16 to 19-year-olds in England study an unusually small number of subjects compared with young people in many other countries. In this context, a British Baccalaureate, broadening the scope of young people’s education to unlock economic growth is a natural policy for Rishi Sunak to be considering.
There are few details available as to how it would work in practice, but one component that has been trailed is the continued study of English and maths in the 16-19 phase. This is a positive ambition, but there are real concerns as to whether there are anywhere near enough qualified teachers to deliver this.
It is not just a teacher supply issue either. There are stark statistics from the Department for Education showing that well over a hundred thousand students each year are obliged to continue study towards GCSE or functional English and maths qualifications, having not achieved a grade 4 or above at school.
This is a large proportion of the 16-19 population, most of whom do not improve upon their original result. Raising English and maths proficiency should be a priority, but one that may prove difficult without first addressing the inequalities that exist in earlier phases of education.
Our latest research, published today, shows that pupils from an economically disadvantaged background were more likely to be behind in English and maths during school and that this was exacerbated during the pandemic.
Those in long term poverty were struggling the most, so more targeted support to help these students prior to their GCSEs is needed to create a more level playing field when students enter post 16 education. We cannot expect increased maths and English provision in the 16-19 phase to fix deep-rooted issues that were already present several years earlier.
The next general election is a little more than two years away at most, meaning there are no guarantees that these policy proposals will come to fruition, and the debate around specifics could be purely academic. However, the need to cultivate a system that provides a suitable, stretching route through sixth form or college for all students, regardless of background, must be a priority for current and future governments. The plans for a British Baccalaureate announced so far do not provide sufficient detail to conclude that this is the case.
Our research brings into sharp focus how far away we are from this ambition.
Students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds were more than three grades behind their peers across their qualifications taken during 16-19 study, rising to more than four grades when we examine the gap for those in long term poverty. These gaps are the widest they have been since 2017, when we first produced these key measures of social mobility.
2021 was no ordinary year in education, so these findings reflect the impact of school and college closures, differential learning loss and the impact of teacher assessed grades on top of gaps that already existed in 2019.
We found striking differences between students entering A levels and applied qualifications such as BTECs. Although results increased for most qualifications during the pandemic, A level grades increased the most, with students opting for applied qualifications falling almost a whole grade behind students of similar ability taking A levels, since 2019.
When A level and applied students of a similar ability were competing against each other for higher education places, the academic students would have appeared the better candidates on average. There are no two ways to look at it, this was unfair. As disadvantaged students are underrepresented among A level entrants, these differences were one of the key factors behind the widening of the disadvantage gap in 2021.
However, our research suggests that this was not the only reason that the disadvantage gap in 16-19 education widened.
Our findings show that poorer students suffered particularly in 2021, under the teacher assessed grading process and as the full impact of school and college closures was felt. When comparing to other students taking similar qualifications, those from poorer backgrounds still fell further behind.
A 16-19 Baccalaureate, introduced in the right way, could be a positive policy change, but these grand sounding announcements are not a substitute for providing sufficient support to sixth forms and colleges, especially for their most vulnerable or disadvantaged students who have fallen so far behind during the pandemic. Based on the lack of additional funding for these settings in the recent Autumn Statement, this appears to be something the government has forgotten.
AQA have acquired Training Qualifications UK, it has been announced, in a deal which will see it seek to re-establish itself in the vocational awarding market.
The takeover will see all of TQUK’s awarding, international and end-point assessment functions, worth £3.5 million in the 2021/22 financial year, transfer to the awarding giant in a move which AQA described as “a major step into vocational qualifications.”
TQUK has just shy of 290 qualifications on offer from level 1 to level 6 in a range of sectors including health and social care, leadership and management, education and hospitality.
It received EPA approval in 2017 and currently offers EPA services for 29 standards, according to the latest register of end point assessment organisations.
Ofqual’s latest vocational qualifications data puts TQUK and 10th in the ranking of the number of certificates awarded between October 2021 and September 2022 having made 105,180 awards over that period. AQA was ranked 13th over that period having awarded 81,170 certificates.
The acquisition will boost the presence of AQA in the vocational education and training market, as it is currently better known for its GCSE and A level offering.
FE Week understands AQA have been exploring acquisitions in the vocational awarding sector for some time.
Andy Walker, managing director of TQUK, said the staff team, which stood at 65 according to TQUK’s latest accounts, will remain in place. Walker said:
“Our customers will experience the same world-class service and dynamic approach to EPA and awarding they have come to expect from us, at the same time as benefitting from all of the opportunity this partnership will bring. Our team will remain in place, invigorated and committed to progress that will benefit our centres, training providers, learners and apprentices.”
AQA described the acquisition as a “keystone” in its ambition to diversify and reach more learners.
Colin Hughes, chief executive at AQA, said: “This is an exciting step for AQA, and for TQUK, bringing together our standing and expertise in assessment with a dynamic and fast-growing vocational provider. The acquisition puts a keystone into AQA’s plan to deliver more high-quality assessments to a wider range of learners.
“We look forward to working together and combining our assessment, research, talent, and technology expertise to enhance and expand the offering to more students.”
The disadvantage gap among 16-to-19-year-old students widened further in 2021, with those on applied general qualifications faring worse than during the first year of Covid-19, an influential think tank has found.
The Education Policy Institute has today published a report assessing how Covid-19 disruption impacted disadvantaged groups of students in 2021.
The disadvantage gap for 16-to-19 students widened in both 2020 and 2021, and researchers say those taking applied general qualifications fell behind their peers studying A-levels.
The report said that for 2019/20 much of the teaching for courses was completed by March 2020, when the pandemic first hit the UK, with assessment for academic qualifications like A-levels more disrupted than applied or vocational qualifications.
But 2021 saw a greater disruption to learning with assessments across all routes “affected severely”, the EPI said.
Its study found that A-level results were around 0.6 grades higher per qualification in 2021 than on 2019, while applied generals results increased by 0.4 grades.
It reported that those completing applied generals fell 0.9 grades behind their peers doing A-levels in 2021, putting students at “a relative disadvantage when competing for higher education places”.
The EPI report said students from disadvantaged backgrounds – those who claimed free school meals in any of the six years prior to finishing key stage 4 – were on average 3.1 grades behind their non-disadvantaged classmates, compared to 2.7 grades in 2019.
For those considered “persistently disadvantaged” (those claiming free school meals for 80 per cent or more of their time in education up to 16) the gap between them and their better off peers is now more than four grades.
The report said: “Unlike in 2020, the widening of the gap in 2021 could not be explained entirely by the fact that disadvantaged students were less likely to take the qualifications with greater grade increases, such as A-levels.”
While unable to conclusively say whether this was due to changes to assessments in 2021 or whether disadvantaged students were impacted more by the loss of learning, the report said it was “likely that differential learning loss was playing a part”.
Furthermore, researchers found that “since 2019, A-level grades increased at 1.7-times the rate of applied general qualification grades”.
The study said the widening of the 16-to-19 gap “reinforces the need for more support” targeted at those students.
Emily Hunt, associate director at the EPI, said: “It’s concerning that the disadvantage gap has now grown in the 16-to-19 phase of education for the previous two years, having remained relatively stable in the two preceding years.”
She added that “unless wider social and economic policy can help halt this increase in persistent and deep poverty,” it will be tough to deliver the social mobility the government says it wants.
The EPI has called for an uplift in funding for disadvantaged students, including with the introduction of a student premium in 16-to-19 institutions akin to the school pupil premium, based on previous free school meal status.
In addition, the EPI says centrally-held data that links family income to student attainment needs to be more readily available in the national pupil database to help colleges, schools and sixth forms identify disadvantaged students and target support better.
It has also called for a child poverty strategy and further research on student absence and wellbeing.
David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said that student poverty and disadvantage are “now at crisis levels”, warning that the AoC had “consistently highlighted the many ways that disadvantage and funding reductions have combined to widen existing achievement gaps”.
He welcomed the calls for a student premium fund, and said it was “vitally important” to increase both the overall 16-to-19 funding and targeted support to disadvantaged students.
Julie McCulloch, director of policy at the Association of School and College Leaders also called for pupil premium to be reformed to allow students up to 19.
She added: “The government must urgently address the underfunding of post-16 education, which has resulted in a reduction in student support services at a time when they’re most needed, and placed schools and colleges in an incredibly difficult position.”
A spokesperson from the Department for Education said it was investing an extra £2 billion each year for the next two years in schools, and had increased pupil premium funding for schools by £2.6 billion this year.
The spokesperson added: “To catch up we introduced our education recovery programme, with over two-million high-quality tutoring courses underway.”
The government provided additional funding for 2020/21 and 2021/22 – the 16 to 19 tuition fund – to help schools, colleges and other post-16 providers mitigate the disruption to learning from the pandemic, as well as additional funded hours.
For most secondary students, interaction with mathematics involves progression through the standard math curriculum — typically the higher-level sections of algebra, geometry, trigonometry, precalculus, statistics, and calculus. Students who enjoy challenge and variety sometimes participate in a math club, math circle, or competition team. These extracurriculars typically provide participants with the opportunity to individually solve problems in search of a correct answer, though certain supportive classroom and competition settings allow students to work together to address harder, more complex questions that require teamwork. Many of my students have successfully pursued degrees and careers in various science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. Unfortunately, few of them actually use mathematics to determine a best course of action or to educate themselves about a non-STEM topic until they begin professional internships or careers.
Though I have taught and coached competition mathematics for over 16 years, my previous 15-year career as a control systems engineer found me working with and learning about optimization of locomotive fuel consumption, signal switching at television networks, air traffic path planning, and DVD manufacturing, among other applications. These experiences prefigure my goal that students learn about other fields besides mathematics, consider math’s applicability as a decision-making tool, and talk to each other in the process.
While it is possible to create small labs and explorations in the traditional math sequence that let students work toward these goals, SIAM’s MathWorks Math Modeling Challenge (M3 Challenge) [1] implements this on a larger scale. When I first learned about M3 Challenge, I reached out to some of my strongest students who enjoyed mathematics, were omnivorous in their interests, and could write and communicate effectively. The annual contest also inspired me to begin the process of launching a math modeling culture at my high school, the Emma Willard School in Troy, New York.
Apart from student curiosity and persistence, I have identified three important prerequisites for launching a math modeling culture in high school: a thorough understanding of the general process, competency with a basic tool set, and a multitude of interesting problems on which to work.
Although I spent the first part of my professional career developing mathematical models of dynamic systems, I was initially unsure where to begin in teaching the process. The Guidelines for Assessment and Instruction in Mathematical Modeling Education (GAIMME) report[2] and SIAM’s math modeling handbooks[3] (all free to view and download) helped me create a walk-through for my students. I would also highly recommend notes from the 2019 SIAM-MfA Math Modeling Workshop[4] for high school teachers, which draw on and distill these materials. All high school students are capable of browsing the internet to obtain information on unfamiliar topics, and Google’s suite of collaborative tools facilitates collective contribution to a problem’s initial mind mapping. While I do teach basic spreadsheet use for function exploration and data analysis in precalculus, I developed short workshops to familiarize my M3 Challenge teams with the processes of creating more complex formulas and charts and using random functions to simulate outcomes. I have also begun teaching MATLAB, which I particularly enjoy as it is a technology bridge that spans my careers. Because M3 Challenge is only open to juniors and seniors (sixth form students age 16-19 in the UK), I ask experienced seniors to provide new team members with a summary of their participation by breaking down, researching, analyzing, developing, quantifying assumptions for, and validating their model from the prior year.
What makes this all “real,” of course, is finding motivating problems on which to practice. These problems should be topical and real; it is even better when they touch on subjects about which the teacher can cheerfully admit to knowing very little! One of the nicest aspects of M3 Challenge is that both past competitions and the website[5] provide numerous different problems, all of which comprise a multilayered “story” whose relevance extends beyond the competition. One of my students who participated in this year’s contest[6] praised the topic’s real-world relevance. “I knew absolutely nothing about electric trucks and very little about charging stations before this experience,” she said. “I really enjoyed being able to apply my math skills while learning about new topics. Although at times the amount of data felt overwhelming, it was so rewarding to see all of our observations and calculations come together in the final product. I will definitely be keeping tabs on the evolution of vehicles and their environmental impact in the future.”
Take two minutes to experience moments from the 2022 M3 Challenge final event in NYC!
While my school’s teams have yet to make it beyond the second round of competition, student response has been remarkably positive. “Being able to apply the knowledge I’ve gained from my math classes to a real-world scenario really interested me, especially given that there wasn’t one concrete answer to each question,” another student said. “We could really apply the organizational and math modeling skills—as well as the communication and collaboration skills—that we used during this process to any field or numerical situation.”
The contest’s benefits seemed so clear that I suggested that Emma Willard offer a semester-long, project-based course in mathematical modeling for seniors, accessible to any student who has completed precalculus or an advanced algebra course that focused on functions. The course plan, which I developed with several colleagues, introduces students to the use of models to capture the behavior or most important aspects of a messy, real-world problem with many contributing factors. The class’s inaugural semester was set for the fall of 2020.
After introducing the basics of the modeling process, the course would allow students to practice defining problems, researching contributing factors, quantifying their assumptions, and developing and testing models. It would also emphasize quantitative writing and oral presentation skills, as these are important components of any high school curriculum or professional setting.
The class would culminate in an individual project that each student chooses for herself, with guidance from the instructor. Students were to decide whether experimental or empirical modeling is most appropriate for their problem and select from model types that correspond with both the problem and their level of mathematical experience. For some, the projects would bring depth and relevance to second-year algebraic models, such as those originating with exponential, power, sinusoidal, and logarithmic functions. Difference equations, smoothed polynomial or spline models, and probabilistic simulations would provide additional depth and challenge for students who have completed a year of calculus. Most (if not all) participants would already be familiar with Desmos or GeoGebra from earlier courses, and the plan was to teach and extend existing knowledge of spreadsheets. We hoped to even include MATLAB or Python if enough students had coding experience. As developers of a new course, the teachers would be learning from their initial model and changing it to incorporate novel data as it became available. While the plan was to utilize GAIMME-based rubrics to assess student models, there was an expectation that the process would require patience, critical thinking, and a willingness to regularly amend small details as necessary.
With the right team and the right attitude, 14 hours of math modeling can still include moments that are as fun as a slumber party. Photo courtesy of Alexandra Schmidt.
COVID changed everything in terms of the math modeling course plans. Our school closed in March 2020 like many other schools, and when school resumed in fall 2020 it was VERY different. The school rejiggered all year-long courses to be semester-long courses—it wasn’t a ringing success, but the goal was to limit students to no more than three classes a semester so that if we had to go online again students would not be dealing with videos and online learning for six classes, which was pretty miserable at the end of 2019-2020. Classes that were planned one-semester classes, including the new math modeling course, were cut altogether—despite having a curriculum, approval, etc. This has been the situation for the past two years.
What I have worked to do is to incorporate more math modeling into my precalculus and first- and second-year calculus courses. It has not been nearly as systematic or tool-focused as what we proposed in our curriculum, but it has still been rewarding. Students have said, “this made me feel like a real mathematician” and “this helped me draw on modeling skills I didn’t know I had.” It is definitely not the same, or as sustained, as the math modeling course planned prior to COVID, but this is where we are at this point (December 2022).
As a final note, I want to share the very specific experience of teaching math modeling to young women (Emma Willard is an all-girls’ high school). As one of my students observed, “an all-female team like ours is a rarity, and we have created a special sisterhood.” Despite the intensity of working within M3 Challenge’s regulated time window—which gives participants 14 hours in which to educate themselves on an unfamiliar topic and produce a substantive paper—my students found the process motivating, stimulating, and even empowering. By practicing regularly before the competition, the team developed a collaborative and supportive bond and became comfortable sharing and challenging each other’s ideas. As I stopped by during Challenge weekend to bring the competing students fancy coffee drinks and baked goods and laugh with them during “vibe checks,” I was struck by both the productivity and camaraderie in the room. At the end of the day, my students came away from M3 Challenge with an enhanced sense of math’s applicability to their future studies.
Register by 24 February 2023; Challenge weekend is 3-6 March 2023.
Free to register and participate.
£75,000+ in scholarships awarded annually.
Acknowledgments: Special thanks to Caroline Albert, Laszlo Bardos, Judy Price, Chiara Shah, and Yoosong Song for their input and reflections.
Alexandra Schmidt has been a mathematics teacher at the Emma Willard School since 2014. She has taught mathematics at every level from fifth to 12th grade, prior to which she was an electrical engineer. Schmidt holds a Master of Arts in Teaching from Clarkson University and is a National Board Certified Teacher.
Traineeships make a difference to young people, with research showing participants are more likely to be in a positive destination like an apprenticeship or further learning. They consist of things you’d expect in a good education and training programme, like work preparation and experience. We’ve shown how occupational traineeships at Hartlepool College and Intertrain have helped young people prepare for jobs in construction and rail.
On the face of it, then, isn’t it a mistake to end traineeships as a national programme? Yes, the government has missed its targets to treble numbers and returned unspent money to the Treasury. But isn’t the answer to better promote traineeships and provide more incentives and support to employers and young people, particularly given better funded programmes like Kickstart will have affected take-up?
As it happens, I think the government is right. To understand why, we need to step back to first principles.
What are we trying to achieve? Our aim is to reduce the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training. This stands at around 700,000, down since the pandemic but still too high.
Lots of organisations are trying to engage these young people, including Jobcentre Plus (for those aged 18-24), councils, colleges and independent training providers. They do great work, but I think the lack of a joined-up plan and clear offer can hold us back. Too often funding rules make us think in silos about programmes that risk requiring young people to fit around policy rather than vice versa.
And the multitude of programmes, often with overlapping rules and eligibility criteria, can make it difficult to see the wood for the trees.
Surely it’s better to work with young people to agree what’s most likely to help them into education, apprenticeships or employment? Which is actually what the government says it’s trying to do.
Instead of being a relatively small standalone national programme, helping about 15,000 people a year, the money for traineeships will be rolled into the budgets for 16-19 study programmes and the adult education budget. If providers think traineeships, or elements of them, are the best support for particular groups then they can do them.
But there’s a few things to watch out for.
First, I’d like this to be the first step on a path to simplification. Could Bootcamps be next? What’s our ultimate ambition? For example, the Local Government Association argued for a single pot of money underpinned by agreements on the outcomes this would deliver and then freedom in how these would be delivered. Can we reduce the number of funding pots colleges and training providers have to deal with, with a greater focus on education and work outcomes?
Second, we’ve long argued for a Youth Guarantee, ensuring every young person is offered a job, training place or apprenticeship. That would require local and national government to work together with providers on a joined-up plan – making sure young people get referred to the right support for them regardless of which bit of the system they engage with.
Third, we need to make sure that in making this switch we don’t lose great provision or providers that are delivering fantastic traineeships now. And we need to make sure this is a real and sustained increase in funding. We’ve already shown that higher-than-expected inflation is a stealth cut of £850 million in adult skills funding over three years. The public finances are tight, but investment in education and skills is good for the economy and social justice.
Traineeships made a difference. It’s now up to providers and devolved areas to make sure all young people get the support they need.
Last week, FE Week subscribers got a secret first look at this year’s festive challenge from GCHQ, and now you and your students can join in the fun too.
The intelligence agency traditionally hides a puzzle in director Jeremy Fleming’s annual Christmas card to national security colleagues. This is his second card for young people and your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to print it out and bring your students in from the cold to solve it.
Uncover the hidden message and let GCHQ know how you’re getting on by tagging them on Twitter and Instagram using the hashtag #GCHQChirstmasChallenge. (They might have a hint or two to help you on your way.)
Young people who enjoy the Christmas card puzzles and are interested in developing their cyber skills are encouraged to take part in the National Cyber Security Centre’s CyberFirst activities, or find more brainteasers in the puzzles section of the GCHQ website.
An influential committee of MPs has told DfE ministers to “get serious” on skills in a damning report on the state of the skills system.
A report published by the Public Acounts Committee today has put together a series of recommendations for the government to boost skills training and education, warning that the £4 billion annual spend on 19+ education and training is “failing to deliver skills we need for the economy”.
The apprenticeship levy must be reviewed and an action plan produced to boost participation of people from disadvantaged backgrounds in training, the committee said.
The committee’s recommendations have called on the Department for Education to “review how it incentivises employers to invest in skills development, including through the apprenticeship levy, and in light of the findings, take action to improve the effectiveness of the incentives”.
In addition, it said the DfE should develop an evidence-based plan to support those from disadvantaged backgrounds into training, strip out government programmes that overlap with each other, and come up with measures to support colleges to tackle financial and workforce pressures.
The report authors said they were “extremely concerned” at the fall in FE and skills training participation from disadvantaged groups, saying take up in the most deprived 20 per cent of England had fallen 39 per cent in five years.
In addition, it said that making the apprenticeship landscape work for smaller employers is “fundamental” to increasing take-up from 16-19s and disadvantaged groups.
Committee chair Meg Hillier (main image), warned that the government is “not going to make inroads on levelling up if it does not get ahead of this”.
She added: “With UK workforce numbers falling the government need to get serious on skills. The future of the economy depends on it.”
The PAC pointed to adult education figures which revealed participation had halved from the 3.2 million learners in 2010/11 to just 1.6 million a decade later.
Other recommendations from the committee included clarifying success measures of the FE Skills Index – the government’s tool to determine the impact of further education on productivity, and providing more detail on the Unit for Future Skills – a division of the government to look at the link between skills and jobs.
Jane Hickie, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) welcomed the report and its findings.
“We know there has been a significant drop in adult participation in FE and skills training,” she said.
“This can be largely attributed to the fact adult education funding has halved in the past decade, alongside reduced employer investment. Both employers and government must address declining participations in adult education by increasing investment, to support disadvantaged adults develop work-ready skills and enable employers to fill skills gaps.”
Hickie added that clearer guidance on training and education pathways and reduced complexity in the system were also needed.
On colleges, the report said college financial health remained “fragile” and the money and workforce squeeze had forced some colleges to reduce the length of courses or narrow the curriculum, as well as cut back on enrichment activities and careers advice.
David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said colleges were being “starved of the investment” to deliver skilled workers.
He added: “Anyone working in the sector will not be surprised by the alarming picture this report highlights. Cuts since 2010 have reduced participation in adult education to record low numbers.”
Hughes pointed to the chancellor’s autumn statement that snubbed FE funding when schools were given a £2 billion uplift each year for the next two years, and said that sectors struggling to recruit people contributes to a “massive drain on productivity and therefore economic growth”.
Skills minister Robert Halfon said: “Our skills programmes have been designed hand-in-hand with businesses to meet their needs, and that of the wider economy. Our ambition is to ensure people of all ages, at all stages of life, can access high quality technical qualifications and training – and are able to climb the ladder of opportunity.
“We are focused on delivery to drive long-term economic growth and create a pipeline of talent to meet the needs of our future workforce. That is why in the autumn statement we announced Sir Michael Barber will be advising on skills implementation to drive forward our progress.”
Make no mistake, this week’s decision to close the national traineeships programme for new starts from August 2023 is an absolute disaster.
A scheme which does so much to promote opportunity for the most disadvantaged should not be in line for the axe – and diverting its funding instead to the 16-19 study programme and adult education is a hammer blow to thousands of 16 to 18 learners.
The government’s own research shows that traineeships are extremely effective. Around three-quarters of all trainees have successful outcomes – either taking on work, starting an apprenticeship or further study – within 12 months. This compares to fewer than half of all non-trainees. The scheme’s flexible nature means it can be tailored to meet local needs- something employers really value.
Government have cited poor take up as the reason for axing traineeships. That is true, but there is a context! Unlike other programmes, such as Kickstart, there are no learner incentives attached to the scheme. So no surprise there.
The cost-of-living crisis is driving behaviour too, so it’s hardly a shock there hasn’t been a huge rush for a programme with no immediate financial benefit for the learner. AELP has long called for government to focus on increasing participation through better promotion of traineeships and introducing incentives for learners – instead of removing choice. Sadly, our pleas have fallen on deaf ears.
Disappearing traineeships = disappearing opportunities at entry level
Lots of things about this decision worry me, but I am particularly worried about the impact this it will have on social mobility. The biggest beneficiaries of the traineeships programme have been school leavers with low previous rates of achievement.
The programme offered this group meaningful work experience alongside relevant on-the-job training – as well as support to improve their English, maths and digital skills.
The government are yet to publish an equality impact assessment on scrapping traineeships, but given 33 per cent of participants come from ethnic minority backgrounds, and 23 per cent have learning difficulties or disabilities, this is such a short-sighted move.
I am also very concerned that this announcement is made against a backdrop of reforms at level 2 and below where funding could be removed from up to 90 per cent of qualifications for young people.
Given traineeships were previously heralded as the alternative to a level 2 business admin apprenticeship pathway, the impact of scrapping traineeships at the same time level 2 and below qualifications are being significantly scaled back will severely limit skills provision at entry level. This could have a catastrophic effect on the people that need skills training the most.
Lack of engagement with employers or the skills sector
It is disappointing that ministers and officials did not consider it necessary to engage with the skills sector or employers on the future of traineeships. A meaningful consultation could have led to a solution which would not have caused such a backlash. One large employer I spoke to yesterday was horrified by the decision – and the lack of any consultation or communication – as they had traineeships firmly embedded in their workforce planning which they would now have to revisit.
As part of the plans, the government is also proposing to end contracts for independent training providers who have a 16-18 traineeship contract – there are 136 of them – but not a wider 16-19 study programme contract. Inevitably strips out specialist expertise and capacity for supporting both young people and the government’s social mobility agenda. We must not lose that expertise – these are providers already approved and trusted to offer provision to young people by the government.
To land this on the sector, out of the blue, would be a bad one to land at any time of year but I have to say, this is a truly terrible time to make such an announcement.
We’re about to head into a Christmas break after a really challenging year. Coupled with rising costs, the additional financial strain caused by such an abrupt end to contracts may well be too much to manage for some providers – especially if they have fixed costs such as leases for premises.
These plans will provoke many, many questions about what happens next, and send a lot of staff working for providers home for Christmas worried about their livelihoods. Rushing this announcement out less than a fortnight before Christmas will make it nigh on impossible to get the prompt answers providers, employers and learners deserve.
Creating more opportunities for young people should be a priority of any government, especially one who have talked so much about the ladder of opportunity. Scrapping traineeships is a big mistake – and AELP will fight for this decision to be reversed.
Skills minister Robert Halfon has addressed questions from education select committee members today on the future of post-16 qualifications.
The minister, a former chair of the committee himself, spoke on a range of subjects, including T Levels, apprenticeships, careers advice, a British Baccalaureate and traineeships.
Here are a handful of things we learned:
Are traineeships dead?
Following yesterday’s news that traineeships had been scrapped amid low take-up numbers, Halfon told the committee that in fact “they are not being stopped” but only being “integrated into existing programmes”.
He referenced existing work such as skills bootcamps, the T Level transition programme, free courses for jobs and other skills programmes as viable alternatives.
“Traineeships can be carried on, but through the providers, through the further education colleges, because each student gets a study programme and can be offered a traineeship through that,” Halfon continued.
“But the crucial point was the take-up was low, too low, for a national programme, which is why we made the decision it would be better to integrate it with other skills programmes but also offer it if independent providers want to carry on doing so with the study programme.”
“Hybrid” T Level work placements
Halfon confirmed the Department for Education is “looking at allowing hybrid placements” for T Level students’ mandatory 45-day or 315-hour work placements.
That would allow students do some placement in person and some online. In addition, he said the department is also assessing whether to let T Level students go to a training facility of the employer rather than on the floor of the business itself.
Halfon also floated the potential in future for AI-based elements to work placements too.
He added: “I would like work experience across all qualifications – one day I hope that will be the case”.
Sue Lovelock, the DfE’s director of professional and technical education added more meat to the bone on the next steps for the review of level 2 and 3 qualifications.
In October the government confirmed that 3,240 qualifications from entry level to level 2 were in scope for review, with more than 2,000 of those under threat of being defunded, while level 3s that overlap with T Levels are also facing the chop.
Lovelock said the next step will feature employer input.
She said: “The next phase of the reforms will be undertaken by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education and Ofqual, who will use their specialist expertise in using input from employers, in particular, on whether a qualification meets the needs of employers in those areas, and Ofqual’s regulation of qualification specialism in order to make sure of qualification by qualification judgements on whether something is good quality, necessary, and leading onto good progression opportunities for young people.”
That process will be completed by 2025 for level 3s and 2027 for level 2s, she confirmed.
Education secretary Gillian Keegan last week told the committee in her first grilling in post that discussions so far had mostly been around the study of maths up to the age of 18, but was “pragmatic” on whether a British Baccalaureate would happen in the remaining two years of parliament.
Halfon told the committee today that he has an “open mind” on it – including on whether it should be called a British or English baccalaureate, but said that the most important factor in the debate will be on whether such a baccalaureate would deliver outcomes for students.
When asked about timescales and whether the department is actively looking at it, he added: “There are discussions going on in the department about these issues, but I cannot give you a timescale at this time.”
Apprenticeship levy reform ruled out again
The question of whether the apprenticeship levy should be reformed to offer more flexibility has been raised countless times, and this morning was no exception.
Halfon said: “We are not planning to make reforms of the levy. I am looking at it in terms of how is it ensuring that disadvantaged students are doing apprenticeships, and also of how it is meeting our skills needs, but we are doing everything possible to increase apprenticeship quality.”
