Anglia Ruskin University, which trains more than 2,000 apprentices, has been handed a ‘requires improvement’ rating by Ofsted, after concerns were found in curriculum planning and progress for those with learning difficulties.
The university, which runs campuses in Chelmsford, Cambridge and Peterborough, has just over 2,000 apprentices across 22 different higher-level programmes, largely in the healthcare, construction, digital and business management sectors.
Ofsted rated the university ‘requires improvement’ overall following a visit in May. Personal development and behaviour and attitude were rated ‘good’.
Ofsted said apprentices’ experiences varied too much between programmes, highlighting that “too many healthcare assistant apprentices struggle to keep up with the workload,” while “too few chartered surveyor apprentices successfully complete their apprenticeship programme”.
Elsewhere, planning issues were highlighted by the education watchdog, which said planning was “poor on a minority of courses” and “did not always consider the study requirements of the professional body when planning”.
The report said that existing skills and knowledge were not considered enough in planning the curriculum, while “too few apprentices with a learning difficulty and/or disability receive effective support to enable them to make progress in line with their peers”.
The report praised the collaborative environment and found that apprentices felt valued and respected, but said that while most who reach the end of their programme achieve their qualification, too many take breaks in learning or withdraw from their programme.
Registered nurse apprentices were found to be working above their contracted hours, while progress reviews were infrequent, inspectors said.
The university says action on specific points has already begun.
A spokesperson from Anglia Ruskin University said: “ARU’s apprenticeship programmes play a key role in addressing skills shortages, supporting local economies and transforming the lives of the students. The qualifications that our students go on to achieve are as important and valued as ever.
“We were encouraged to see Ofsted’s report highlight our good practices in many areas, and we will make sure that these are implemented across all of our apprenticeship courses.
“We have already put in place measures to address specific points raised in this report, and we look forward to demonstrating our progress.”
Three quarters of learners on the government’s free courses for jobs (FCFJ) scheme would not have studied had it not been free, early analysis has found – with plenty of learners retraining for new careers.
The FCFJ scheme was established last year for learners aged 19 and upwards without a level 3 qualification or higher to achieve a recognised qualification for free.
It was extended to those who already hold a level 3 but earned below the national living wage, and those who are unemployed.
This week, the Department for Education published an early study carried out by Pye Tait Consulting, which analysed the performance of the scheme between its launch in April 2021 and November 2021.
Here are some of the main findings.
Uptake has increased
Compared to the 2018/19 baseline, Pye Tait reports that starts of funded learners on eligible courses have increased by 54 per cent, from 7,123 to 11,042 between April and November 2021.
It said that starts are up in all nine English regions, and around three quarters of applicants said they would not have done their course had it not been free.
The report acknowledged that its study only covered the first eight months, but said that enrolments have continued to increase.
“The evidence gathered through this evaluation indicates that full funding level 3 qualifications via Free Courses for Jobs is making a difference to uptake for learners from all backgrounds, and particularly for those on low income, who are unemployed, or have other living costs (such as childcare),” the document said.
Learners are opting for new careers
Nearly two thirds (63 per cent) of surveyed learners said their course was in a sector they had no involvement in before.
Pye Tait said it suggests the scheme is “enabling labour market transitions to some extent”.
The most popular sector was health and social care, with courses in building and construction also popular.
Providers are offering more courses
The research said that just over three quarters of providers participating in the study were offering a wider range of courses than before FCFJ.
Nearly two thirds reported offering more remote live classes, and 63 per cent employing more staff to deliver adult education courses.
Around 400 courses are eligible under the scheme.
Funding for providers
Two in five of the surveyed providers said the funding is adequate for them to increase the number of learners, but one in five said it wasn’t enough to provide additional support, such as employing additional staff, marketing, or developing the course.
Those providers suggest more flexibility in the cash so that it remains ringfenced to deliver level 3 adult education but allow them to better suit the needs of their local area market.
Prior skills a concern
Providers say they have noticed applicants holding no prior level 1 or 2 qualifications, insufficient maths or English skills, or other necessary requirements.
The study found 53 per cent of providers reported some of their applicants holding no prior level 1 qualification, rising to 67 per cent saying some had no level 2 either.
71 per cent of providers surveyed said some learners had insufficient English skills, while 69 per cent said some applicants were not at the standard for maths or other prerequisite skills.
While most have been signposting to the necessary level 1 or 2s – and some have provided tailored support or put learners on transition courses (including a quarter of providers utilising funding from the scheme to set up transition courses) – others report that they do not have the resources or finance to do so.
Some have suggested funding Level 1 or 2 courses, or English and maths, may be more beneficial.
Barriers to learning remain…
The scheme was designed to remove one of the key barriers to learning for those without a level 3 qualification – the cost of doing a course.
Accordingly, two in five surveyed said they no longer had any barrier to their study, but for others some challenges still remain.
More than one in four said caring responsibilities made access to learning a problem, while one in five said other financial considerations such as travel costs or costs of equipment remained an impediment.
One in 10 reported a lack of support from their employer or not having a computer at home as barriers to learning.
Some were choosing more remote-based courses as a result.
…prompting recommendations for more support
Pye Tait has recommended the Department for Education gives “careful thought” to providing greater financial support for low-income learners, to ensure learning remains accessible.
It recommends looking at targeted support in two key areas – financial costs such as travel or equipment, and covering costs of related level 1 or 2 courses to enable transition.
Other recommendations are around case studies for minority backgrounds to boost take-up there, and ongoing communication and marketing nationally to raise awareness for the offer.
Over three-quarters of the near 200,000 apprenticeship incentive payment claims were made for young people, new data has revealed, prompting fresh calls for incentives to be brought back.
The Department for Education published data this morning which showed that 195,590 claims were made by employers for the incentive scheme, which ran from August 2020 until the end of January this year.
More than three quarters – 77 per cent – were for new apprentices aged 16-24, with 23 per cent for those aged 25 and over.
The scheme was introduced by then-chancellor Rishi Sunak in August 2020 as part of his Plan for Jobs initiative, and offered firms £2,000 to take on apprentices aged 16-24, or £1,500 for those who employed a new apprentice aged 25 or above.
That incentive was then increased to £3,000 in March 2021 until September, before an extension until the end of January was confirmed. That extension period in itself saw a further 40,000 apprentices recruited under the scheme.
The data has prompted the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) – which has lobbied for an extension on multiple occasions – to renew its calls for the incentive to return.
Chief executive Jane Hickie said: “AELP lobbied for enhanced employer apprenticeship incentives as part of the Plan for Jobs, as we were confident that they would have a positive impact on apprenticeship uptake. The data proves that we were correct.
“Not only did apprenticeship starts increase at a difficult time in the economy, but incentives also led to positive impact on social mobility and rebalancing the system. 77 per cent of new apprentice starts as a result of the incentives were under 24 years old, 83 per cent of starts were at levels 2 and 3, with SMEs particularly benefiting.
“But since the incentives came to an end, we’ve already seen a reduction in both starts and vacancies.
“This is exactly why AELP are calling for a return of incentives – targeted at young people – which could be delivered by recycling unspent apprenticeship funding that would otherwise be returned to the Treasury.”
According to the DfE, health, public services and care were the sectors which accounted for the most claims – one in every four, while the business, administration, law, engineering and manufacturing technologies sectors made up around one in every five applications.
The DfE said over the 18 months of the programme, between 5,000 and 10,000 learners typically started on incentive schemes each month, although nearly 40,000 started in September 2021.
Stephen Evans, chief executive of Learning and Work Institute, said: “It’s welcome to see a high proportion of apprenticeship incentives going to young people and at levels 2 and 3 – the groups and levels that have seen the biggest falls in recent years.
“It’s likely the incentives made something of a difference during the pandemic, but without a proper evaluation it’s not possible to tell how many would have happened anyway. For the future, we need a clear strategy to increase employer investment in skills as a whole, and in particular for young people and those with lower level qualifications.”
Proposals for multi-year adult education budgets, “simplified” funding bands and public provider performance dashboards have been firmed up as the government presses ahead with its overhaul of adult education funding in England.
Officials at the Department for Education published proposals to reform funding and accountability models a year ago but have today released a second stage consultation with more detail.
Some accountability reforms will be rolled out in the coming 22/23 academic year, while the more ambitious funding reforms are proposed to take place in 23/24 and in to the next spending review period.
The second stage consultation focuses on implementation, with the sector now being asked to provide feedback on five new proposed funding bands for adult education courses, a successor to the adult education budget (AEB) and bringing in a lagged funding model for adult education.
Here’s what you need to know:
AEB becomes the skills fund
DfE is pressing ahead with its proposal to introduce a “simpler” adult education funding model and had originally proposed to consolidate seven separate funding lines into a single skills fund.
It now proposes that, starting in 23/24, colleges will receive a combined AEB (including community learning) and free courses for jobs (FCFJ) allocation under the ‘skills fund’ heading.
A decision will be made at the next spending review on integrating the FCFJ pot into mainstream budgets.
Funding for skills bootcamps and adult training funding from the UK shared prosperity fund, will though continue to be separate.
The idea is that a combined skills fund will free up providers to be more responsive to local needs.
Colleges will sign new accountability agreements which are promised to be “significantly shorter than current funding agreements” according to DfE.
The new agreements will stipulate the national priorities the fund can be spent on, as well as highlighting specific ringfences and rules for non-qualification provision and development of “innovative” new courses.
The Department wants to “re-orientate the vision for non-qualification provision” by proposing that all provision must achieve at least one of three set objectives; achieving employment, progression to further learning that brings learners close to employment and helping learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities to access independent living.
Colleges will also have to set themselves “a small number of outcome targets” and set out how they will adapt their provision to meet local needs as part of the agreements.
There will be a draft later this year.
DfE also wants to push ahead with its plans to move away from setting allocations based on historic performance towards a “needs-based” funding formula to be introduced in the next spending review period.
Another set of budgets to be consolidated are the various sector support grants. After the next spending review, the strategic development fund, college collaboration fund, workforce industry exchange programme, higher technical education growth fund and the FE professional development grant will become a single ‘development fund’.
Getting a grip on devolved authorities
The current level of adult education budget spent in devolved combined authorities is 60 per cent. That figure is set to grow continually over the coming years until the ambitions of the government’s levelling up ambition of a wholly-devolved adult skills system is realised.
The DfE reports that providers were uneasy about inconsistencies in funding and assurance approaches as the list of adult education commissioning bodies is set to grow ever larger.
As well as bringing in a needs-based formula for mayoral combined authorities, the DfE wants local areas to use a national funding model it develops when designing and implementing their plans for the skills fund.
“Taking this approach would mean any differences between local areas had a clear rationale and would minimise the extent of differences that employers and providers need to navigate,” today’s document says.
A rise in rates for priority provision
Courses in high priority skills areas could see funding rates rise from 2023/24.
This Autumn, courses will be organised in to SSA categories and placed in one of five funding bands; base, low, middle, high and specialist with a set hourly funding rate.
Courses in health and social care currently attract a “low” programme weighting, but are proposed to be added to the “middle” funding band in the new system. Engineering courses, currently in the “medium” category could be moved to “high”.
The Department promises that the rates set for each band will be informed by analysis of skills needs and new research it has conducted on delivery costs.
This way, it argues, a higher funding premium is attached to courses for in-demand skills and those that are more expensive to staff and deliver.
No SSA will be moved to a lower funding band than existing programmes, the DfE has said, and accommodations will be made for advanced learner loan funded students in courses attracting higher funding rates.
The future is lagged
Once the new funding rates are in place, the DfE wants to end the cycle of allocation and reconciliation.
Despite receiving a “mixed response” in the consultation, the DfE says it “continues to think a lagged approach [to the skills fund], which gives providers a firm allocation for the immediate year, is the best approach.”
However the model won’t change until the new funding bands are established and devolved authorities will be free to choose whether or not to follow suit.
Providers and MCAs can also look forward to multi-year allocations.
The DfE proposes to provide 23/24 and 24/25 skills fund allocations based on 22/23 allocations unless there’s evidence of a shortfall or over-delivery. Mayoral combined authorities will receive an indicative 24/25 budget with their 23/24 allocation.
Bringing down the data burden?
Officials are developing a new data collection system which could eliminate the need for regular ILR returns. According to today’s document, work is underway to develop “an online ILR collection approach where data is stored within DfE data storage”.
There were no timescales attached to this proposal.
However one of the benefits would be to provide timely data for the new FE performance dashboard and the new Unit for Future Skills.
Providers will certainly welcome a reduced data burden, however any excitement may be short-lived.
Said FE performance dashboard contains a range of new performance measures which seem to complement, rather than replace, existing measures like the performance tables, NARTs and outcome measures.
The new skills measure, proposed somewhat vaguely a year ago, will be a complex calculation of “expected progression rate” of students against their “actual progression rate” while also taking into account learner characteristics like free school meals and prior attainment, as well as the provider’s local economic context.
The dashboard will not include, as was originally proposed, the provider’s ESFA financial health grade because doing so “could negatively impact on learner enrolment and employer engagement, making a provider’s financial position worse.”
The dashboard will be rolled out in 23/24 and could look like this (click to enlarge):
Example performance dashboard
Providers, learners and representative organisations can see the proposals in full here and have until September 21 to respond to the consultation.
Providers without an Ofsted grade can now apply to deliver more T Levels sooner, along with those with a ‘requires improvement’ rating.
In an update to its T Level guidance for providers this morning, the Department for Education has made more providers eligible to deliver more T Levels from September 2023.
The Department says this is “to ensure as many young people as possible can benefit from them.”
The update also confirms that the T Level in animal care and management, originally planned to be introduced in 2023, has been delayed to 2024.
The new guidance states that providers with a ‘requires improvement’ Ofsted rating, and those without one at all, can now apply to deliver T Levels that launch this September from September 2023.
Those are T Levels in:
accounting
design and development for engineering and manufacturing
engineering, manufacturing, processing and control
finance
maintenance, installation and repair for engineering and manufacturing
management and administration
Before now, providers had to be rated ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ to deliver the 2022 T Levels in 2023. Earlier this week, £74 million in capital funding was awarded to colleges in preparation for 2023 starts.
All providers however are eligible to deliver T Levels introduced in 2020 and 2021 from September 2023 regardless of Ofsted rating.
The change signals the Department’s intention to grow the provider-base for T Levels when the national roll-out commences next year.
“Until now, only Ofsted ‘good’ and ‘outstanding’ providers have been eligible to deliver T Levels first introduced in 2022 from 2023. We are now extending this to allow providers with a ‘requires improvement’ Ofsted or with no formal Ofsted designation to deliver these T Levels” the guidance states.
Providers graded ‘inadequate’ will still only be allowed to deliver the T Levels introduced in 2020 and 2021 in 2023.
Along with the appropriate Ofsted grade, providers need a 16-19 student programme contract to be eligible to apply.
This change comes just days before an upcoming registration deadline.
Providers wishing to deliver T Levels from September 2023 must register with the Department by July 29, 2022 in order to access up-front delivery funding.
Apprenticeship providers’ qualification achievement rates could soon be improved after the government changed its funding rules around breaks in employment.
New English and maths flexibilities have also been extended to apprentices currently on-programme, while a controversial rule that put funding at risk where apprentices drop-out without making enough progress towards their planned training has been removed.
The latest rules show that from next month, providers will no longer need to withdraw an apprentice where they have a break in employment for more than 30 days.
Instead, providers can place the apprentice on a break in learning but must withdraw the apprentice if they do not restart with a new employer within 12 weeks.
Until now every apprentice that changed employer partway through their programme was automatically counted as a non-achieving leaver if they did not commence new employment within 30 days. This would in turn bring down an individual provider’s retention and overall qualification achievement rate.
Simon Ashworth, the Association of Employment and Learning Providers director of policy, said: “The new eight week extension – through a break in learning – will reduce the number of non-completions.
Ashworth added: “This is also a step in the right direction with the success rate methodology. We know the current methodology is not fit for purpose and, without reform, will impact on the sector’s ability to meet the new 67 per cent overall success rate ambition by 2025.”
Several other amendments from the draft rules, which were published in May, have also been made to version one.
The draft rules said that people who start a level 2 apprenticeship without level 1 English and maths will no longer need to automatically attempt level 2 English and maths tests to complete their apprenticeship.
In version one, the ESFA has confirmed that this flexibility has been extended to all eligible apprentices – including those currently on-programme and not just new starts from August 2022.
Elsewhere, the agency previously said that where an apprentice withdraws from their programme and they have made “insufficient progress towards their training plan”, then funds will be at risk of recovery.
By insufficient progress the ESFA meant where the apprentice is “more than four weeks behind on the planned delivery of training, but the training has not been replanned or the apprentice has not been put on a break in learning”.
Additionally, the ESFA has introduced a new rule for training plans and documentation of prior learning.
It states that where an assessment has been made and the result of this assessment is that no relevant prior learning exists, providers “must agree this with the employer and document this in the evidence pack before starting the apprenticeship”.
Funds will now be at risk if a provider is not able to “show, upon request, an up-to-date training plan and current progress towards this training plan”. The agency said these rules have been strengthened due to feedback from audits and investigations.
Education employers will have to review holiday pay arrangements of term-time-only workers and may face legal claims for back-pay following a landmark court ruling.
An employment appeal tribunal ruled in 2018 that Bedford Girls School music teacher Lesley Brazel was underpaid because of the way her holiday pay was calculated.
It means employers with permanent staff on term-time-only contracts must from now on calculate their holiday pay based on the hours they work in a normal week, rather than paying them pro-rata based on the number of weeks they work each year.
Legal experts and professional bodies today warned the case would have huge ramifications for schools, colleges and other employers, with those paid incorrectly potentially entitled to back pay.
The Incorporated Society of Musicians, which supported Brazel in her legal action, said the case “could improve holiday pay for thousands of workers in the education sector and beyond”.
Chief executive Deborah Annetts said music teachers “often go above and beyond for their students but all too often they are not treated in the way they deserve”.
A spokesperson for the Harpur Trust said the ruling “will have significant cost implications for a number of sectors, including state and independent schools, the care sector and higher education”.
Ruling will create ‘significant financial burden’
Joanne Moseley, an employment lawyer at Irwin Mitchell, said the “significant decision” would be a “blow to many thousands of employers across the UK who, up until now, have pro-rated holiday entitlement to reflect the number of weeks employees work each year”.
“Many employers have adopted a ‘wait and see’ approach but we’re now at the end of the road. We’ve seen that organisations have been caught out by previous holiday pay rulings and this one is sure to place a significant financial burden, which could run into millions of pounds, for many.”
Nick Hurley, partner at law firm Charles Russell Speechlys, said the ruling would make “holiday pay much more expensive for employers who have this type of arrangement and is most likely to affect those in the education sector”.
“This could open the floodgates for other part-year permanent workers who have had their holiday calculated incorrectly to bring claims for unlawful deductions from wages for any difference in what they have been paid and what they should have received, although there is a two-year backstop on these claims.”
Trust was wrong to ‘pro-rate’ holiday pay
Brazel, who has taught the saxophone and clarinet at Bedford since 2002, took her case to employment tribunal following a change to her pay in 2011. She worked variable hours each week during term time and is only paid for what she teaches.
The trust had previously calculated her holiday pay based on what she would earn in an average week and multiplied it by 5.6, the statutory number of weeks of leave in England, ignoring any weeks in which she did not receive any pay.
But from 2011, the Trust changed its method and calculated the total number of hours Brazel worked each term, took 12.07 per cent of that figure and paid her for that number of hours.
This was based on guidance from the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, which has since been rewritten.
Although the first employment tribunal dismissed her claim, she successfully appealed, with the employment appeal tribunal ruling that her holiday pay should be based on a normal working week.
The Harper Trust appealed, but the Court of Appeal rejected their appeal in 2019, again ruling that the so-called “calendar week method” was the correct implementation of the law.
Employers must ‘immediately change’ practices
The Supreme Court ruled today the Court of Appeal was “correct” to reach that view.
“In short, the amount of leave to which a part-year worker under a permanent contract is entitled is not required by EU law to be, and under domestic law is not, prorated to that of a full-time worker.”
In an example included in the judgment, the court said Brazel’s pay for the Easter holiday in 2013 would have been £687.26 under the calendar week method, compared to £452.20 under the pro-rated approach.
Lesley Rennie, principal employment solicitor at WorkNest, said many employers would need to “immediately change their holiday pay practices”.
But they will also need to “assess their historic liability and make a judgement call on whether to make a back-payment in respect of any holiday pay underpayments or to bear the risk of a claim”.
“Employers should be mindful that if this case is widely reported, employees are more likely to be aware of it and assert their rights.”
Brazel said the case had been “long and arduous”, but she was “pleased to have secured my holiday pay rights, in accordance with the law and my contract of employment, in the highest court in the country”.
“I hope that others can now benefit from this verdict.”
The Harper Trust said: “We welcome the clarity that this judgement brings and will now focus on determining our next steps in ensuring that holiday pay is adjusted for those affected.”
Improving English and maths attainment is not exactly a new priority for government and it will be tough to do, writes David Robinson
I was pleased to read in FE Week that the vast majority of the first cohort of students taking T Levels, and their FE providers, found the new courses to be a genuinely positive experience.
Given the scale of this ambitious reform, it could easily have been otherwise. Looking ahead, it will be fascinating to see what these students progress onto, and what their eventual employment outcomes will be.
There have been concerns about the experience of T Level students, with the availability of work placements being amongst the most common.
However, whilst T Levels so far look like a rewarding qualification for students, the more pressing issue relates to which students will pursue them in the future, and what the options are for those that don’t.
The option for alternative programmes of study became clearer in May, when the Department for Education (DfE) published a provisional list of 160 qualifications that overlap with the initial T Levels.
Upon the completion of an appeals process, qualifications still on the list will be defunded from 2024.
Their removal is certainly a live issue, and was debated in parliament this week. This follows a petition urging the reversal of plans to remove funding for BTECs gaining 108,000 signatures.
Those against the proposals argue that reducing choice will harm progression for many young people.
On the other hand, the government point toward a need to streamline post-16 education, noting that some BTECs will continue to be funded.
To improve understanding of what the removal of these qualifications may mean for young people, the Education Policy Institute undertook an analysis.
We wanted to see how many students in previous cohorts took overlapping qualifications, and whether they would have been able to take T Levels instead.
Our analysis showed one-third of students taking level 3 technical or applied general qualifications were taking qualifications that may be defunded.
The issue is particularly acute amongst education students, where as many as nine in ten would be affected. Once the overlapping qualifications have been defunded, these students may be expected to take T Levels.
However, around a third of these students may not be ready for the more demanding nature of T Levels.
The challenge may be greater for construction students, with almost half potentially not ready for T Levels.
The demanding nature of T Levels may present barriers to significant take-up
Specifically, over a quarter of students (27 per cent) don’t achieve at least a grade 4 in GCSE English and maths.
Previously, it was necessary to achieve this threshold to secure a full T Level pass. This requirement has since been removed, but it nevertheless remains a common requirement, from providers in order to access T Levels.
Concerningly, almost a third (32 per cent) of health students haven’t achieved these grades. This is followed by 27, 26 and 22 per cent of education, construction and digital students respectively.
In addition, almost one in six students (16 per cent) were taking smaller study programmes than T Levels, suggesting they may not have the appetite or capacity for a larger qualification.
These figures are derived from cohorts without access to T Levels, and as the new qualifications are fully rolled out, many factors will influence their take-up.
Indeed, DfE has introduced a transition year to support students to progress onto T Levels, and this analysis does not take account of that.
Nevertheless, it’s clear the demanding nature of T Levels may present barriers to significant take-up.
This may particularly be the case for students interested in education qualifications, given so many alternatives may be removed, and for those interested in construction, given the step up in qualification size and how few students appear to have the necessary GCSE grades.
More broadly, policymakers will need to consider how to enable more young people to achieve the GCSE grades to access T Levels.
This will be tough. Improving English and maths attainment at age 16 would not exactly be a new priority for the government.
And, despite several years of the resit policy being in place, it’s still the case that (prior to the centre/teacher assessed grades of the pandemic) less than half of students improve their grade upon resit.
Without the government doubling down on existing efforts, many of these students may take one of the remaining non-T Level qualifications.
But the fear is that more students will instead opt for lower-level qualifications or drop-out of education altogether.
This is concerning, not least as almost two in five young people don’t achieve a full level 3 by the age of 19.
T Levels appear to be a good option for many students. But DfE must tread carefully to ensure the success of their new qualifications, without creating a new fault line in the progression of young people.
The government has updated a report that outlines the impact its controversial reforms to level 3 qualifications will have, after the original was based on incorrect data.
Officials have stressed that the revisions do not change the direction of policy travel, which includes defunding applied general qualifications such as BTECs that overlap with T Levels, but the changes do affect the potential scale of the impact.
The revisions show a marginal decrease in the proportion of government-funded qualifications currently available at level 3 that may be axed. But level 3 qualifications for adults face a slightly bigger impact than first estimated, while more awarding organisations will also be damaged.
But the Sixth Form Colleges Association warned that this updated impact assessment “still shows that a significant proportion of level 3 qualifications are unlikely to feature in the future landscape”, which doesn’t square with ministerial promises that only a “small proportion” of will be removed.
But this was based on an “incorrect cohort of 16- to 19-year-olds”, rather than the latest available data.
A new baseline list now covers qualifications approved for government funding in scope of the review in the 2019/20 funding year, as of May 2020.
And the enrolment, and associated characteristics, data has been updated from 2018/19 to 2019/20.
Slightly better outlook for 16- to 19-year-olds…
The previous impact assessment concluded that around 60 per cent of qualifications currently available at level 3 “may not fit into the future landscape for young people”. These qualifications represented 16 per cent of all 16 to 19 enrolments at level 3, and 62 per cent of non-A level enrolments at level 3.
Based on the revised mapping, the DfE now estimates that a slightly smaller proportion – around 54 per cent – of qualifications for young people at level 3 may now be defunded. These qualifications represent around 12 per cent of all 16 to 19 enrolments at level 3, and 40 per cent of non-A level enrolments at level 3.
…but a slightly worse outlook for adults
The original impact assessment concluded that of technical qualifications at level 3 that are available through adult funding streams, around 31 per cent may not fit into the future landscape. These qualifications represent 19 per cent of adult enrolments on technical qualifications at level 3.
But the revised estimate shows that 33 per cent of qualifications currently available to adults at level 3 may no longer be available.
No change to proportion of students unable to access level 3
The impact assessment previously estimated that around 4 per cent of 16- to 19-year-olds currently studying at level 3 may not be able to progress directly to level 3 following the reforms.
Repeating the same methodology using the revised mapping of current qualifications to the updated 2019/20 data, this leads to a “reduction in this estimate”. However, this reduction is “relatively small, and is lost within the rounding”.
A few more awarding bodies will be hit
Based on the first indicative mapping exercise, the reforms could have reduced up to seven awarding organisations’ publicly funded 16 to 19 year old enrolments by 80 per cent or more.
Using the same methodology, but with the updated data, the DfE now finds that up to 10 awarding bodies, out of more than 130, could see their publicly funded 16- to 19-year-old enrolments at level 3 and below fall by 80 per cent or more. Four of these AOs have over 500 government-funded 16 to 19 enrolments at these levels.
Black students no longer expected to be highly affected by reforms
The previous impact assessment concluded that 16- to 19-year-olds from SEND (special educational needs and disability) backgrounds, black and Asian ethnic groups, and males could be particularly impacted by the proposals. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds could also be particularly affected.
Based on the revised mapping, this assessment “remains broadly the same”, with those from SEND backgrounds, Asian ethnic groups, disadvantaged backgrounds, and males disproportionately likely to be affected.
But following the “additional flexibility on the future academic landscape, and the accompanying updated mapping and data”, students from black ethnic groups are “no longer anticipated to be disproportionately highly affected.
However, those from white ethnic groups are “now slightly more likely to be impacted”.
Revised impact assessment still concerns colleges
James Kewin, deputy chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, said: “This updated impact assessment still shows that a significant proportion of level 3 qualifications are still unlikely to feature in the future landscape. This is hard to square with the government’s assurance that only a ‘small proportion’ of qualifications will be defunded.
“As applied general qualifications have only recently been reformed, and many will be scrutinised through the T Level overlap process, they should not have to go through a further approval process.
“The uncertainty created by this interminable review process is very unhelpful, and the sooner it is brought to a conclusion, the better.”
