Recently, stakeholders across FE and community learning have highlighted the potential impact of the department for education’s FE Funding and Accountability Consultation, which closed on 12 October.
The DfE proposes that a new set of outcome measures should apply to non-qualification provision, including entering employment or moving closer to the labour market. HOLEX policy director, Susan Pember warns that “these proposals, if implemented, would lead to a loss of a vast number of critical adult education courses” affecting some 300,000 adult learners or more.
Meanwhile, in our new discussion paper, ‘Bringing it All Back Home’, Sam Freedman recommends that the DfE should ensure its proposals don’t reduce family learning provision by forcing providers to focus on labour market outcomes.
Family learning provision is funded through the Adult Education Budget (AEB). It supports parents to engage in their children’s education and development from early years through to FE. And crucially, it often provides a vital first step back into learning for adults, especially for those who are economically inactive and who may be far from the labour market.
For many parents, helping their children is a powerful motivator to get involved in learning.
Family learning is therefore not only a driver of positive outcomes for children, but also for adults. And like adult education, there are multiple and wide-ranging outcomes too. From building parents’ own confidence in learning and widening aspirations for them and their children, to supporting better health and wellbeing and better finances, to developing new skills and progressing into FE.
Family learning acts as a bridge into mainstream FE
For example, our family finance programme for parents with English as an Additional Language resulted in 98 per cent of parents changing how they dealt with money, and 91 per cent of their children said it helped them too.
For adults who lack confidence and motivation to sign up directly for college courses, family learning programmes act as a positive bridge into mainstream FE. The experience of running family learning outreach programmes for a college demonstrates this: 24 parents in one school alone completed teaching assistant qualifications in FE, a direct result of taking family learning courses.
Parents who take family learning courses have varied needs and skills levels. The strength of family learning provision is that it can be shaped to the needs of the community. For people who lack confidence and aspiration, learning journeys are often not linear. Moving into further learning and employment for them is not an immediate step, though it may be a longer-term result of first engaging in family learning – which is why we need to protect the provision that offers a step back into learning.
Campaign for Learning shares the concerns of stakeholders across FE and community learning. Family learning provision is usually non-qualification based. The proposed measures are inappropriate for family learning where the emphasis is on children and parents improving learning outcomes together; they put its funding and participation at stake.
We must ask why the DfE proposes to prescribe outcome measures for non-qualification bearing provision, given the extent of the application nationwide. More and more areas of England are being granted devolution deals which cover the Adult Education Budget that funds family learning.
The assumption is that devolved authorities will determine how much to spend on family learning and the outcome measures which should apply. Given that most of the country will be covered by devolution deals, there seems little point in the DfE prescribing outcome measures that will include family learning in a limited number of areas.
We need to retain the flexibility and decision-making capacity of local areas and providers so that they can respond to the needs of families in their communities – especially at a time of flux.
As a society, we have a better understanding of the effects of early childhood trauma. More recently, many education settings are training staff to be ’trauma-informed’ and adopting strategies to support children and young people to overcome some of their early trauma and have the best possible life chances.
At North Hertfordshire College like so many other settings, we’ve seen an increase in more vulnerable students. Then there’s the impact of Covid and working with the virtual school, we’ve seen an increase in the numbers of care-experienced students on our roll too.
Hence, we’ve taken positive steps on a journey to become a trauma-informed setting.
The term ‘trauma-informed’ means to understand how trauma in a child’s early life impacts their overall development. Examples of early trauma are abuse, neglect, bereavement, incarceration of a parent and being placed in care. These traumatic events in a child’s early start in life are collectively known as ‘adverse childhood experiences’ or ACEs.
We have three ‘systems’ in our brains: the threat system (how we deal with danger/protection), the soothing system (how we manage distress/promote bonding) and the drive system (motivation/achievement). ACEs affect how these systems develop.
For example, a child who has suffered abuse and has spent much of their life in a constant state of fear will have an overdeveloped threat system. This can often present in different types of behaviour, such as anger, defiance, tearfulness, becoming withdrawn and/or being confrontational. Typically, children with this experience will also have an under-developed soothing system and find it difficult to self-regulate.
At North Herts, we know the key to good support is to develop a good understanding of our young people: their behaviours, their triggers, what de-escalation strategies they respond to and how to help them recover.
The impact of this evidence-informed work is transformational
Our Health and Social Care teacher, Taylor Smith, has a group of 18 students of which five have experienced ACEs. Two have been out of mainstream education, two are care-experienced and one suffers with severe mental health issues.
The typical behaviours Taylor was seeing in class at the start of the year included the inability to engage in formal learning, aggression, ignoring instruction, attendance issues, outbursts, anger and lashing out at peers. Taylor was spending a lot of time dealing with challenging behaviour which was disrupting learning, and this hugely affected the rest of the class in other ways too.
Becoming trauma-informed gave Taylor the strategies to support her students. Her approaches include a ‘roots and fruits’ activity to look at the behaviours and explore the feelings behind them and the reasons for those feelings.
Taylor also works with the students to understand the behaviours themselves, which involves a risk reduction plan, breaking down triggers, understanding needs, and post-incident recovery. As trauma-informed practitioners, we understand how a student processes their trauma and how they best recover. This will include how a student likes to calm down, how they move on and how to move back into learning mode.
The impact for our students is significant. Taylor reports fewer dangerous and difficult behaviour incidents. Students are completing higher quality work. They are all achieving minimum grades and four achieved stretch grades. And general behaviour has improved in class too; all students can sit and engage in their lessons and all have engaged in a full year of formal education.
We are still on our journey, but the impact this evidence-informed work is having is already transformational. We work with an external partner, Beyond Psychology, which is supporting a core team of staff to lead this work across all parts of our organisation. So more of us are learning the theory behind this approach and developing the tools to make a difference.
We know from this that working with students with ACEs during the teenage years can significantly reverse some of the effects of early trauma. Our students deserve the best chance in life, and we are excited to continue this work and to see what more they can achieve.
With the Covid-19 pandemic accelerating the digital transformation journey of all educational institutions, it is no surprise that online learning and assessments have increased in popularity as part of a blended approach.
This creates opportunities to match the assessment to the skills being assessed and to choose an appropriate combination of technology and human provision. For example, memory and recall can be assessed through short on-line multiple-choice tests; analysis and some practical skills through simulations.
Artificial intelligence may help human assessors work more quickly and consistently, giving teachers time back to concentrate on curriculum and skills.
Ensuring students are familiar with using technology outside of tech subjects is also vital to the future of the workforce, as almost every job within society contains an element of digital capability.
The use of collaboration tools such as SharePoint in group assessments and ongoing class work will stand students in good stead when joining the world of work.
Online assessments can be extremely helpful to individuals with accessibility issues who may need additional support too. The use of software to ensure students universally receive the same opportunity to do well in an examination can make all the difference to those struggling to achieve their goals through disability or access issues.
A computer will never understand a student as well as a teacher
That said, there are risks associated with online assessments, including opportunities for fraudulent behaviour and cheating. In an exam hall assessment, you can clearly identify each student and ensure the required resources are available; this may be harder to do when examinations are taking place remotely.
Limiting opportunities for cheating and ensuring those who are sitting examinations are who they say they are, are two distinct problems. The key issue for assessors is to ensure the steps they take do not impact the students’ outcomes.
For example, students may feel under intense scrutiny if they are being closely monitored by an invigilator for the entirety of an exam, which may prevent them performing to the best of their ability.
When verifying the identity of those undertaking online assessments, facial recognition and biometric identification tools have been used to reduce instances of fraud.
However, research from Harvard University has shown that these tools can be more than 30 per cent less accurate when used on individuals from different racial backgrounds, compared to when used to identify white males.
This is due to inequality in the database of ‘faces’ used when developing the tools. I am pleased to say that big players in the game such as Microsoft are making strides to improve the accuracy of their software, but more needs to be done before these tools can be a proven source of truth.
The key to a secure assessment is understanding students and working with them to monitor their progress. There are other ways to ascertain if the person being assessed is who they say they are, including making comparisons against previous work and evaluating factors such as sentence structure and knowledge.
This is also a good indication of whether additional resources have been used, or cheating has occurred. For example, if a student suddenly appears extremely knowledgeable of a certain subject they have previously struggled with, then that should raise some red flags (though it is entirely possible they have just put the work in).
AI and algorithms may be able to help make these comparisons, but a computer will never understand a student as well as a teacher who has taken the time to get to know them.
Technology in assessments is not a silver bullet: many students struggle with digital poverty and need help gaining access to equipment, connectivity, and a safe place to study and sit exams to ensure parity with their classmates.
Through a mix of blended learning and assessment – where students are continuously assessed online and in person – along with a close student-teacher relationship, issues students are struggling with can be identified and adjustments quickly be made.
When it comes down to successful assessments, it really is all in the blend.
I think most people understand that different jobs require different skillsets. A brain surgeon might be the best doctor in a hospital but could be totally unable to change a car tyre. A journalist could be an award-winning wordsmith, but not have the skills to cook in a busy restaurant.
People look for work in the areas in which they perform best. This is not a revelation.
The problem with our qualifications system is that at the start of the career ladder, we expect everyone to be good at everything. That is to say, to begin training in any specialist area, we demand proficiency in a standard set of sometimes unrelated skills.
Take Andrew, a level 2 health and social care apprentice. To become qualified, we require Andrew to pass a level 1 English and maths functional skills test.
Or Sarah, a level 3 childcare apprentice. Or Eleanor, a level 3 accountancy apprentice. Without a level 2 English and maths functional skills test, neither can become a qualified apprentice in their chosen field.
Why is a childcare worker required to have the same level of maths competency as a qualified accountant? And how is this levelling up?
We can all see the value in functional mathematical skills. But does Sarah need to achieve the same level as an accountancy apprentice to provide high-quality care effectively, professionally, and enthusiastically? I don’t think so.
Could she end up abandoning what should be an achievable dream for a long-lasting career in childcare because of an arbitrary exam certificate? Yes. And unfortunately, this is happening all over the country across a range of apprenticeship courses.
Very soon we’ll have a skills gap so wide we won’t function at all
Fixated on getting all candidates to a certain level of literacy and numeracy, the people in charge of the education system have totally forgotten – or perhaps have never realised – that sometimes real people must follow a process or a step change to achieve. And as a result, very soon we’ll have a skills gap so wide we won’t function at all.
We are driving a new generation of potential skilled workers out of qualifications and further away from the labour market. They are losing out on opportunities due to restrictions in apprenticeship training requirements, and I would like to hear from policy makers who can explain it.
Why is the implementation of obscure maths exam targets so important? And how exactly will the certificate unlock a level of competence in childcare, social care or even construction that wouldn’t be possible without it?
As someone who left school at 16 and followed a non-traditional career path, one step at a time, to being CEO of one of the UK’s leading learning providers, I know the value in meeting a candidate where they are.
If we really want to achieve ‘levelling up’ we have to work with new apprentices collaboratively towards personalised goals that bring them up a level or two from where they were when they started and build from there. People are not machines, and no two candidates are the same.
In fact, it is possible that we do more harm to the numeracy and literacy potential of many candidates by insisting on grade requirements when they are not yet ready to achieve them. Using maths and English as a barrier to the professions they aspire to is not likely to encourage future engagement.
The UK is teetering on the edge of a huge skills gap and workforce crisis. In order to keep the country running and fill key worker roles, government needs to focus less on attainment statistics and more on progress targets.
There is little value to be gained from blocking the path of new starters with illogical course requirements. Individualised learning at an achievable pace and intensity is the key to levelling up.
And it’s not a secret either; it’s time we hold ministers to account on this one.
This year, my family marks its 50-year anniversary of living in this country. Originating from Punjab in northern India, my grandparents came to Britain in 1972 by way of East Africa. Having joined a workforce of economic migrants, they narrowly avoided getting caught up in a civil war when they were granted the right to apply for British Citizenship.
Their voices and experiences, like those of many in my community, shaped my early years. And their stories often reflected on the challenges they faced in settling into the UK, and on the race relations unrest of the 70s and 80s.
Inspired by them, I have pursued a 22-year career in post-14 education in which driving equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) forward has always been central. Today, I’m privileged to be leading the Education and Training Foundation’s (ETF) flagship leadership programmes and promoting a diverse talent pipeline in the further education and training sector.
Bringing about significant change in EDI requires collective action at an individual, team, and organisational level. That is why I am so proud of ETF’s work to place action on EDI at the front and centre across its programmes and activities.
Last year, Our Diversity in Leadership programme helped more than 400 leaders to champion diversity and challenge organisational bias, starting in their own organisations. This year, our latest leadership programme, Inclusive Leadership, will help senior leaders to view EDI as a personal priority, to articulate their commitment to implementing change and to help create an inclusive FE sector. Through our new resource, Deeper Thinking and Stronger Action, we are helping practitioners and leaders to deepen their personal understanding of EDI, and lead their organisation’s work to embed it into everyday practice and thinking.
A clear vision for anti-racism
In May 2021 we supported the Black Leadership Group’s (BLG) inaugural symposium which set out a clear vision of anti-racism across the sector. And last week we were delighted to announce a strengthened strategic partnership with BLG which is an opportunity to push this work to new heights.
Bringing about significant change requires collective action
Through this new partnership, we will strive to build an anti-racist culture across the sector and beyond and highlight the positive contribution of anti-racist efforts across the sector.
Together, we will be working on a range of areas including improving outcomes and representation for learners, staff and leadership (including governance); enhancing workforce succession planning and the talent pipeline of Black staff in the FE sector; influencing policy and practice; and sharing and cascading excellence and innovation in anti-racist practice.
We know we need to do more for our learners. Government figures published this summer show that pupils from a Black Caribbean background are less likely to be in employment, education, or training than the national average; that A-level pupils in Pakistani, Bangladeshi and all black groups are less likely to get top results than their peers from other ethnic groups; and that Asian and black pupils are twice as likely to attend a lower tariff university as white pupils.
A sense of belonging
Further education and training are crucial to closing these gaps and they play a huge role in ensuring that people living and working in our communities achieve their aspirations. That must start with everyone who studies and works in our sector feeling that they belong. That means learners need to see themselves and their communities reflected in the curriculum they follow, and it also means learners and staff alike need to see people like themselves reflected in senior leadership.
My father’s words on the importance of a right to a good education and my family’s pursuit of equity, diversity and inclusion in their own careers continue to drive my work. Such experiences and aspirations drive the work of so many others in our sector too.
Together, let’s ensure all our people and systems reward them for that work by delivering a truly inclusive further education and training sector.
Apprenticeship starts for the whole of the 2021/22 grew 9 per cent on the previous academic year – and it was young people who saw the biggest increase, new figures show.
Provisional data published this morning by the Department for Education has revealed there were a total of 347,900 starts last year compared to 319,400 in 2020/21.
Starts for 2021/22 were, however, still 11 per cent down on the 389,200 recorded in 2018/19 – the year before Covid-19 struck.
Unusually, it was those aged 16 to 18 who saw the biggest proportional rise in apprenticeship starts – growing by 20 per cent from 64,400 in 2020/21 to 77,200 in 2021/22.
Those aged 19 to 24 saw a 13 per cent increase – from 94,000 to 105,900 – while starts for those aged 25 and older only grew by 2 per cent – from 160,900 to 164,800.
Association of Employment and Learning Providers chief executive Jane Hickie said: “It’s really positive to see apprenticeship starts continue to go in the right direction, and particularly encouraging to see a good boost in 16 to 18-year-old starts.”
She added that it is worth noting the enhanced £3,000 employer apprenticeship incentives were still in place through parts of this year, which boosted starts significantly – especially for young and entry level learners.
All levels of apprenticeships saw similar growth between 2020/21 and 2021/22: level 2 apprenticeships went up by 9 per cent, level 3 grew by 10 per cent, and level 4 and above apprenticeships increased by 8 per cent.
Today’s data shows there was a spike in apprenticeship starts in September 2021 of 81,700, which is 60 per cent higher than the 51,200 achieved in 2020/21, and even 12 per cent up on the 72,800 recorded pre-pandemic in 2018/19.
December was the worst performing month for starts in 2021/22 as just 13,900 were achieved, the lowest number at that point in each of the past four academic years.
The figures also show the number of starts commitments reported to date from levy-paying employers in the 2021/22 was 206,080, which is 30 per cent more than the 158,650 reported for the previous academic year.
Employer apprenticeship vacancies are, however, falling. There were 11,160 vacancies on Find An Apprenticeship in September 2022, which is 32 per cent down on the 16,490 vacancies posted in September 2021.
Hickie said: “We still have a way to go to reaching- and ideally exceeding- pre-pandemic apprenticeship levels.
“AELP would therefore encourage the government to reinstate enhanced employer incentives; ensure funding is protected through ringfencing the apprenticeship levy; ensure funding for each programme matches the true cost of delivery and break down bureaucracy so more employers can engage with apprenticeships.”
Awarding body bosses were grilled by MPs today on delays to BTEC and Cambridge Technical (CTEC) results that affected thousands of students this summer.
Officials from Pearson, OCR and Ofqual faced questions on the scale of the delays, the impact this had on learners and their university places, as well as what action is being taken to ensure the fiasco does not repeat itself next year.
Giving evidence was Mike Howells (pictured right), the president for workforce skills at Pearson UK which offers BTECs, Jill Duffy (pictured left), the chief executive of OCR that awards CTECs, as well as Ofqual chief regulator Jo Saxton (pictured centre right) and Association of Colleges chief executive David Hughes (pictured centre left).
Here’s what we learned…
Over 13,000 results were delayed – five times more than in a normal year
Pearson and OCR were accused of failing to be fully transparent about the scale of missing grades during the delays debacle.
Committee chair Robert Halfon described the process and communication as “shambolic” which “left vocational students yet again feeling like second class citizens”.
It was revealed today that there were 7,000 level 2 BTEC results delays, an additional 3,300 level 3 BTECs, and a further 3,200 CTECs.
A Pearson spokesperson said in August this number of delays was “typical for this stage in the awarding process and tracks against what we saw in pre-pandemic exam years”.
But Duffy told MPs today that the scale of late results was “probably four or five times what we would see in a normal year”.
Howells echoed Duffy’s comment and said the Pearson spokesperson at the time “was explaining that if you track historical trends in data, and in particular when we receive requests for grades from schools and colleges, and when we receive information to show students have completed their work… that data was showing ‘typical’ trends”.
Hughes said it was “disrespectful to those students not to come out immediately and apologise, immediately and give the numbers, immediately and tell people what they were going to do”.
Both Pearson and OCR bosses apologised for the added stress and anxiety the delays caused students, parents and colleges.
Issues only came to light the day before results day
Committee chair Robert Halfon claimed that exam boards knew about the delays as early as July. But both Howells and Duffy revealed that their awarding bodies only became aware of the issues on August 17, the day before results day.
Duffy said: “What we were noticing was not more calls into our customer support centre but they were taking longer to resolve and this continued into results day.”
Covid adaptations were the main cause for large-scale delays
Awarding bodies were allowed to include adaptations to vocational and technical qualifications to take into account the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, similar to GCSEs and A-levels.
Pearson and OCR said the adaptations added to the already complex nature of their vocational qualifications which led to more issues than normal.
Duffy said: “CTECs are unit-based qualifications so we rely on schools and colleges claiming for a unit. We had a range of pandemic adaptations this year that a school or college could apply for, such as a reduction in assessment, unit teacher assessed grades from previous years and assessed grades if students were unable to sit their exams in January.
“What all this meant was schools and colleges needed to tell us about all of this, tell us about these units, and then the qualification grade is automatically produced around results day. The issue we had here was pandemic adaptations we brought in for the very best of intentions, so it was more complex this year and we knew we had a problem the day before results day.”
Howells added: “It is essentially the same process for Pearson and we took the same steps as OCR.
No students missed out on a university place, but one was delayed by six months
Both Howells and Duffy said they were not aware of any student that didn’t get their university place because of a delay to their results.
However, Howells said that Pearson did assist a couple of BTEC learners through clearing and one of them had their university place delayed by six months as a result of the delay.
Chief regulator ‘shocked to the core’
Saxton, who became Ofqual chief regulator in September 2021, said the results delays “absolutely shocked me to the core”.
“On my watch I will do everything in my power to make sure that students are protected from similar stress again,” she told MPs.
Saxton said this is why she has commissioned the “widest scale review of its kind” including an “unprecedented call to both the sector and students to ask for a wider evidence picture” to fully understand their experiences “so that we can make recommendations to make changes”.
Ofqual is expected to publish the review before the end of 2022.
OCR and Pearson conducting their own reviews
Duffy said OCR is conducting its own CTEC delay review, expected to conclude in November, while Howells said Pearson’s own review into BTEC delays will be completed before the end of 2022.
Both said they would share the findings with the education select committee, and both confirmed to FE Week their recommendations from the reviews will be made public.
Howells said there are three findings that have already emerged from Pearson’s review.
“The first is around communications and our support to schools and colleges, making sure the information and assistance we can and do provide to them is as effective as it can be in helping them manage some of the challenges they are going through,” he said.
“Secondly, the process and deadlines. I think we have shown too much flexibility particularly during the pandemic in supporting late submission of data. We need to improve and work on and look at different kinds of deadlines.
“And lastly, clarity around the data itself. One of the important things to remember about VTQs is that the idea of a results day is a relatively recent concept. People can roll on and roll off these qualifications at any point in the year, many students complete at a point of their choosing depending on their circumstances. One of the great successes of VTQs is producing a new route into higher education se we have worked very hard to make sure results are available for them to do that on results day. So reconciling those two different approaches in the data, working in partnership with schools and colleges, is something that we need to do.”
Duffy said OCR is also looking to improve on data sharing with schools and colleges to ensure they can track students’ progress throughout the year and so that OCR can identify those with issues at an earlier stage than results day.
She added that there should be an earlier results day for CTECs to give schools and colleges a “safety net to check they are getting their results”.
Duffy said: “We did have an earlier results day before the pandemic and then it was aligned with the general qualification results day during the pandemic. I think it is time to look at giving the results out a week earlier under embargo a week earlier for that safety net so that schools and colleges can check.”
More T Level exam papers have been called into question by Ofqual.
The exams regulator published an enforceable ‘undertaking’ signed by awarding body NCFE today following issues reported in this summer’s health and science T Level core papers which impacted on 1,115 students and culminated in results being regraded.
Ofqual has now revealed that it wrote to NCFE in June 2022 about the education and childcare T Level the awarding body also offers, raising concerns about the targeting of assessment objectives in the November 2021 core exam papers.
The exams watchdog also warned that “given the range of issues identified in the health and science and education and childcare technical qualifications”, Ofqual “considers that there is a risk that similar issues may be present” in NCFE’s digital T Levels.
As a result, NCFE has promised to deliver an action plan and provide Ofqual with a copy of core exam papers and mark schemes within 24 hours of those exams being delivered.
In addition, it must provide Ofqual with an evidence statement of assurance for each of its T Levels confirming that actions in the plan have been delivered, and that issues raised in 2022 no longer remain in its papers.
Those statements must be provided before NCFE’s final sign-off and printing for each core exam paper.
The news comes during National T Level Week aimed at celebrating the flagship new government qualifications.
Each T Level is offered and awarded by a single exam board. NCFE scooped more contracts – nine – to deliver T Levels than any other awarding body. No T Levels offered by other awarding bodies have had issues raised by Ofqual.
A spokesperson from NCFE said: “NCFE has agreed an undertaking with Ofqual to review our T Level autumn 2022 series and to provide assurance that all assessments will be robust. We know how important it is that both providers and students are confident in the validity of the assessments.
“We have therefore reviewed existing processes to ensure that any issues with the papers are rectified, as well as rolling out a comprehensive package of targeted resources, developed closely with providers to support teaching staff in maximising successful outcomes for T Level students in their 2022/23 assessments.”
Angry students set-up a petition which gained more than 1,200 signatures.
A letter sent to colleges and students by the Department for Education last month following an Ofqual investigation said that issues included “question errors, inadequate mark schemes, and questions covering areas not explicitly in the specification”.
It added that “given the breadth and volume of issues, Ofqual has determined that the assessments do not secure a sufficiently valid or reliable measure of student performance,” which it dubbed a “significant finding and a serious matter”.
Ofqual’s written undertaking this week confirmed that “fundamental issues” were discovered in all six core papers in the health and science T Level, and meant the exams were “not fit for purpose”.
The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) is understood to be conducting a separate review on the health and science T Level exams investigating concerns that assessment criteria was too broad and too advanced for first-year students.
During an education select committee session on Wednesday morning, Ofqual chief regulator Jo Saxton told MPs that the DfE had signed off dummy papers for the health and science T Level, but that the final papers were “significantly different” and “actual material failed to live up to that standard”.
Less than an hour before Ofqual published NCFE’s undertaking, Association of Colleges chief executive David Hughes warned that “the whole T Level reputation is at risk in this,” and added: “I am worried this is not the only T Level where this will happen.”
He continued: “It shows the risks of new qualifications, it shows the risks of defunding existing qualifications that OCR and Pearson deliver too quickly, because this isn’t the only time this is going to happen.”
Pally Singh, principal at Kirklees College in West Yorkshire, has to juggle all the usual demands of college leadership – funding, regulations, rules. But the biggest job facing leaders is much more ambiguous than that, he tells Jess Staufenberg
As you walk down the hill from Huddersfield train station towards Kirklees College, the town unfolds in front of you like a map.
There’s a canal at the bottom, and backed against the other side is a huge mill, long out of use. Staring at it from across the water is the college, a great modernist structure of glass and steel. Surrounded by Victorian buildings, the college looks straight into the future.
Palvinder Singh, better known as Pally, couldn’t be a more fitting principal for the place. His mother, father and grandmother once worked long hours in the factory opposite.
And he is a former Kirklees College student who has returned as principal and chief executive after stints at Barnsley College, Leeds City College and NCG. He took the reins in June last year, and takes my hand in a firm and welcoming handshake, ushering me into the café.
Singh already strikes me as an unusual principal. I am used to emails being ignored by people too busy to speak to journalists. People too nervous to be interviewed are even harder to persuade. But Singh, like his college, has both eyes fixed on the future.
So despite his busyness and nerves, he’s asked to talk. It’s a fascinating conversation over two hours, covering first the past, and then everything else.
A montage of Huddersfield on the wall in the college café
Over chilli noodles cooked by catering students (delicious, by the way) we cover the first crucial topic. Journalism.
Without attack or resentment, Singh says he wants to explain why he hasn’t wanted to be in a profile interview in FE Week. His complex answer, however, makes sense.
“I’m very visible. I carry a burden, wherever I go. If I fail, my community fails. If I succeed, my community succeeds. That’s the knife edge I live.”
The night before we speak Singh was at the Yorkshire Asian business awards in Bradford. The organiser badly wanted to introduce him to someone – her mum.
“It’s because I came from her community”. In other words, it mattered to her that here was someone from her own community who was now the chief executive of a further education college.
To put it another way, Singh explains that when he meets members of his community here and in India, he introduces himself as his grandparents’ grandson. That is how he is identified.
So the thought of one day appearing in a negative FE Week story holds a particular horror.
Singh feels coverage of financial issues at colleges led by black principals has been “very critical”.
“It was horrible seeing a picture of a principal that looked like you on the front page,” Singh says.
“So I am anxious talking to you. People say, keep your head down.”
The importance of investigative journalism that holds to account those spending public money – and caring for learners – is clearly not in question.
But Singh has an extremely important point about context and complexity. He is not interested in bite-sized, one-dimensional answers.
Here we come to our second topic. Singh is deeply worried. Optimistic, but worried.
“We live in a VUCA world,” he says.
VUCA? It’s a business and military term that stands for conditions that are volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous. The ubiquity of the internet and smartphones, the effects of the 2008 financial crisis, the Covid pandemic and Ukraine invasion all feed into it.
Even Singh’s first message to his students in the college course guide notes the “uncertain time” they have faced.
Kirklees College students
“It’s an unstable and frightening world. It’s so hard to communicate it in a few words.
“You can talk about inflation, and the energy crisis, and the staffing crisis, that’s easy. But I’m talking about ambiguous ambiguity.”
Almost a year ago to the day, Singh was walking by the canal near college.
Ahead, he spotted a teacher talking to an upset student, who was clearly threatening to hurt someone who had annoyed him. Realising he couldn’t walk past, Singh stopped.
“He was like every other student. Charismatic and confident. He could have sold anything to anyone.”
Eventually, Singh and the student began to talk. Later, the young man emailed to apologise, having not realised Singh was the principal, and thanked him for their conversation.
“I wrote back to say, ‘I’m looking forward to seeing how your time with us passes and I want you to come and see me at Christmas,’” Singh says, looking pained.
Six weeks later, the young man took his own life.
Singh rang other principals. Each told him that at least one student at their college had killed themselves in the past 18 months. His student had been in care, and when he rang the care authority, he says he couldn’t get data on suicides for that cohort.
Then at the start of this term, a 15-year-old was stabbed to death in Huddersfield outside a school.
“Why are young people carrying knives? Because they feel scared. And why do they feel scared? What demographic are they?”
As we chat, the issues fall into two categories. On the inside, the education system; on the outside, the world.
Many learners are leaving school feeling bad about themselves, with about 40 per cent not achieving English and maths, he explains (because of the comparable outcomes grading system).
T Levels students at the college this year
“No one tells a young person ‘you’re going to grow up to be a failure’. But the system tells you that.”
At Kirklees 65 per cent of learners arrive on study programmes without passes in English and maths. On a second sitting, “at best, two in 10 are passing,” Singh grimaces.
“So you overcompensate, by being other things. Being charismatic. But it can be ‘what’s the point’?”
The problem then is that FE staff, who can make all the difference, are often overworked and undervalued because of regulations and funding decisions. At the same time students can seem anonymous in large colleges.
“Because of the size of FE, especially with area reviews following intervention, you’re losing that connection to the student.”
Meanwhile, there is a lack of community in the outside world, he says. Without a strong family unit or mentor (as he had in his own community, which included his grandmother who was his role model), most people have little to fall back on.
“The system is not designed for people from vulnerable households to achieve because we’re in an individualised society.”
This devastating context is insufficiently recognised in the corridors of power, Singh says.
“We as a society need to recognise this is a real issue – young people and suicide. It’s not being recognised. Unless you’re a middle-class parent and it affects you badly, then you don’t have the drive to lobby ministers. The vast majority don’t come from that background.”
Official figures are hard to come by. A 2017 BBC feature reported that young people who left care between 2012 and 2016 were roughly seven times more likely to die aged 18 to 21. The student at Kirklees College was about to turn 18 when he died.
I suggest that surely a psychiatrist is needed on every senior leadership team.
“It’s a great idea. And I’ll tell you why I think it’s a great idea. Our pedagogy in FE is very new. Our teaching qualifications are only about 14 years old. Our standards are ours to write.”
So his 2022-25 strategic plan calls for a “restorative, anti-racist, trauma aware college”. Two members of staff are not trained in trauma-informed practice and Singh wants more.
The other solution is to anchor students more within their subject departments, so they build an identity as a chef, a nurse, an engineer, an early years’ practitioner, and have a community that way.
Students can build up a sense of community as a chef or nurse, says Singh
But Singh knows more is needed.
“How do I bridge all this as a leader? How can I lobby for change nationally? Work within the system regionally? And we’ve still got the regulators to please, Ofsted and the ESFA, and every requirement going.
“But we’ve got a bigger job to do,” he tells me.
He notes that former education secretary Gavin Williamson, for all his mistakes, did once say: “I can say without any hesitation that the future is further education.”
After our long talk, I head out into the rain. Singh has cracked open several big conversations.
