Junior ministers join new DfE team

Boris Johnson loyalists Brendan Clarke-Smith and Andrea Jenkyns have been appointed junior ministers at the Department for Education. Portfolios for the new ministers have not yet been confirmed. 

Jenkyns

The DfE’s ministerial team was turned upside down this week as ministers across government resigned in protest of Boris Johnson’s leadership earlier this week. 

Robin Walker resigned as minister for schools and Alex Burghart resigned as minister for skills on Wednesday. 

Will Quince also resigned on Wednesday as a parliamentary under secretary of state at the DfE, but returned to the promoted position of minister of state on Thursday night following Boris Johnson’s resignation.

James Cleverly replaced Michelle Donelan, who resigned after just 36 hours in post, as secretary of state. 

Clarke-Smith

The appointments of new junior ministers today, and the return of Quince yesterday, now means that nearly all ministerial vacancies have been filled. 

Confirmation of individual ministerial portfolios is expected over the coming days. 

Clarke-Smith became the MP for the Nottinghamshire constituency of Bassetlaw in 2019. He’s the first conservative to represent the seat since 1929. He has no experience as a minister but clocked up five months as a member of the House of Commons education committee and was on the skills and post 16 education bill committee. He holds a PGCE and taught, and later ran, an international school in Romania.

Jenkyns took the Morley and Outwood constituency from the former Labour shadow chancellor Ed Balls in the 2015 general election. She has worked in government as an assistant whip since September 2021.

Footage shared on social media appears to show Jenkyns raising a middle finger at protesters outside Downing Street yesterday.

The new minister took to Twitter to explain her actions.

https://twitter.com/andreajenkyns/status/1545741677301727232?s=20&t=Y1h7t0iA7TlC6Nj4JeEvhA

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 396

Lisa O’Loughlin

Principal and CEO, Nelson and Colne College Group

Start date: December 2022

Previous job: Principal, The Manchester College, Deputy CEO, LTE Group

Interesting fact: Lisa’s background is art and design, and she has exhibited at The Manchester City Art Gallery and the National Portrait Gallery in London.

Nic Hutchins

Assistant Director – Education, Skills and Work, Greater Manchester Combined Authority

Start date: July 2022

Previous job: Principal (Apprenticeships and Technical Education), Greater Manchester Combined Authority

Interesting fact: Nic started her career in skills teaching dry stone walling and hedge laying. She now spends her spare time as a funk, soul and disco DJ with FunkyStuff Music, including presenting a regular show on a local radio station!

To the new skills minister – scrap the 67% apprentice achievement target

Some providers are already getting 96% of their apprentices past the finish line. Why is the target so low? asks Iain MacKinnon

Are we really OK with one in three of all apprentices failing to pass their apprenticeship? That’s the target the now former skills minister, Alex Burghart, set out for the sector last week.

Before he resigned with other ministers en masse on Wednesday, he announced he wanted to get the achievement rate back to where it was before Covid. Burghart was also trying to get the achievement rate for standards up to what it was previously for framework apprenticeships.

The now ex-minister described the target (set for 2025) as “stretching”, and Jane Hickie, chief executive at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, warned that it may not be achievable.

Step back from the detail, though, and ask yourself if you’re really comfortable with this ̶ that we’re working hard to recruit and train apprentices expecting that one in three won’t succeed. One in three.

For nine years I was secretary to the Maritime Skills Alliance, the sector body for maritime industries, until I stepped down in March – and so creating and promoting apprenticeships dominated what I did.

I’m frustrated when I look at the 67 per cent target because I can’t prove that our achievement rate is much higher (data is only available down to the 11 sector subject areas), but I’m sure it is.

In the absence of national data I asked Princess Yachts what their achievement rate is. They build luxury yachts in Plymouth and they run an award-winning apprenticeship programme, working particularly closely with South Devon College. Their latest achievement rate is 96 per cent. 

I also asked one of the sector’s niche providers, SeaRegs, also based in Plymouth, who help deliver the boatmaster apprenticeship on the Thames. Covid has meant redundancies, sadly, particularly in the leisure sector, but the achievement rate for the 2019 intake looks very likely to be over 80 per cent. 

The plural of anecdote is not data. But if I’m right that in many cases we’re already doing far better than the new target, why is that?

I can’t offer simple solutions applicable to all, but I’d say that overwhelmingly maritime employers recruit apprentices for the right reasons.

They’re not using a government ‘scheme’ for short-term advantage, but genuinely working hard to recruit the next generation of talented people they need for the company to continue to succeed. I’ve always been careful to talk in terms of the government ‘subsidy’ available for training they want to do anyway.

And most employers have had very many more applicants than places.

Off-the-job support is in the hands of specialist colleges or private providers, and the end-point assessment, too, is in the hands of maritime specialists who recruit assessors with relevant experience.  

Most employers have had more applicants than places

I think we’ve worked to well-designed standards, and for the most part we’ve had decent funding. Neither is accidental and both took hard work.

I’ve no simple answers, therefore, but we’re a very long way from the stereotype of pushing the unwilling into the arms of the ineffective. 

May I suggest two further actions to our new minister, when one is appointed? If we’re to make this work we need finer-grain achievement data: sector subject area level is not nearly good enough. And we need something more sophisticated than a single national target.

One of the 11 sector subject areas already hits the 67 per cent target and two others are a smidgen away, on 66 per cent.

Seven of the 11 met the target in 2018/19, so it can’t be that hard to win that ground back again. Yet ‘retail and commercial enterprise’ was a long way behind, both before the pandemic and in the most recent data.

Differential targets, maybe?

And beyond that, let’s have a serious look at how we make a real difference to achievement rates, so that every sector matches the record of the best.

We owe that to the apprentices.

Poor mentoring within FE providers is having a devastating effect on teacher trainee morale

Mentors without the time or skills to do a good job are leaving new entrants to the profession feeling angry, upset, stressed, lost and sad, writes Kayte Haselgrove

As we wave goodbye to FE teacher trainees who have achieved their qualifications and are off to their first year of teaching, it’s time for us to reflect on this year.

Research carried out by my post-14 team this year into the impact of poor mentoring has highlighted the devastating impact this can have on a trainee’s development and wellbeing.

We asked a diverse range of former trainee teachers from nine different providers across the UK if they would be willing to share their negative experiences of mentoring when they were trainee teachers.

The results identified that poor mentoring had made the contributors feel “unsupported, angry, upset, lacked focus, stressed, lost, sad” and, in worst-case scenarios, “close to suicidal”.

The cause of these emotions could be placed in two main categories: the mentor either didn’t have enough time to work with the trainee, so communication was poor. Or, the mentor lacked knowledge about the subjects being taught, or in relation to mentoring itself.

The results were that many of the trainees who had these negative experiences didn’t go into teaching. The few that did said they were “determined to never do the same and to protect others” from encountering what they had experienced.

What’s important to note is that none of the participants had been mentored by people who intended to make their lives harder.

But those who didn’t have time or knowledge to mentor were having a hugely negative impact on the experience and the wellbeing of the mentees they were supposed to be helping.

So, what can we do?

Considering the two main causes (lack of communication and inadequate knowledge) we addressed the issues where we could through the actions below.

Mentors for post-14 trainee teachers at the University of Derby have always been provided with regular contact throughout the year which ensures they have the knowledge they need to support trainees effectively.

We have regular interactions with mentors, both through our central placement liaison (a member of our core team) and through interactions and tripartite milestone reviews with trainees.

Mentors are sent regular newsletters to provide timely information regarding where the trainee is in their studies and how they can support the trainee to integrate theory to practice.

New for this year, we have introduced certificated training in the form of a ‘mentor journey’. This is where mentors complete training on the expectations of the role and on evidence-informed approaches to mentoring.

This includes how to identify your own areas for development, the needs of your mentee (where they stand on the novice-to-expert continuum) and to provide tailored support in order to aid their success.

Please, just give mentors more time

Additional sessions have been offered throughout the year, inviting mentors for question-and-answer sessions with the post-14 team, as well as further training on evidence-informed methods of mentoring and coaching.

Conscious of the need for adequate time to support trainees, we were aware the training and guidance offered above could increase the issue, so all training and communication was designed to be as succinct as it could be.

The feedback was positive. We have taken great strides in working towards ensuring our mentors had the knowledge they needed to effectively support trainees.

But the barrier for us still lies in the issue of time.

I want to ask providers who welcome teacher trainees in September 2022 to consider the level of investment made in their mentors.

It’s particularly important given the Association of Colleges warned this year that the staffing crisis in colleges has hit a two-decade high, with the average college reporting 30 job vacancies.

We can’t afford to lose new talent.

 Please, just give mentors time.

Minister claims 90% of first-wave T Level students secured work placements

More than 90 per cent of the first T Level learners completed their work placements, according to unpublished internal data held by former skills minister Alex Burghart. 

Responding to shadow skills minister Toby Perkins during Monday’s education questions in the House of Commons, Burghart – who quit his ministerial role on Thursday as part of an exodus of junior ministers – said that “we managed to get almost all – well over 90 per cent of students – their work placements.” 

The Department for Education confirmed that there is not currently any published data on T Level work placements, but claimed the ex-minister was referring to internally held data. 

But the DfE refused to divulge any further detail about the alleged data, such as whether it is based on all 1,300 students who started the first T Levels in 2020 or only a portion of the overall cohort or only those who did not drop out. 

Ministers and sector leaders have been worried about convincing enough businesses to host students for the 315-hour, or 45-day, mandatory placements, a concern exacerbated by Covid-19. 

In response to the pandemic, the DfE announced in November that students who started a T Level in 2020 and 2021 can complete a chunk of their industry placement remotely. 

Burghart told the House of Commons on Monday: “T Levels are going extremely well, we have very good uptake. 

“In terms of T Level work placements, the first year of T Levels was perhaps conducted in the harshest circumstances imaginable during Covid. But thanks to the hard work of my officials and the hard work of principals, we managed to get almost all – well over 90 per cent of students – their work placements.  

“If we can do it in the conditions of Covid, we can do it elsewhere.” 

The first three T Levels were launched in September 2020 in digital production, design and development; design, surveying and planning for construction; and education and childcare. Results for the first learners on those courses is due this August. 

Wave two courses began in September 2021, and included building services engineering for construction; digital business services; digital support and services; health; healthcare science; onsite construction; and science. 

T Levels starting this September include accounting; design and development for engineering and manufacturing; engineering, manufacturing, processing and control; finance; maintenance, installation and repair for engineering and manufacturing; and management and administration. 

Three apprenticeship providers slammed for off-the-job shortcomings

Three private training providers have been slammed by Ofsted over the past week for failing to meet apprenticeship off-the-job training rules.   

England’s biggest apprenticeship provider, Lifetime Training, was among those criticised for not meeting the requirement in a grade three report published last Friday.   

One To One Support Services Limited, which provides domiciliary care services, was also slated for off-the-job shortcomings in an ‘inadequate’ full inspection, while new provider Next Level Impact Limited received an ‘insufficient’ rating following an early monitoring visit.   

Under current Education and Skills Funding Agency rules apprenticeship providers must ensure apprentices spend at least 20 per cent of their working week doing off-the-job training.   

Ofsted found that Lifetime Training apprentices “too often” spend their own time completing their off-the-job training assignments at home outside of work hours.   

Carl Cornish, Lifetime’s chief operating officer, said the “unexpected number” of apprentices not getting their entitlement to high-quality off-the-job training was due to the “challenges brought by the pandemic”, including increased staff turnover rates and high sickness and absence, particularly in the hospitality and care sectors.   

One To One Support Services Limited, which now faces being booted off the government’s register of apprenticeship training providers owing to its grade four, was also called out by Ofsted after finding that most apprentices “study in their own time, and this impacts negatively on their progress and personal lives”.   

However, a spokesperson for the provider said they did not feel Ofsted’s report “accurately reflects the work we have done, and continue to do – particularly in the support that we have provided over the last few very difficult years”.   

“In the health and social care sector employers have experienced extreme challenges in staffing to release the off-the-job hours for their employees,” the spokesperson said.   

“Whilst we do acknowledge that there are areas where we can improve – and, naturally, always seek to develop, we do not recognise the comments made in the report, particularly when we have spoken to managers and apprentices and, it appears, the inspectors based their report on very limited access to both, resulting in an inspection that poorly reflected the work carried out in engaging employers in sectors where employer engagement is difficult to maintain.”   

Next Level Impact, which is based in Belfast but trains eight apprentices on the level 5 departmental manager standard in Norfolk, was criticised for not working “effectively” with employers to plan off-the-job training and for failing to ensure employers understand the requirement.   

“Most apprentices have struggled to complete their self-study off-the-job training hours. They do not receive enough time from their employers to study away from their work duties,” Ofsted said.   

“Additionally, leaders do not check the quality of the self-study training activities that apprentices carry out.”   

Next Level Impact’s leaders also faced criticism for having planned a programme that places too much emphasis on apprentices completing their level 5 Chartered Management Institute diploma qualification rather than their apprenticeship.   

“Leaders have been slow to plan activities that would substantially enhance the wider learning experience of apprentice,” Ofsted said.   

Next Level Impact, which now faces a suspension on apprentice recruitment, was approached for comment. 

CPD is about taking teaching from the ‘parlour’ to the ‘kitchen’

A history of CPD in FE reveals huge changes in attitudes – but we still need to scrap mistrustful auditing, writes Alison Scott

I started out in FE back in 1979 as an English and liberal studies teacher, and the CPD I remember then was ad hoc and thin on the ground.

New teachers were expected to know how to apply the theories of their teacher training course to the challenges of day-to-day teaching. This was a lonely baptism of fire, and you struggled on your own unless you were lucky enough to have friendly colleagues with survival tips.

New standards from the Further Education National Training Organisation (FENTO) appeared in 1999, and it was all change post incorporation. 

Professional development monies, which were once held by colleges, were diverted to organisations such as LSIS, LLUK, IfL, ETF – each charged with developing and setting sector teaching standards in tandem with government policy agendas. 

Ofsted had a defining role, with successive inspection frameworks creating judgmental descriptors of teaching and learning practice. This led to teachers’ performance being graded with Ofsted’s crude numbering tool – now roundly discredited by researchers.

Something wasn’t right. Quality improvement teams sprang up. Good teachers were diverted away from teaching students to training colleagues.

An audit-driven approach to improving teachers’ performance ruled, which was top-down and demoralising for many.

It forced some teachers out of the sector and rewarded those who could pull a grade 1 lesson out of the bag when an inspector called.

In 2004, the city college I worked at received a grade 4 from Ofsted and the team I worked with was given the job of turning this around within a year.

An inspirational, experienced principal was helicoptered in and a whole organisational effort led to success. The next time Ofsted came to call we received grade 2s across the board.

I mention this transformation because much of what we did was based on an attitude to CPD that I have held ever since.

At the time, it felt like a radical bottom-up approach rooted in respect for the values and attitudes of the teachers themselves. Time was given for collaboration between peers and across curriculum areas, to share ideas around student success. 

It felt like a radical, bottom-up approach rooted in respect for values

A shared understanding of what needed to change grew exponentially with the determination to escape the shame of a grade 4 judgment. 

Yes, we had to instigate the improvements we knew Ofsted would value. Only after this process could genuine improvements begin. As a result, this powerful experience led me away from teaching students into teacher development.

My theory is that a great deal of teaching is in ‘the parlour’ – putting on a show for visitors.

At the other end is teaching in ‘the kitchen’ – the student-centred classrooms and workshops where real progress happened, with laughter, tears and hard struggle.

It is heartening to see that Ofsted’s latest inspection framework has dispensed with the emperor’s new clothes approach to teacher improvement. 

But going forward, sector CPD needs to focus on what we need to do our job better in meaningful ways.

For a start, Covid-19 prioritised digital skills professional development because of online teaching. Much was learned about digital tools in a very short space of time. So, we know that ‘just in time’ CPD can be highly effective. 

At the same time, we need to hold on to the basics of what teachers need to engage students.

I think it was the educator Ted Wragg who said that teachers need just two things to be successful: up-to-date subject knowledge and an ability to form productive relationships.

Let us focus CPD on what we know teachers need – subject and industry updates and a greater understanding of how to form supportive relationships with their students.

My research has also shown the pivotal role of leaders in effecting CPD improvement. We need to move the culture away from mistrustful audits.

We must facilitate and expect teachers to develop their ‘kitchen’ professionalism, enabling powerful peer networking and collaboration.

We can learn from the ‘kitchens’ of other sector organisations too. Inspiration is important.

Police will not investigate Burnley College over Christmas party that broke Covid rules

A college that was found to have breached Covid health and safety laws after the death of a teacher will not face police investigation.   

Burnley College was reported to Lancashire Constabulary by the family of Donna Coleman after the Health and Safety Executive found the college held a Christmas party on December 18, 2020, which failed to meet social-distancing rules despite increasing coronavirus cases among staff.   

The party took place on the same day as one of the Downing Street parties which received a penalty notice from the Metropolitan Police.   

At the time, the country was in “very high alert” tier 3 restrictions, where outdoor and indoor socialising was banned, and hospitality and entertainment venues were closed.   

But Lancashire police has decided that it will not be further investigating Burnley College or be issuing fixed-penalty notices to those involved.   

Coleman’s family said they were “extremely disappointed and disgusted in the way the police have dealt with this”.   

In a letter to the family, Lancashire police detective chief inspector Tim Brown said a retrospective investigation means the force could not conduct three of the “four E’s” approach to fixed-penalty notices relating to Covid of “engaging, explaining and encouraging”. To move straight to “enforcement” would be “inconsistent with our policy throughout the pandemic”, Brown said.   

He added that the police also considered the HSE’s ruling for Burnley College to pay a fee for “contraventions of health and safety law” and was “satisfied that this is an appropriate and proportionate response”.   

Coleman’s family requested that the police also considers if the individuals involved at Burnley College should be fined, since government officials were following similar allegations.   

Brown said that representatives and staff of a college “do hold a position of responsibility and influence and have a degree of authority over others” and are expected to “conduct themselves professionally and uphold high standards”.   

But “they are not, however, public officials, they are members of the public”, Brown said, adding: “In my view, their positions in the community and at work do not set them apart from any other member of the public when considering how this matter should be dealt with.   

“Government officials, however, are responsible for drafting the relevant legislation, setting the tone as to how it is enforced and showing leadership to the rest of the country as to how they should conduct themselves in a time of national emergency.”   

Donna Coleman’s sister Victoria was outraged with the police response.   

She told FE Week: “We sent video evidence to the police of an illegal Covid Christmas party, with alcohol and karaoke, whilst Burnley had the highest number of Covid cases in the UK at the time. We feel that the principal of the college had a responsibility and a duty of care to protect the wellbeing and safety of the staff and the wider community.   

“It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to us as a family that somebody in a position of authority could act with such moral turpitude and not be prosecuted.”   

The HSE – the government agency that polices workplace safety – opened a fatality investigation into Donna Coleman’s death after the University and College Union raised Covid health and safety concerns at Burnley College during the pandemic.   

Coleman tested positive for coronavirus on December 14 and died on January 6, 2021, aged 42.   

The HSE found the college failed to meet social distancing and ventilation requirements, failed to enforce the wearing of face coverings by some staff and senior managers, and that staff were being encouraged not to report close contacts of Covid.   

However, the HSE ultimately ruled that it was “impossible to conclude that from the evidence presented, on the balance of probabilities, that Donna Coleman’s exposure to Covid-19 took place within the workplace”.   

But the HSE did rule that health and safety laws were “broken”, and Burnley College is being forced to pay a fee to cover administrative costs due to these “material breaches”.   

The UCU and the Coleman family are appealing the HSE’s inconclusive ruling.   

UCU regional support official Marie Monaghan claimed the college has yet to offer Coleman’s family an apology for her tragic death and has “doubled down on insisting its reckless behaviour had no impact on Donna contracting Covid”.   

While there will be no police investigation or enforcement, Brown said he does intend to bring his report to the attention of Burnley College, “so that they can consider themselves whether it would be appropriate for internal action to be taken”.   

Burnley College did not respond to requests for comment. 

Providers must seize the opportunities of the new provider access legislation

The new legislation is a call to action for renewed partnerships between schools and providers to deliver meaningful encounters for learners, write Oli de Botton and Jane Hickie

The new provider access legislation presents a timely and important opportunity to take advantage of the growing interest in high-quality technical pathways.

The conversation about technical and vocational education is changing for the better. Surveys report parents and young people are becoming more positive about technical and vocational routes.

There is growing awareness of these pathways and, crucially, evidence shows this increased awareness leads to more young people taking these routes.

The challenge now is to make sure all young people in our schools know about these brilliant and life-changing pathways.

The statutory requirement in the new legislation (skills and post-16 education act 2022) for schools to give opportunities for providers of technical education and apprenticeships to talk to year 8 to 13 pupils is crucial. It is so important that young people have the opportunity to discuss all their potential education and training options.

How can we ensure the new legislation is implemented effectively?

The government is currently asking for ideas and best practice on how to implement the new legislation to give providers better access to school pupils.

The increased focus in this area is welcome and we must take this opportunity to amplify these routes so learners can take whichever next step is right for them.

The Careers & Enterprise Company (CEC) and AELP are committed to working together to make the most of the opportunities ahead. There is already some great work being done by schools and providers across the country and we are determined to build on that.

Through building networks (including careers hubs), providing support (through our technical education pathway resource, for example) and promoting the benefits of work-based routes, we want to make sure everyone is set up for success.

This legislation is not just about schools, though. It’s a call to action for renewed partnerships between schools and providers to deliver meaningful encounters for learners. Encounters that can inspire, inform and enrich the experience for students.

Providers themselves have work to do to prepare for the opportunities the legislation presents.

And alongside the CEC we will work with a range of stakeholders to see what support we can provide and what barriers we can remove. 

Over time there is also the chance to build stronger and enduring partnerships across sectors – schools, colleges, providers and employers at a national and local level. This will not only support the implementation of the legislation but generate lasting collaboration and learning. This can only be a good thing for young people.

Rebalancing young people’s options

Historically we know there has been a default towards traditional academic routes. High-quality, high-impact careers education is a way of rebalancing that. At its best, this has the power to open up pathways based on ambition and skill, not circumstance or stereotype.

It is also fundamentally inclusive as it will remove barriers and rebalance young people’s options towards technical and vocational pathways.

We are optimistic the new legislation will ensure those working with young people are focused on the importance of careers education. This is critical because high-quality, work-based routes are so often the answer for students. This is about the young person who knows their passion but doesn’t know how to make it their career.

It’s about the young person who thought certain jobs were closed off to people from their town or their background. It’s about the young person who doesn’t know how their skills might translate to the world of work. 

Of course, this legislation on its own won’t change perceptions of vocational routes. It’s up to all of us  ̶  providers, schools, employers and careers professionals – to come together and make the most of the opportunity it gives us.

We won’t get there overnight and there will be challenges along the way. But our goal is to make sure young people and their parents look with fresh eyes at all pathways.

That parity of esteem, making sure young people understand all the educational routes that are open to them, will lead to fairer outcomes.