Five reasons apprentices like me are dropping out

Training providers are struggling to give clear instructions on what’s expected of apprentices, writes Dexter Hutchings

I started my level 3 in digital marketing in February 2017 and throughout my degree apprenticeship, I have felt like dropping out. But never have I been closer to doing so than now, as I tackle my end-point assessment (EPA).

Unfortunately, figures for 2020/21 showed 47 per cent of apprentices on standards dropped out.

Here are a few of my concerns regarding the new apprenticeship standards, and in particular, the EPA:

1. A lack of forward planning and communication from the training provider

Apprentices must complete a training log as evidence of their off-the-job training. Unfortunately, my cohort was not given access to our training log until the beginning of year two, which led to an increased workload.

While the EPA was mentioned when we started our apprenticeship, it was not spoken about in detail. I believe apprentices should be given a detailed lesson on what will be required to complete the EPA, so they can begin thinking about it.

2. The burden of raising quality has fallen on the apprentice

Standards were introduced to raise the quality of apprenticeships, but it seems like the wrongdoings of training providers has cost apprentices themselves.

Over the years, I have read far too many shocking stories about training providers offering poor training and failing to meet the 20 per cent off-the-job training requirement ̶ in fact, I experienced this myself during my first apprenticeship, with 3aaa.

However, it seems that in a bid to boost quality, we have increased the apprentices’ workload. Apprentices are responsible for logging their 20 per cent off-the-job training requirement and ultimately proving they are work-ready.

3. Occupational standards are a one-size-fits-all approach

A group of employers, described as ‘trailblazers’ by the Institute for Apprenticeships, develop the standards for their relevant occupation themselves.

In my case, I have to prove competency in 29 skills, knowledge and behaviours (SKBs). The problem is that occupational standards can be designed by a group as small as ten employers. In an industry such as digital marketing, ten employers is unlikely to be very representative, and this can be seen in a few of my SKBs.

I completed my apprenticeship whilst working for a relatively small foundation with a marketing team of two. I found that both the course and occupational standards were targeted at apprentices likely to be working for a for-profit business. So it was much more difficult for me to evidence certain SKBs, and probably for other apprentices in similar positions too.

While occupational standards cannot be tailored to meet every individual’s needs, perhaps apprentices could only be obliged to meet a percentage of a larger range of occupational skills but all occupational knowledge and behaviours.

4. The process is overly complicated and repetitive

The paperwork apprentices are given to help them understand the process of the EPA is unnecessarily lengthy and often confusing.

It seems we are guinea pigs

To start their EPA, an apprentice must find a suitable work-based project that will allow them to showcase that they are competent in each and every SKB. Apprentices must consider the implications of confidentiality and commercial sensitivity when choosing this project.

For my EPA, I had to write a report that was then put into a presentation. Throughout my apprenticeship, I have found myself duplicating work, which takes time and seems a little repetitive.

5. There is a lack of knowledge and support

One of the biggest problems throughout the EPA process was a lack of knowledge and support.

This started with our project selection, in which the lack of support ultimately led to apprentices in my cohort changing their project, having already reached their project presentation mock with an external panel.

As the first year to undergo an EPA for the standard I am completing, it seems that we are guinea pigs. Our training provider has almost always struggled to give clear instructions on what is expected of us. Unfortunately, this is understandable when the Institute for Apprenticeships paperwork is so unclear

Transparency concerns build over level 3 review ‘independent assessors’

The names of the six “independent assessors” who have been tasked with deciding the future of thousands of BTECs and other level 3 courses have finally been revealed.   

But concern over a lack of transparency in the controversial defunding process are building after the government refused to publish the evidence base being used to decide which qualifications should be axed.        

The first provisional list of qualifications that the Department for Education deems to overlap with the first ten T Levels and which face being defunded was published in May.   

In total, 160 vocational and technical qualifications – including 38 BTECs – of a possible 2,000 courses that were evaluated now face being axed, from 2024. More courses will be removed in future years.   

The DfE previously told FE Week that it hired six “experts” to evaluate the qualifications – but the department refused to share their names.   

Following a freedom of information request from Federation of Awarding Bodies chief executive Tom Bewick, the DfE finally revealed who the six are: Advanced Consultancy in Education, E James Consultancy Ltd, Learner First, Paul Johnstone Consultancy Ltd, Sharon Moore Ltd and Sue Tate Consulting.   

However, the DfE refused to share details of their backgrounds in terms of their skills, experience and knowledge of the qualifications sector. FE Week contacted the six to seek this detail, but every request was refused.   

Vicky Foxcroft MP tabled a parliamentary question on the topic, asking for the timeline for when the six experts started and concluded their work, as well as the evidence base used.   

In response, then skills minister Alex Burghart revealed that the assessors spent less than a year reviewing the qualifications, starting in the summer 2021.   

He added that the experts considered evidence such as qualification specifications to determine whether three “tests” were met, and said that to “ensure the rigour of this process”, recommendations were moderated internally.   James Kewin, deputy chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, said Burghart’s response highlights the “lack of transparency in the qualification defunding process”.   

“DfE paid six consultants to review hundreds of qualifications that are sat by tens of thousands of students each year. We know very little about these ‘independent assessors’, other than they took almost a year to conclude that 160 qualifications in a wide range of subject areas should be defunded,” he told FE Week.   

“No evidence base for their decisions has been published, and their involvement in the defunding process was only made public in May of this year.”   

Kewin continued: “We now know that the recommendations made by the independent assessors were ‘moderated internally’ by DfE, which makes the process even less transparent. The lack of external input from practitioners, students, or employers is a real concern and does not bode well for the qualification reapproval process, where many more qualifications will be in scope for defunding.   

“These are high-stakes decisions that should not be made in isolation by DfE officials and a small group of consultants.” 

Don’t expect much from this zombie government

FE Week’s publication cycle for the year comes to a close at the end of a dramatic week in politics. A cascade of ministerial resignations, the shortest tenure of a secretary of state for education in history and, ultimately, the downfall of Boris Johnson.

Burghart leaves office as skills minister with two major qualification reviews unfinished.

Donelan quit as the primary cheerleader for the lifelong loan entitlement and was the Department for Education’s culture-war flagbearer; she leaves a government bill (the freedom of speech in higher education bill) still making its way through parliament.

Zahawi, famous for sporting a “TL” badge in support of T Levels, left his post, ironically, during the Department for Education’s ‘T Level celebration week’.

For those hoping for any progress on policy this summer though, think again.

Burghart at least saw through the skills and post-16 education act. While not in office to oversee much of the act’s implementation, he did at least see the trailblazer local skills improvement plans and got draft statutory guidance on provider access to schools out the door.

As a (contractually obliged) champion of T Levels, he will look on from the outside as the first cohort of T Level students receive their results in August.

Early on in his 294-day tenure as minister for skills, Burghart talked about how he wanted to make sure that people without lower-level qualifications “weren’t forgotten”. Yet an unfinished piece of work of his is the ongoing review of qualifications at level 2 and below, which training providers, Ofqual and awarding bodies all warned would damage choice and confuse the qualifications landscape even more.

Similarly, DfE gave awarding bodies until today to appeal against proposals to cut public funding for level 3 qualifications they believe overlap with T Levels.

Burghart was also hoping to announce a new wave of employer representative bodies next term to write the next set of local skills improvement plans.

The prospect of a new prime minister, a new cabinet and a new ministerial team at DfE could significantly slow down operations in Whitehall.

Meanwhile, the sector battles a crisis in staffing, budgets not keeping up with costs and an economy heading for recession.

New education secretary James Cleverly doesn’t have the authority – or the time – for a reform agenda of his own.

The remnants of the Johnson administration are a zombie government just waiting to be replaced.

Changes to GCSE blamed for ‘crisis’ drop in A-level English exam entries

Entries for A-level English have fallen by more than one-third in the past decade in England, latest statistics show, prompting calls for the government to roll back on key reforms in order to tackle this “crisis”. 

Ofqual provisional data for summer 2022 showed there were 53,965 entries this year across all English A-levels – a 20 per cent drop on 67,865 in 2018, and a 35 per cent fall from 2013, when 84,250 entries were recorded. 

Education chiefs agree that changes to the GCSE English course in 2017 have contributed to the drop. These included removing the spoken assessment in the language portion and placing greater emphasis on 19th-century texts at the expense of modern fiction. 

David Duff, chair of the English Association and the Common English Forum, which have launched campaigns to safeguard the subject, said that it was “undoubtedly a crisis” and explained that there was no issue with the quality of the A-level courses themselves but the GCSE reform had impacted negatively. 

He said that the changes introduced to be more rigorous have “made it more difficult to teach in an exciting way and made for some quite deadly dull exams, which gives people a bad experience of English”. 

“We are trying, through the Common English Forum, to persuade the Department for Education to change tack on this and undo some of these changes,” he said. 

Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said he was “saddened” by the decline, adding: “The feedback we receive from leaders is that the reformed GCSE English literature qualification can be something of a grind. 

“It is heavily focused on traditional texts, which are obviously very fine works but are not necessarily always the most engaging for young people in a modern society, and the exam requires large amounts of memorisation, rather like an old-fashioned O-level. As a result, it does seem that this may be putting off students from continuing to study the subject at A-level.” 

The Common English Forum has been meeting periodically with the DfE to discuss the issue, with another meeting planned this summer. 

Duff said: “They have made encouraging noises but there is not an appetite in the system to change dramatically the GCSEs at this point. They might be right, but certainly the perception in schools is that aspects of the GCSE language especially need to change as soon as possible because it has taken a lot of life out of what used to be a very popular GCSE.” 

Barton said the high costs of university courses may also have put students off pursuing the subject beyond GCSE, and added: “English is, of course, an excellent choice for a wide variety of careers, including, critically, teaching, and there is a real danger of a deepening supply crisis in this subject. 

“We do need to be careful that the current system does not end up having such a damaging impact on English that it becomes extremely difficult to remedy.” 

The English Association believes it is a pattern seen across arts and humanities subjects, at the expense of the government’s drive for STEM – science, technology, engineering and maths – subjects. 

There are fears, too, that a bad experience at GCSE may put off college students who were re-sitting exams as part of their post-16 courses. 

The English Association has launched the ‘Choose English’ campaign to directly address 14 to 16 year olds and highlight the benefits of the subject at A-level, as well as boosting further education staff in its membership and facilitating tie-ups between universities and schools to bolster links. 

Duff said the take-up of maths A-levels had been “transformed” after intervention by the DfE, with English now needing similar recognition. 

The Department for Education did not respond to requests for comment at the time of going to press. 

This year’s A-level students will find out their results on August 18.

Pearson vying to keep a third of its BTEC level 3 courses under threat

Awarding giant Pearson is appealing to keep one-third of its BTEC courses under threat of being axed by the government as part of plans to reform level 3 qualifications. 

In May, the Department for Education published a draft list of 38 BTECs that are planned to be culled. These are among 160 level 3 qualifications the DfE is looking to defund from 2024 as they “overlap” with the government’s flagship T Levels. 

The deadline for awarding bodies to appeal is today, July 8. 

Pearson had the greatest number on the list – 41 – and has confirmed it is appealing the closure of 14. 

A spokesperson told FE Week that over half of their qualifications on the defunding list are already being withdrawn “as part of our usual cycle of updating and renewing our products, or are designed primarily for apprenticeships learners, which means they will not be affected by this process”. 

Pearson said the 14 it is appealing are “valued by 16-to-19 learners, colleges, universities and employers, and are not replaced by T Levels”. The courses being appealed are mostly linked to mechanical engineering.  

Pearson confirmed it is also developing content and assessments for five of the new T Level qualifications. It includes two of the first three courses – digital production, design and development; and design, surveying and planning for construction. 

This September it will deliver T Levels in finance and accounting, with the legal services T Level to be added in September 2023. 

FE Week approached all awarding bodies with four or more courses on the under-threat list. City & Guilds, which has 36, Training Qualifications UK (five) and Gateway Qualifications Ltd (four) did not wish to comment on which courses they are appealing. 

NCFE is appealing five of the 19 it has on the list, largely health and social care courses. A spokesperson said the awarding body “welcomes” the DfE reforms but added: “We believe these specific qualifications should continue to be funded as they serve progression to job roles not yet covered by T Levels, specifically in the social care sector.” 

OCR said it would not comment on any specifics around the seven it has on the list, but a spokesperson said: “We will be appealing a limited number of qualifications where we believe there are clear grounds for appeal.” 

NOCN said it is likely to appeal the level 3 diploma in adult care of the four qualifications it has on the defunding list, while iCan Qualifications confirmed it would not be appealing any of its five on the list. 

Among some of the popular courses are Pearson’s national foundation diploma in engineering, which had 3,500 completers in 2021, with 3,299 on the course this year, while 2,200 finished its national extended diploma in engineering last year, with just over 3,000 on the course this year. 

The health and social care diploma BTEC had around 3,000 youngsters finishing the course last year. 

For NCFE, four of its five are among the top 20 most popular courses on the defunding list, according to the Association of Colleges’ defunding position paper published last week. Learners on those four health and social care courses this year total 11,705. 

Bill Watkin, chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, said: “A number of popular, established and well-respected qualifications feature on this list. That should come as little surprise, given the simplistic definition of ‘overlap’ adopted by the government and the lack of transparency in the review process.  

“If the appeals regime concludes that qualifications like the diploma in health and social care, or the suite of BTEC engineering qualifications, are no longer required, that will further damage the credibility of the government’s approach to reviewing level 3 qualifications. This is certain to be raised at the #ProtectStudentChoice debate that takes place in parliament on July 18.”    

Cath Sezen, AoC senior policy manager, said: “We are concerned around the defunding of these engineering qualifications as the new engineering T Levels are only being introduced this September.” 

Sezen said some who were working up the levels would not have a one-year level 3 option in a couple of years’ time, and a two-year T Level may not be appropriate. She added that sufficient placement opportunities must be available for learners in all parts of the country. 

She added: “There needs to be greater investment in the transition year – currently funded in line with other study programmes – to prepare students for T Levels and, of course, English and maths, which are a hurdle to starting a T Level.” 

Pearson’s 14 appeals, BTECs level 3 

National Diploma in Manufacturing Engineering 

National Extended Diploma in Manufacturing Engineering  

National Diploma in Mechanical Engineering  

Foundation Award in Advanced Manufacturing Engineering (Development Technical Knowledge)  

Award in Advanced Manufacturing Engineering (Development Technical Knowledge)  

Certificate in Advanced Manufacturing Engineering (Development Technical Knowledge)  

Diploma in Advanced Manufacturing Engineering (Development Technical Knowledge)  

Extended Diploma in Advanced Manufacturing Engineering (Development Technical Knowledge)  

National Foundation Diploma in Engineering National Diploma in Engineering  

BTEC Level 3 National Extended Diploma in Engineering  

National Extended Diploma in Mechanical Engineering 

National Extended Certificate in Construction and the Built Environment 

National Diploma in Health and Social Care 

  

NCFE’s five appeals, level 3 

Certificate in Health and Social Care 

Extended Diploma in Health and Social Care 

Technical Level 3 Certificate in Health and Social Care 

Technical Level 3 Extended Diploma in Health and Social Care 

Diploma in Adult Care 

  

NOCN’s appeal 

Level 3 Diploma in Adult Care 

New list of approved training providers put on ice 

Plans to create a new list of government-approved training providers have been put on ice.   

Leaders have been bracing themselves to go through what they fear will be a “costly” and “bureaucratic” process to join the mandatory register next year.   

The next stage will be to define the conditions for the list, which are expected to include a new form of expensive insurance to cover costs when a provider exits from the market, in law following the passing of the skills and post-16 education act 2022.   

But the Education and Skills Funding Agency has decided to pause the development of the regulations in light of the “changing” FE provider market due to wider skills reforms.   

“We want to assess the totality of change to understand the impact on providers and what is needed to protect learner interests in a proportionate way,” the ESFA told FE Week.   

The agency said it will set out a timescale at the start of 2023/24 for undertaking a review of the “changes to the FE provider market to inform a decision on proceeding with making the regulations”.   

The conclusion of the review will determine the timeline for the development of the list.   

Jane Hickie, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said the delay will be welcome news to the sector.   

“The sector hardly needs yet another bureaucratic hoop to jump through, when we’ve only just had another refresh of the register of apprenticeship training providers and when many providers are still getting back to business as usual after a difficult few years,” she said.   

Any provider not on the new list will not be granted funding agreements or be allowed to subcontract with another provider who is on the list. It will be additional to the existing register of apprenticeship training providers, which has gone through multiple refreshes since it launched in 2017.   

An impact assessment report for the skills bill explained that the new list of ITPs and its conditions are required because there are delays in the current system of finding a new provider for learners when another goes bust.   

The delays come about because providers often have to take on the learners and receive no additional funding. This “makes it difficult to place some affected learners with alternative providers and this brings with it the risk that the learner may disengage and then fail to complete their learning”, according to the DfE.   

The impact assessment stated that provider failings also “incur costs to government, for example, administrative costs in resourcing learner transfers or writing off advanced learner loans”.   

FE Week has reported on various cases of loans providers going bust in recent years, leaving learners in the lurch and in some cases, left with high levels of debt and no opportunity to complete their course.  

Following an FE Week campaign, the DfE changed the law in 2019 to give the education secretary the power to clear student debt in those cases. Almost 600 victims of the scandal had £1.5 million worth of debt written off as of January 2022.   

To combat the costs and delays, the DfE wants providers to take out a new type of insurance to cover the costs of transfer of learners to a new provider. The impact assessment warns this could incur significant additional costs on the sector.   

“Professional indemnity insurance” is anticipated to be required by the DfE, which is typically set up to cover: breach of duty, civil liability, breach of contractual liability that is not caused by negligence, contractual liability and legal costs.   

Aside from insurance, the new list of ITPs will require a registration fee, “provisions” of student exit plans and access to learner and financial records. 

Frustration as ESFA’s course directory crashes and delays crucial apprenticeship provider updates

Providers have been blocked from updating their apprenticeship offer to prospective employers for a month after the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s course directory crashed.   

Leaders have described the situation as “incredibly frustrating”, especially after the agency reminded providers of their contractual requirement to keep their information on Find Apprenticeship Training “up to date” two weeks after the back-end of the website went down.  

It comes at a time when the government is desperate to increase apprenticeship starts in the aftermath of the pandemic and during a busy recruitment period ahead of the new academic year.   

The ESFA has apologised to providers for the inconvenience and assured them they are working to resolve the issue but could not offer an estimated date for when the site will be fixed.   

Course directory data and information is shared with employers when they use the ESFA’s Find Apprenticeship Training website, which provides information about a training provider’s organisation and their apprenticeship offer, such as the geographical areas they cover and delivery model.   

In an update to the sector on June 22, the ESFA told providers that it is “important that this information is up to date so that employers and ESFA have an accurate view of coverage of apprenticeship provision across all apprenticeships”.   

The agency added: “To ensure compliance with your apprenticeship agreement, we are asking all providers to ensure their information is up to date and complete.”   

Adam Barnes, who runs Roemer Barnes Consultancy and works with multiple training providers, said training firms are “incredibly frustrated that they’re being asked by the ESFA to update their offering on the course directory when the course directory isn’t available”.   

He told FE Week this is having a knock-on effect on employer engagement and providers’ ability to encourage employers to re-engage with apprenticeships after Covid.   

“Providers are facing an uphill battle to raise the number of apprenticeship starts in line with ESFA expectations because they can’t actually advertise what their current offer is,” Barnes added.   

The ESFA did not respond to FE Week requests for an update to the course directory’s status at the time of going to press. 

Seven in ten college staff ‘may quit’ due to low pay

College staff are skipping meals, rationing hot water at home and seven out of ten say they could quit their jobs due to low pay and the cost-of-living crisis, according to the University and College Union (UCU).

Results of a survey of over 2,700 UCU members, published today, show that working in further education has become unaffordable for the majority of staff and puts the government’s levelling-up agenda at risk, claims the union’s general secretary, Jo Grady.

“It is beyond scandalous that dedicated college staff are being forced to skip meals and ration hot water and heating because their low pay has left them completely exposed to this cost of living crisis,” Grady said.

The report, called ‘On The Breadline: The cost of living crisis for England’s college workers’, furthers union calls for urgent pay increase for college staff. UCU branches in 33 colleges are currently balloting for strike action over low pay. Ballots close next Friday, July 15.

Grady has today threatened leaders with strikes in more colleges, saying the union’s findings should “shock employers into action”.

“The harrowing testimony of college staff should shock employers into action. If it doesn’t and ministers refuse to step in, our union will ballot for strike action at even more English colleges, with the aim of delivering uplifts in pay which will enable college staff to make it through this cost of living crisis, and safeguard the future of the sector.”

College staff want higher pay, more manageable workloads, reduced administration and better job security.

This follows research published by UCU in June which found that college staff were, on average, working at least two days a week for free.

Seven in ten respondents to UCU’s survey said they will “definitely not” or “probably not” still be working in further education in five years time unless pay is raised.

“I am literally living hand to mouth. I want to get out of teaching in further education,” one survey respondent wrote.

When asked what steps staff were taking to make ends meet, over 60 per cent said they were heating their home less frequently. Just over 55 per cent said they were using savings and 45 per cent said they were using credit cards.

“I am currently working three jobs in order to be able to live. I am also unable to rent a house or flat so I’m living with my parents. I had to decline a sick note from my doctor because of my low income and lack of sick pay as I can’t afford to have time off,” said one survey response. 

Negotiations between unions and the Association of Colleges for a recommended pay award for college staff are at an impasse. The AoC’s latest recommendation of 2.5 per cent was branded “beyond insulting” by the union and “simply unaffordable” by some colleges.

“As the government falls apart, the college staff responsible for delivering what remains of its levelling-up agenda are saying they cannot afford to stay in further education. With seven in ten pledging to leave their jobs if pay and working conditions continue to be eroded it is clear that the future of the entire sector is under threat,” Grady said.

Today’s report repeats the union’s ask for a ten per cent increase in pay and for “workload and wellbeing protocols” to be agreed between unions and employers.

UCU is also calling for a review of non-permanent teaching contracts to increase job security and opportunities for career progression, and wants to see pay gaps closed for disabled and black staff, who are more likely to be paid lower salaries.

The Association of Colleges said it has “urged the government for emergency funding to boost staff pay” because of soaring inflation and the cost of living crisis.

Its deputy chief executive, Julian Gravatt, defended the association’s recent pay offer: “This is the largest pay recommendation since 2014, but it is on the limits of – and beyond for some – what is affordable for colleges.

“Our recommendation represents a 6.6 per cent increase for staff at the very lowest end of the pay scale because we’ve recommended both a 2.5 per cent rise and a non-consolidated cost pressure payment of £750 for those earning up to £25,000, and £500 for others subject to locally agreed thresholds.

“We have asked those colleges not currently paying staff the Living Wage Foundation minimum wage, which is currently £9.90 – and £11.05 in London – to publish their timeframe for implementation.”

Adult education is helping keep Ukrainian people strong

“People are just doing their work. They see that they can be helpful for their community in this way,” an adult education representative in Ukraine says.

Adult education providers in war-torn Ukraine have had to get used to their lives changing overnight since Russian troops began an invasion in February. But for teachers and tutors the ethos remains the same – developing skills and supporting communities.  

Whether it is assembling first aid kits, sewing clothes for troops or psychological support, adult educators in the eastern European nation have stepped up to do what they can to help those repelling the invasion.  

A special recognition award was given by Learning and Work Institute to the Ukrainian Adult Education Association at the Festival of Learning awards this week.  

Oleg Smirnov, a representative of the association – the body that represents and supports providers of adult education and helps develop policy around lifelong learning – told FE Week: “The first weeks were rather nervous. Still there were members at local level who continued their activities, and we had examples of people in Nikopol in south Ukraine, just a few kilometres from the nuclear station captured during the first phase of the war.  

“The adult education centre there had sewing machines and they enrolled 40 to 45 women just for short courses for a few days and started to sew clothes for the army, for local defence groups, some kits for medicine, first aid kits. They started to sew what defence groups needed.  

“Some other adult educators we know tried to provide psychological support. There were some individual sessions and some special sessions using art therapy. They worked online with those people who stayed in occupied territories or those who were moving to western regions.  

“It was very helpful for people because of all the missile attacks and artillery in the eastern regions. Even in the western regions when you have these attacks from Russia, it is unpredictable which people will be around you and what can happen. They were very popular during the first weeks, and they are still popular.”  

Some have stayed in occupied territories, others have moved to the western side of the country. Smirnov says some adult education establishments in the western city of Lviv have seen learner numbers double or triple in size as a result of the displacement of people. In some cases, educators have moved to neighbouring countries such as Poland or the Czech Republic.  

But despite the dispersal of teaching staff, online teaching developed during the Covid-19 pandemic has allowed them to continue providing support remotely. Some courses can be kept online, while other support mechanisms for those who have fled the conflict, such as explaining how to transfer money and how to engage with local authorities, have continued.  

“There were several organisations in occupied territories, they couldn’t leave those territories during the first days,” Smirnov said.   

“One of our colleagues was captured and they spent around 40 days captured by Russian troops, and then she was liberated. A lot of teachers and educators left the country but they now work online, or at least they work for Ukrainians abroad. We have several colleagues who moved to Germany or Poland and they are now very active in those cities co-operating with local authorities, local communities, to adapt and to help other Ukrainians staying in those regions.”  

Despite the ongoing conflict, Smirnov and his team continue to plan for the future and life beyond war.  

He said: “We are sure that in general for the country it will be possible to liberate those territories which are occupied. There will be possibility for people to return to their places, and I am sure that adult education will have much more attention from local authorities. There will be more understanding of what it means, what non-formal adult education can do for the development, especially in local communities.  

“There is one idea also that our partners on the local level could be organisations which will initiate some discussions with other stakeholders on what are the educational needs for the next several months, what are the educational needs for the period after the war, for the rebuilding of ruined cities, what kind of professions will be needed and what kind of specialists should be attracted.”