a fraction of the cost.

Its founder, Murray Morrison, believes that one day soon, AI like his will do away with the need for tutors altogether, while levelling the education playing field in the process.

Mai uses a trained version of OpenAI’s GPT3.5 to chat to learners, in the same way that an on-demand human tutor would guide them with their homework.

Since January, Mai has been made available to all the 600 secondary schools in England that use Tassomai’s assessment platform.

Other companies in the formative assessment space include Oxford-based Educake which provides homework and revision, and the Canadian software company Showbie’s classroom assessment tool, Seneca.

All Mai’s conversations are recorded and stored by Tassomai.

Morrison admits there have been “lots of hiccups” in teaching Mai how to tutor, as large language models are “not as clever as you want them to be”.

“The art comes in training it to do the right thing…it’s certainly not just a plug in and play process.”

Last month, the delivery firm DPD had to disable part of its AI online chatbot after a customer was able to make it swear and write a haiku about how useless the company is.

Mai has been programmed to keep conversations “relevant and appropriate” to students’ Tassomai quizzes, using a moderation system whereby spamming, persistent inappropriate comments or questions from users are flagged. Those users have their access limited or blocked.

When asked by a learner recently if Mai had any “cheat codes”, the bot responded: “Haha. I wish I had cheat codes for learning, but unfortunately, there aren’t any shortcuts when it comes to gaining knowledge.”

And there are other ethical quandaries that have had to be considered. One school with a conservative Christian ethos insisted upon Mai not being able to teach some aspects of biology.

Morrison describes such instances as causing a “real dilemma” for companies like his.

“What if we were asked to write content for the Florida School Board, and they don’t want us to say that evolution is true? That’s a whole other conversation.”

There is also the issue of “half-truths or untruths” in the current GCSE curriculum which Mai is trained to guide learners on.

Morrison sees what is being taught by one exam board about “human-caused climate change” as “hedging its bets”.

Morrison believes AI is rapidly becoming more sophisticated. It is “not beyond the reach of AI” to be able to replace tutors altogether within the next two years. “When tutoring is as expensive and inconvenient as it is, there’s an opening there.”

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 448

Ruby Parmar

Chair of Governors, Milton Keynes College Group

Start date: January 2024

Concurrent Job: Various non-executive director roles

Interesting fact: A few years ago, Ruby participated in the Milton Keynes’ version of Strictly Come Dancing. After four months of intensive dance training with a professional partner, Ruby went on to win the competition and raise £10,000 for charity.

Dan Beale

Director of Partnerships, FEA

Start date: January 2024

Previous Job: HMI Further Education and Skills, Ofsted

Interesting fact: Dan was previously a national standard swimmer and today volunteers at a local swimming club helping young swimmers to develop their skills and confidence in the water

Shaun Hope

Principal & CEO, Bishop Auckland College Group

Start date: February 2024

Previous Job: Vice Principal – Curriculum and Standards, Hartlepool College of Further Education

Interesting fact: A former professional footballer, Shaun spent three seasons at Coventry City from 1999 to 2002, playing against Premier League and England regulars including Joe Cole, Jermain Defoe and current Middlesbrough FC head coach Michael Carrick

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 450

Mel Higgins

Trustee, WorldSkills UK

Start date: January 2024

Concurrent Job: Principal and Chief Executive, Northern Regional College, Northern Ireland

Interesting fact: Mel is a keen cyclist and joined his staff to complete sponsored cycles between the Campuses (100 miles) to raise funds for local charities

Martin Rennison

Director of Business Growth and Employer Partnerships, North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire College

Start date: January 2024

Previous Job: Interim Director of Business Development Solihull College and University Centre

Interesting fact: When not working, Martin is a fully qualified FA coach and the chairman of his local football club, Barton Rovers JFC

Construction giant could face £17m clawback after apprenticeship data error

A government-sponsored construction giant is facing a potential clawback of almost £17 million after an apprenticeships data blunder.

The Construction Industry Training Board’s (CITB) accounts for last year revealed it had set aside £10.9 million due to “non-compliance” with the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s funding rules for the academic years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21.

But, its newly published financial statements for 2022-23 reveal this liability has ballooned by over 50 per cent to potentially £15.2 million between 2018 and 2020, while a further £1.6 million is being paid back for 2020-21.

The executive non-departmental public body, which has been chaired by former ESFA chief executive Peter Lauener since 2018, was found to have “issues with records management” and couldn’t evidence various funding claims.

CITB’s latest accounts state, however, that it is “very confident” that the final clawback position will be “much lower” than the potential liability pot it has set aside.

The body expects the matter to conclude by the end of March 2024.

A CITB spokesperson said: “We are currently working with the ESFA to finalise audits of historic CITB provision. We included a conservative provision in the 22/23 accounts but expect the final figure to be much lower given the work we have in hand.

“Over the last 18 months, we have been driving forward a comprehensive transformation of our training operations, including improvements to compliance as well as curriculum quality. That programme is delivering real results at pace.

“Our most recent external assurance work gives us confidence that current arrangements are robust, and that these issues are historic in nature.”

The CITB, sponsored by the Department for Education, has historically been one of the largest providers of construction apprenticeships. However, apprentice numbers have dropped dramatically in recent years.

It was visited by Ofsted last year which resulted in it dropping from ‘outstanding’ to ‘requires improvement’ in May 2023.

The watchdog’s latest report revealed it has stepped away from its troubled subcontracted provision after finding ineffective oversight, with inspectors stating that leaders “focus too heavily on contract compliance and not on the quality of education”.

CITB confirmed at the time it was winding down its subcontracted delivery, which it was undertaking with 24 partners in areas such as carpentry and joinery, construction skills and bricklaying.

The organisation said the decision was linked to government policy in 2021, which demanded providers in FE significantly reduce their subcontracted provision after scandals and cases of poor oversight were brought to light.

Ofsted’s previous report on CITB from 2017 showed it had 9,000 apprentices on its books, but the report from May 2023 showed just 629.

Lauener, meanwhile, has been chair of CITB since 2018 and will serve his term until 2026.

More recently, Lauener, who is also chair of the Student Loans Company, stepped down as chair of college giant NCG (formerly known as Newcastle College) three years earlier than planned for “personal reasons”.

NCG is also locked in a £9 million funding clawback dispute with the ESFA, due to alleged 16 to 19 and adult education budget funding claim errors between 2018/19 and 2020/21 – the first three years of Lauener’s term as chair.

Research shows the resits policy needs a complete rethink

Four in ten 16-year-olds did not achieve good passes in their GCSE English and maths last year. Most of them must continue studying English and maths during their 16-to-18 education as part of the resit policy. Yet despite the volume of students affected by this policy, we still know surprisingly little about how effective it is at improving outcomes and addressing inequalities.

Continued study of English and maths makes sense. Literacy and numeracy strongly correlate with later outcomes like wages, health and life satisfaction. Providing further opportunities to develop these skills during the 16-to-18 phase is imperative, especially for students who are struggling at the end of their GCSEs and have had fewer opportunities growing up.

The recently announced Advanced British Standard (ABS) places great emphasis on strengthening these skills, with all students required to take English and maths until they are 18. However, what the ABS will mean for students not achieving a good pass at 16 remains uncertain and is a key topic in the ABS consultation document.

Currently, what should be a positive opportunity to develop worthwhile skills has been variously described as ‘endless resit failure”, a ‘demoralising resit cycle’ and a ‘dispiriting cycle of resits’. But an upcoming election and discussions around the ABS present a real opportunity to ambitiously redefine our approach for these learners.

To help inform the debate, we did a brief analysis of resit students’ entries and performance using publicly-available DfE data.

We found that an overwhelming majority enrol in GCSE resits (80-85 per cent), even though this is only a requirement for those who score a grade 3 in their GCSE exams. Alternatives like functional skills qualifications (FSQs) barely get a look in. This is driven by a range of factors, including brand recognition, staffing shortages, funding implications and criticisms around the reformed FSQs.

Our most vulnerable learners are ostensibly going backwards under this policy

However, achievement levels in GCSE resits are low. In 2022/23, only one-quarter of students passed their English GCSE resit and fewer than one in six passed their maths resit. Disadvantaged students and those with special education needs fare particularly badly, being 30 to 40 per cent less likely to pass on average. Alternative level 2 qualifications (mostly FSQs) have pass rates that are around four times larger, and the disadvantage gaps are much smaller.

When we look at the difference between grades achieved at 16 and grades achieved during 16-18 education, there are trends of extremely low progress on average and negative progress scores for disadvantaged students and students with SEN. This implies that our most vulnerable learners, who are in most need of support, are ostensibly going backwards under the resit policy (though, of course, they don’t lose their original GCSE grade).

The majority do not make progress, and those who do are overwhelmingly students with higher prior attainment and lower levels of disadvantage. Clearly, the current policy is not working.

One possible solution is to develop new programmes that focus on developing the core literacy and numeracy skills young people need. This could involve combining approaches from GCSEs and FSQs as well as weaving in new material and teaching methods.

These programmes should be designed to avoid the stigma associated with less academic/more functional alternatives to GCSEs. We know many students take GCSEs because they are better recognised and hold greater value with stakeholders, including parents and employers.

We could achieve this by replacing existing options with level 2 maths and English qualifications that can be taken with either an academic or functional focus, but both branded as ABS modules. This would allow students to take a programme of study that best aligns with their needs and aspirations while reducing the sharp distinction between academic and technical qualifications that currently exists.

We are at a crossroads. The ABS and surrounding policy discussions offer us a chance to provide much greater opportunities to students who are currently required to resit. We cannot let this opportunity slip to ensure every learner can progress towards the numeracy and literacy skills they need.

FE Commissioner flags insolvency risk after Leicestershire college ‘took their eye off the ball’

A Leicestershire college group is being propped up with emergency funding after the FE Commissioner flagged an insolvency risk, as governors admit they “took their eye off the ball” following a “turbulent” post-merger period.

The SMB Group was handed a government warning notice last July after “serious cash flow pressures” came to light. FE Commissioner Shelagh Legrave is now deploying her team of national leaders of FE and governance to help its recovery.

Staff restructuring is also underway, although it is not clear how many jobs are at risk.

The SMB Group was formed shortly before the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 through the joining of Brooksby Melton College and Stephenson College. Quality at both colleges pre-merger was judged by Ofsted as ‘good’ and the financial health of the newly merged college was also good.

In a report published last week, Legrave said a downward trend in student numbers has continued since the merger and made a large dent in income.

There was also a “significant” increase in pay and non-pay costs in 2022/23, which will result in a “substantial operating loss”. SMB recorded a £3.6 million deficit last year, but this year’s accounts are yet to be published.

Bailout funding for an undisclosed amount from the Department for Education is being used so that the college can continue its day-to-day running. Governors have even been told to “ensure they understand” their responsibilities including the provisions of the insolvency regime.

Legrave said early indicators for this academic year point to a “more positive” 16 to 19 student intake, though the college is anticipating another year of substantial losses even after taking account of the recent uplift in 16 to 19 funding rates.

“Work is underway to finalise a recovery plan which will need to demonstrate a credible path to financial sustainability and identify solutions to the impending cash shortfall”, the FE Commissioner added.

To balance the books the college has embarked on a “substantial cost reduction programme” that has involved closing most of the Melton campus and relocation of most provision to the Brooksby campus.

Quality of education has meanwhile suffered since the merger after Ofsted downgraded the group to ‘requires improvement’ last year.

Jane Wilson joined the college’s board in 2017 and became chair in 2022. She told Legrave that the merger, followed soon after by lockdown, had combined to distract the newly forming board and “cloud issues”.

She admitted that the board “took their eye off the ball” regarding income and wasn’t monitoring financial trends closely enough.

Other members said the financial issues were “foreseeable, but not foreseen” and referred to the board as being “relatively passive”.

Governors also told Legrave that post-merger, “a structure came about through attrition” and that the senior leadership team, formed by existing managers, “did not embed or prove effective”.

Chief executive Dawn Whitemore, who joined in 2018 and told the Melton Times in May 2022 the merger was a “lifesaver” for both colleges, revealed in Legrave’s report she had decided the “best way to move forward” was for her to focus on finance and for her deputy to focus on curriculum and quality.

She said she now recognised that this “wasn’t the right strategy” and that she “hadn’t secured the correct structure in place for leadership to be effective”.

Leadership of curriculum and quality was highlighted as particularly problematic, and several decisions of that post-merger period were identified as “concerning”.

A board member, for example, referred to the introduction of A-levels and running classes of three or four students as “worrying examples” and spoke of how the “feel” of the merged college was wrong.

Legrave said the board should now engage external advice from a turnaround specialist to “stress-test key aspects of the recovery plan and cashflow forecast to give assurance that the forward projections are robust and credible”.

A spokesperson for the college group told FE Week: “SMB College Group recognises the challenges currently facing the education sector, which is impacting a number of colleges across both the region and the wider nation.

“We are continuing to work in partnership with the Department for Education, the FE Commissioner team and other key advisors, and have already scoped and agreed a single improvement plan, which currently is progressing well with key milestones all on track.

“We currently have no debt as a college and have not yet agreed to the final support required. Our governors, executive team and our employees are all committed to ensuring our students remain at the heart of all of our decisions.”

Colleges can take the lead now to go beyond net zero

As a world, we cannot go on burning fossil fuels and overheating our planet. Failure to act will lead to more problems locally, with freak weather such as storms and flooding becoming more common and more extreme. Even worse will be the effect in countries more vulnerable than us, where bad weather means crop failure and famine and flooding means houses, livelihoods and people literally washed away.

It is right that our country is committed to net zero. Everyone is going to have to play their part. That is why Diana Barran – one of the better education ministers I worked with – recently announced that she and the Department for Education were working on a net zero plan right now. We need to hold them to account to do so.

Some decisions are categorically for government, and we should leave them to it. Only government can ensure we install more wind, more interconnectors with Europe and elsewhere.

The hard one is heat. A lot of UK emissions come from gas boilers. I write this column in my gas boiler centrally-heated house. There is a good chance that you are reading it in similar circumstances. The same will be true for colleges: gas, or even less clean fossil fuels are used extensively across the sector. That is going to have to stop.

The best approach is likely to be a ground source heat pump. For colleges with sufficient grounds this will be quite easy. You dig a 4-foot deep trench and lay what is known in the trade as a “horizontal slinky” – a pipe that goes round and round along the bottom of the trench. It collects some heat from the ground (no matter how cold it is, the heat is concentrated) and bingo, you have a nice warm building. If you have playing fields and a car park, you know what to do. Go for it.

For colleges without sufficient grounds the best approach is likely to be a deep bore hole system. Get yourself a very large drill bit and excavate 200 metres deep into the rock. Put your array straight down, around a U bend, and back up again. If one is not enough, put another one nearby.

Go and meet Baroness Barran; I bet she will see you

This technology is proven, but it is not yet common. The country needs to practise, because as the old cliché goes, practice makes perfect. Experience certainly lowers costs. And where better to practise than with the FE estate? After all, it will be further education that will be training people to install these arrays. Nobody is better-placed to be a pioneer in this area.

Train the people and have them install your own heat pumps. And when you train your students, work out where the current government regulations are helpful, where there is unnecessary red tape and where more training or more certification would lead to a better result.

You should find a coalition of the willing: colleges with large grounds, some with apparently terrible sites. Go and meet Baroness Barran; I bet she will see you. Offer to work together with each other, with experts and with her and the department to come up with a plan. Implement that plan, and come up with lessons learned. We want to learn how to deliver net zero at least cost, with least maintenance and least disruption. Those lessons will apply not just to the further education estate but to schools as well. Not only that, but they will apply to hospitals, prisons and every part of the massive government estate.

I also think we can be more ambitious. Colleges need heat mainly during the day. Houses need heat mainly in the evenings. Can we come up with a solution whereby your array heats your buildings in the day and nearby houses in the evening? That would mean lower capital costs of decarbonisation for households, a revenue stream for colleges, and getting to net zero more quickly and easily as a nation.

Looks like a win-win-win to me.

Employers warned years ago that hairdressing T Levels wouldn’t cut it

Ministers were warned by hairdressing and barbering experts that employers would reject T Levels years before their development belatedly ceased, FE Week has learned.

The government’s T Level rollout hit another major setback this week as plans to introduce the flagship qualification in the two disciplines were canned months before they were due to be taught.

Aspiring T Level beauty therapists have also been left in limbo as the government is still exploring employer demand for the qualification, despite being in development since 2021.

College leaders have reacted angrily to the “shock” timing of the decision after extensive marketing efforts and millions of pounds spent on new facilities and staff training. Hair and beauty T Levels were originally planned to launch in September 2023. They were then delayed, with six months’ notice, to September 2024.

Skills minister Robert Halfon announced the decision to cut the courses after hair industry representatives said they preferred existing level 2 and 3 apprenticeships and level 2 qualifications.

FE Week has since learned that industry leaders have been warning the government that the T Level wouldn’t work for their sector since T Levels were first mooted – but were overruled by officials.

Beauty sector bodies were however still in favour of the T Level. Halfon said the government is still “exploring” a standalone beauty and aesthetics T Level to be introduced “after 2025” as the industry wants “a good quality level 3 classroom-based progression route”.

Industry sources told FE Week they don’t foresee the qualification being ready for teaching until at least 2026, some five years after development first started.

DfE officials told colleges on Thursday that the decision regarding hairdressing and barbering “was not taken lightly” and encouraged them to place students on existing classroom-based qualifications or apprenticeships.

This is the second time a proposed T Level has been ditched.

Development of a human resources T Level ended in 2021 because the government couldn’t find an awarding organisation to run it.

And questions remain over whether there will be a T Level in catering, which was originally due to launch for students in September 2023.

The rollout date was pushed back to “at least 2025” with the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) at the time warning “it has become apparent during the development stage that there is not a shared vision of the technical qualification”.

At the same time, the catering T Level awarding organisation Highfield Qualifications cut ties with IfATE. The T Level remains without a licensing awarding organisation, but the government’s T Level website still said students can start the course in September 2024 at the time of going to press.

FE Week has learned the DfE hopes to finalise arrangements for the catering T Level “before the summer”.

T Levels in animal care, craft and design, and media, broadcast and production were delayed to September 2024 and are currently on track.

This means employers from the catering and hair industries have rejected T Levels being forced on their industries, despite ministers claiming their level 3 qualifications agenda is “employer-led.”

‘Scrambling for alternatives’

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, complained to Halfon yesterday that “recent decisions on T Level implementation are both undermining confidence in T Levels and are making it harder for colleges to deliver the high-quality technical offer for young people we all want to see”.

In a letter, Hughes said: “This is the second year in a row in which announcements to delay qualifications have been made in the spring term, leaving colleges scrambling for alternatives a few months before the start of term and six months after they have already advertised and started admitting students to programmes.”

He said he “cannot understand” why it has taken so long for decisions on the hair and beauty T Levels to have been made and called for an “urgent review” of all other T Level routes.

Doomed from the off

Employer bodies told FE Week it was a mistake to “lump” hair and beauty sectors together because the industries were so different.

Hair industry insiders told FE Week employers had been against a T Level from the beginning, but said it was pushed through because government was determined to get the policy in place.

One leading figure in hairdressing training who sat on an early IfATE panel when the T Level was first proposed said they were told to approve the plans.

Tina Ockerby, managing director of the grade one training company Kleek Apprenticeships (formerly SAKS), said employers didn’t like the hairdressing T Level plans “from day one” but were overruled by officials.

“From day one, we sat around that table and said it wouldn’t work. But we were basically told, ‘well, it’s policy, so tough,” she said.

Ockerby, who claims to have been removed from the route panel “for being too vocal, they said I was being obstructive”, said employers were warning IfATE that salons would not take on students for industry placements and weren’t confident the qualification would deliver the standards they needed.

Development of the hair and beauty T Levels began in 2021 when NCFE won the contract from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education in partnership with VTCT. FE Week reported at the time the contract value for the hair and beauty T Level route was £4.7 million.

The DfE refused to disclose how much has been spent on developing those T Levels to date.

Experts said it was a mistake to join hair and beauty qualifications together. The government admitted as much this week, but this was apparently made clear to them at the start of the T Level development process.

Caroline Larissey, chief executive of the National Hair & Beauty Federation, told FE Week the skills shortages in the hair sector require apprentices “on the shop floor” rather than a two-year classroom-based programme.

“The worry was that we couldn’t get the learners we wanted on the apprenticeship as it was, and then we had T Levels coming in. It was almost muddying the water. We were very much on the side of fighting for the apprenticeship,” Larissey said.

Hair and beauty are “absolutely poles apart as industries,” Larissey added. “Unfortunately, hairdressing, barbering and beauty all get lumped together. That’s why the T Level went ahead, because of the beauty side of it.”

Threshold (in)competence

One reason why employers wouldn’t get behind the T Level was the standards expected of students while out on industry placements.

Ockerby said: “We thought, okay, so students will go to industry, have a couple of weeks in a salon and be shampooing hair. They said no, this is the list of skills we think they should be doing. We laughed out loud and got in to trouble.

“They thought these students from college, that the salon owner doesn’t know, are going to go into a salon and they’re going to be able to cut and colour hair, at threshold competency.

“We were like, you guys are on a different planet. You think any decent manager in their right mind is going to get this kid and go, yeah you crack on with my clients, here’s a pair of scissors. It’s absolutely ridiculous.”

Threshold competence is DfE language used in T Level policy to signal that a student is “well-placed to develop full occupational competence with further support and development”.

Larissey also took aim at the concept. “They’ll [students] be out with this threshold competence. Well, that’s not going to help us as an employer.”

Keep the capital

Colleges that received capital funding specifically to build and develop training facilities for the hair and beauty T Levels will be able to keep the cash.

But where hair, barbering and beauty T Level uplifts were due to appear on 16 to 19 allocations, these will be removed.

Providers attending a DfE webinar on the T Level changes on Thursday were told: “Providers will be receiving the normal lagged 16 to 19 funding for their students (without the T Level uplift) and should use this to support those who switch to alternative courses.”

Adding to the public funding spent on the hair and beauty T Level to date is at least £3.2 million on capital projects.

Thirteen colleges won funding through waves four and five of the government’s T Level capital pot for hairdressing, barbering and beauty therapy equipment and facilities. Projects were approved by T Level route. In this case, hair and beauty projects were worth between £250,000 and £750,000 each.

The principal of one of those colleges, Grant Glendinning of Education and Training Collective, told FE Week it “wasn’t a massive surprise” to see the hair and barbering T Levels go, but “we definitely need to make sure we safeguard appropriate training routes at level three, including more investment in those apprenticeships”.

While the capital funds may still one day be used for beauty T Levels, projects on hairdressing and barbering can be used for continuing qualifications and apprenticeship training.

The grants had to be used for capital projects related to T Levels.

Funds will only be clawed back if colleges can’t now spend it or use the facilities on alternative hair and/or beauty courses.

The same rules apply to the T Level specialist equipment allocations. DfE said it will monitor spending to make sure it’s spent on continuing hair and beauty courses.

Any building projects that have not yet been completed can continue. The DfE expects these be to used for hairdressing, barbering or beauty therapy training.