Leaving the Army and joining a training provider was a culture shock 

Many service leavers lack confidence in their skills when they exit the armed forces. Providers and employers must step up, writes Alex Firmin

With around 14,000 people leaving the armed forces every year and more than two million ex-service people living in the UK, the transition into the next stage in their career can be daunting.  

Veterans can be critical of themselves, lacking confidence in the skills outside of those they’ve acquired in the armed forces.

Often, they find it hard to identify what could make them attractive to an employer, or, if they wish to work in FE, to a provider like mine. 

Research from the Forces Employment Charity shows civilians recognise the value ex-forces bring to the workplace, including in FE providers.

But unfortunately, many military leavers think they are not qualified for roles they would in fact be suitable for and would thrive in. 

It’s the duty of leaders, managers and trainers in non-forces businesses to nurture and help them make that transition as smooth and stress-free as possible.  

Be empathetic 

Leaving the Army was a surreal time for me.

It was a major culture shock. After spending several years in service, on tour in places like Afghanistan, I didn’t allow time for myself to adjust when I left.

Admittedly, I was quite naïve and it took some time to find my feet. 

I didn’t allow myself time to adjust

These feelings are not uncommon in ex-military personnel. One in three confess that they’ve faced a lack of understanding amongst employers and/or colleagues about how their skills from active duty translate into a business environment. 

There’s also a greater focus on the pastoral aspect of leadership in the forces than in industry. Military leaders are taught to care for the wellbeing of their followers and are often perceived as mentors by their colleagues.  

Many businesses and organisations do have pastoral elements in place. But more recognition of the skills of veterans will boost confidence from the off. This includes ex-forces staff joining training providers. 

Offer work experience 

Of the 2020/21 regular service leavers who used the Ministry of Defence’s career transition partnership provision, 83 per cent were employed within six months of leaving the forces. 

However, many ex-services personnel can feel a sense of urgency in gaining employment. So they often go into low-paid or routine occupations that don’t make full use of their skills. 

Moreover, a rushed transition can possibly lead to a new place of work not being the right place for them, with many resigning quickly, leaving their confidence dented. 

As all service leavers are entitled to resettlement financial assistance, employers could offer a short period of paid or unpaid work. This means an individual has time to understand whether or not a role could work for them.  

If successful, this period of supportive work experience would hopefully lead to longer-term benefits for both parties. 

Provide mentoring or support services 

For many, military life is all-consuming, and civilian life can be more uncomfortable than being on the frontline. Imagine moving from that regimented world into a new job that has its own culture. 

Despite what may seem like disparate worlds, a veteran can bring skills in time management, problem solving, teamwork, resilience and much more. However, many just need a helping hand to identify those skills. 

That’s where a mentor or support group from employers or training providers can prove useful. That interaction could also be beneficial for the business or organisation as a whole, as well as for the individual. 

Practise what you preach 

Many organisations have pledged their support to the armed forces community, maybe in the form of signing the armed forces covenant, which is a moral obligation to treat service leavers fairly. 

But employers and providers who take these vows must ensure sustained action.  

Since 2011, more than 8,800 businesses have signed the armed forces covenant. Your provider can too! 

Offering education, training or internships will maximise the potential of service leavers, improve mental health, develop industry awareness and ultimately benefit the person, employer and provider. 

The DfE sees SEND learners as an economic problem to solve 

The green paper offers scant support for older learners and has a narrow focus on employment outcomes, writes David Ellis 

The initial flurry of headlines with the launch of the SEND green paper a few weeks ago has settled and we have had time to digest, reflect and dig deeper into the 82-page paper.  

We clung to the hope that our initial misgivings would be quelled as we drilled down to the detail, but that is not the case.  

In fact, the more we read, the more alarm bells started to sound. 

As a reminder, the Department for Education has promised that the green paper will provide “excellent provision from early years to adulthood”.  

But one of my biggest concerns is that there is scant support in the proposal for 18-25-year-olds with SEND, especially those with complex needs. 

The chapters that consider further education and preparation for adulthood speak strongly of a system that only recognises contributions that can be practically realised. 

Furthermore, worth is measured in terms of economic contribution, drawing a direct relationship between economic ends and the social worth of an individual.

The more we read, the more alarm bells sound

This feels like policymaking driven by ideological values, where social citizenship expectations for people with disabilities are defined in relation to the economic cost and benefits to the state. 

This ultimately constrains the way in which young people with disabilities can imagine their futures.  

While we welcome the presumption of employment for people with disabilities, the over-emphasis on employment fails to reflect the diversity of children and young people with SEND and the breadth of outcomes that should be celebrated.  

By constructing the narrative in this way, DfE may have unwittingly created a mechanism whereby the outcome an individual aspires to might not ‘fit’ within the narrow options presented in policy narratives. In turn, this potentially reduces the individual’s entitlement to that outcome.  

It acknowledges that “some young people with more complex needs will require different forms of support as they move into adulthood”.  

We would wholeheartedly agree. But this glimmer of hope is quickly extinguished as the paper states there are situations where EHCPs are “retained beyond the point at which a young person can achieve more within an education setting”. 

Does this mean that the government no longer values post-18 SEND education if it does not have a ‘work’ outcome? Surely everyone has the capacity to learn given the right support and opportunity.  

Our experience shows that young people aspire to the broadest range of outcomes as they transition to adulthood.  

Well-planned and delivered education programmes for people with complex disabilities do result in significant progress for a wide variety of young people that we work with.  

Young people go on to achieve an increased level of independence in their lives through both their living choices and by taking part in their local communities.  

As a specialist college, at National Star we have valuable experience of brokering multi-disciplinary transition packages including housing, care and therapy, representing the adult lives chosen by young people with disabilities.  

Value is achieved through the long-term impact on health, wellbeing, aspirations and life choices of young people with complex disabilities.  

The consultation questions are incredibly narrow and further reflect that the DfE is looking at SEND through the lens of cost. Instead, ministers should be seeking ways to create a holistic system that provides “excellent provision from early years to adulthood” for all children and young people with SEND.  

Despite the aspirations of the 2014 Children and Families Act and all it promised, the SEND system is broken and doesn’t meet the needs of those it is designed to support. 

This consultation does not repair that system but concentrates on ways of tackling the cost of SEND – with particularly little ambition for those aged over 18.  

In this sense it is a missed opportunity for sharing best practice and developing creative, cost-effective solutions for learners with complex needs.  

The governmental narrative and approach to SEND only sees it as an economic problem needing a solution.  

Instead, a framework is needed that focusses on wider outcomes for people with disabilities, including how society needs to reorganise itself to become truly inclusive of them all. 

As students, all we want is a seat at the table 

Young people are experts about young people, and their voices should stop being ignored, writes Lois Rance 

Have you heard young people complain they aren’t consulted on issues that matter to them?  

That they feel overlooked, ignored and disempowered?  

If not, I suggest you aren’t asking the right questions ̶ or perhaps you aren’t listening closely enough.   

Since November 2021 I’ve been part of a network of 16- to 20-year-olds, working with people aged ten to 21 living in different regions of England, and coming from all walks of life. 

I was among 45 people conducting a research project between November 2021 and January 2022.  

We spoke to 209 ten- to 21-year-olds over six regions: north-east and Cumbria; north-west; Yorkshire and Humber; Midlands; London, south-east and east; and south-west. 

Overall, we found young people want better support for and awareness of mental health issues. They are concerned about poverty and inequality. They want greater access to opportunities and local facilities and they want help staying safe.  

These issues are interconnected, because addressing one would lead to improvements across all areas. That’s something I hadn’t thought about before doing this research.   

Of the young people I spoke to personally, many were concerned about the lack of support for “low-level” mental health worries and the long waiting lists to access professional services. 

Over the past couple of years, I have seen the positive impact of my education provider’s investment in mental health support, both for myself and my peers. 

Unfortunately, I learned this is an anomaly and not the norm, and students living just a few miles away have little to no access to such services. 

Participants also highlighted that professional mental health support is needed by increasingly younger students.   

I can’t imagine that we would have heard these comments with traditional research approaches.

The outcome of our research was a publication called The Youth-led Peer Research synthesis report and regional outputs (coordinated by The Young Foundation, with funding from The National Lottery Community Fund). 

Peer research is authentic because it’s led by “experts by experience”. The average FE student is far more likely to speak openly and honestly with me than they are with a university academic ̶ especially when discussing sensitive issues, such as mental health.  

The average FE student is far more likely to speak honestly with me

I am able to provide a comfortable environment in which the participant feels they can express their views without judgment or fear of “saying the wrong thing”.  

That means we can increase our understanding of youth priorities. The results of this research are already being shared.  

By listening to young people and finding out how they think, England could be a better place. We can inform decisions in future through speaking with funders, education and youth organisations about the findings. 

In terms of myself, running this research has helped my confidence grow exponentially. I have gone from being unsure whether to ‘unmute’ on the initial regional training sessions, to presenting my ideas and experiences to The National Lottery Community Fund’s England leadership team. 

The skills I learnt in questioning, pitching the right tone, and working in a team (as well as safeguarding and GDPR training) will be invaluable.   

Please remember that students’ ideas are worth listening to. We might have less experience in this world than the adults making policy, but we are experts at being young people ̶ and we know exactly what issues England’s youths are facing right now.  

We want a seat at the table to discuss the big issues so education leaders, policymakers and young people can come up with meaningful solutions together. 

A plea to independent training providers – make your voices heard 

Some ITPs may have small or no marketing departments, but many are very keen to get learner and staff voices into the press, writes Nicki Hay 

You may have seen my interview in last week’s edition of FE Week. It was great to have the opportunity to talk about my previous experiences and my vision as AELP’s new chair, but I couldn’t help but feel like the piece ended on an unfair note.

It was suggested that those ITPs FE Week has contacted largely do not respond quickly or enthusiastically to requests for contributions to the paper, a comment that was met by concern and dismay from AELP members.

Many raised their disappointment with myself and Jane Hickie, our chief executive, saying they would be more than happy to be involved. Naturally, I have been keen to tackle this challenge head on and turn it into some positive action! 

Many ITPs say they are more than happy to be involved

Most ITPs do not have significant budgets and staffing for marketing, communications and PR.

However, ITPs have a great story to tell. I have been privileged to see first-hand the good work that so many AELP members do up and down the country, for the benefit of thousands of learners and employers of every size, in every sector.  

With skills shortages significantly impacting our nation’s economy, ITPs have also never had as important a task on their hands ̶ training, retraining and upskilling the workforces that our businesses need. All providers now have to operate in challenging and unpredictable environments.  

We have seen remarkable resilience for ITPs over the period of the pandemic in particular, which is testimony to their creativity, flexibility, and determination to deliver high-quality training.  

Having been involved in the ITP business for over 20 years, I know that the sector is unique and has significant strengths. ITPs deliver a wide range of skills and post-16 education provision ̶ from apprenticeships to traineeships, adult education to employability, skills boot camps to study programmes ̶ and so much more in between.  

We know quality and confidence is high, too – 80 per cent of ITPs are rated as either good or outstanding by Ofsted, 85 per cent of employers report satisfaction with the overall quality of training and assessment delivered by ITPs, and 86 per cent of learners are satisfied with the teaching and training at ITPs.  

No two ITPs are the same ̶ they range from large, national providers delivering across multiple sectors and locations, to small providers supporting a handful of learners, often in rural areas or niche sectors.

All FE providers have a really important role to play in the skills system, and it is really important that every type of provider is recognised for the fantastic contribution they make.  

As I said in my interview, one of my biggest priorities as AELP chair will be to champion this recognition for ITPs and to promote the significant role, value and impact they have in supporting the nation’s skills needs. 

Multi-ethnic group of business persons having a meeting in the office

I am calling on AELP members and colleagues across the wider sector to help raise the profile of their individual organisations and the ITP sector generally, by speaking to FE Week about the work that you and your staff are doing on the ground, for the benefit of learners and employers.

Particularly, you can pitch your ideas for the ‘Staffroom’ column, which is for trainers, tutors and lecturers (not those in the executive team) and get involved in The FE Week podcast. 

Meanwhile, the broader regional and national media also need to hear our voices.

Please consider reaching out to your local newspapers, online publications and the mainstream print media too, particularly if you have a story relevant to a local area, such as an interesting learner or employer case study, or an opinion on a recent skills policy development that might make a good ‘letter to the editor’.   

So, let’s grasp the challenge that FE Week have put to the sector ̶ and make our voice heard loud and clear. AELP are always on hand to support our members to amplify their voice ̶ but we need your help too! 

Level 2 qualifications review ‘materially flawed’

The government’s review of level 2 and below qualifications was “opaque and largely meaningless”, the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) has said.

The provider body has added to warnings from exams regulator Ofqual, which said this week that the Department for Education’s reform plans risk adding further confusion to the landscape.

Representative bodies and awarding organisations have flagged a number of concerns in their responses to the DfE’s review of qualifications at level 2 and below in England, which closed for submissions last week.

Among them was Ofqual, the government’s exams regulator, which said that the DfE’s implementation timetable could “overwhelm” educators.

Qualifications consultation was ‘materially flawed’

The DfE claims the current landscape of level 2 and below qualifications is “confusing”, with around 8,000 technical and academic qualifications available at these levels, many of which cover the same or similar subjects.


NOCN boss Graham Hasting-Evans took aim at this claim, saying in an open letter published on the NOCN website that the 8,000 figure “overstates the real number of ‘different’ qualifications”.

Hasting-Evans explained that the figure double-counts qualifications that are provided by multiple awarding organisations. For example, he said: “Functional skills English level 1 is a single qualification delivered by ten awarding organisations. This is therefore displayed [on the Ofqual register] as ten qualifications. However, in reality, it is one qualification.”

“When considering policy, we need to know exactly what our baseline is” he added.

Graham Hasting-Evans

Ministers plan to axe thousands of qualifications through this review as they clean up a “confusing” landscape so that learners “benefit from high-quality provision that helps them realise their talents and achieve their career ambitions”.

But the DfE has not been forthcoming with detail on exactly which qualifications face the chop.

Sector leaders previously called the proposals “devastating” and a “full-frontal assault on the very idea of lifelong learning” which “flies in the face of the ambition to level up the country”.

A lack of evidence and detail in particular has attracted harsh criticism from the AELP and the Federation of Awarding Bodies. According to its submission, AELP’s requests to the DfE for a list of qualifications at risk of losing funding was “unfairly rejected”.

“On this basis,” the association said it “believes this consultation to be materially flawed in both its approach and its design”.

Speaking for awarding organisations, FAB was equally direct, challenging the government on its narrative that the current landscape of qualifications has too many low-value or low-quality qualifications “without any substantive evidence being presented”.

“If there are concerns about quality, then these need to be addressed by the regulator. As part of the regulated community, awarding organisations follow strict conditions to offer their qualifications. If these standards are not being maintained, then government should look at the role of regulators and other enforcement mechanisms.”

Proposals ‘appealing to policymakers’ but not best for students

Under the plans, the surviving qualifications would be placed in one of 17 new “groups” – eight at level 2; five at level 1; and four at entry levels.

Ofqual has warned: “At present, there is a risk that the large number of proposed groupings are not sufficiently clear or straightforward for students and others to differentiate between.”

The watchdog said its “expert opinion” is that it would be helpful to “segment, and define, the provision based on aspects such as qualification purpose – in effect, combining those of the 17 proposed groupings that have common features”.

Not only will this aid navigability for students, but will also provide “clarity with respect to purpose”, which is “critical” to supporting good assessment design by awarding organisations.

“This will help ensure that students are tested on the right things, in the right way, to support them in taking their next step, whether this is into work, an apprenticeship, or further academic or technical study,” Ofqual said.

The Sixth Form Colleges Association criticised proposals to divide qualifications into groups as “a simplistic approach that primarily appeals to policymakers”.

“Sweeping away level 2 qualifications that play a valuable role (for a group of young people that are more likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds and have special educational needs and disabilities than level 3 learners) is not a price worth paying for a system that looks tidier in charts and diagrams,” the SFCA said. 

In its submission, the Association of Colleges said that the DfE’s proposal to group qualifications for progression separately to qualifications for employment would also cause confusion and could reduce class sizes, making certain courses unviable.

“Having different qualifications with different purposes in the same subject area, such as construction, hair and beauty, catering and motor vehicle, for example, may lead to confusion and limit opportunity. Smaller colleges or departments with smaller numbers may not be able to run both a progression qualification and an employability qualification,” the AoC said.

Appeal for SEND learners

The DfE’s reforms will have a disproportionate impact on learners with disabilities and special educational needs, acknowledged by the DfE in their own impact assessment.

A proposed 280 guided-learning-hour maximum for entry level 3 pre-technical qualifications is too low, according to the AoC: “Students who have learning disabilities benefit from progression not from one level to another but from a smaller to a larger qualification at the same level. For these students, generalising skills and applying skills to a broader range of contexts is a crucial purpose of vocational education.

“This means that progressing from a certificate with less than 280 GLH to a diploma with more than 280 GLH is meaningful progress that helps equip them for the working world.”

The Federation of Awarding Bodies has “serious concerns about the impact of these proposals on SEND learners” it said in its submission, and advised officials to “proceed with caution”.

Similarly, AELP cautioned the government against moving too quickly to remove funding from qualifications with low enrolments: “It is important to recognise that learners with SEND tend to be registered with more niche and lower-level qualifications appropriate to their sometimes complex needs. In the government’s proposals to defund qualifications with low or no enrolments, due care and attention are required to ensure provision isn’t removed that would have a direct impact on the life chances of learners with SEND.”

The DfE’s response to the consultation, which excludes GCSEs, functional skills and essential digital skills qualifications, is expected to be published later this year.

Saxton: Adaptive testing could end exam tier ‘ceilings’

Ofqual’s boss, Jo Saxton, hopes that switching to online exams could end tiered GCSEs that she says can put a “ceiling” on student potential and leaves leaders in difficult positions.

For some subjects, schools and colleges must decide whether to enter a student into the foundation (grades 1 to 5) or higher tier (grades 4 to 9) papers.

But the exam watchdog’s three-year corporate plan, published this week, promises to investigate adaptive testing – a computerised test that adjusts the difficulty of questions as students go through it – to replace tiering.

‘It can be a ceiling for some students’

“What I found very difficult with tiering was having to have conversations with students and parents about ‘we just can’t put you into the higher tier’,” said Dr Jo Saxton, Ofqual’s chief regulator.

The former academy trust boss and policy adviser to Gavin Williamson said such a situation was “incredibly sad. Qualifications open doors and I don’t like that … that mechanical element can be a ceiling for some students.

“I don’t like the idea that it’s decided in advance which students won’t get certain aspects of the curriculum.”

Ofqual wrote to schools and colleges in 2020 to remind leaders to enter students into the right tier. The year before, nearly 4,500 students of 140,000 who took combined science got a U grade after being put into the higher tier paper.

The regulator introduced a temporary safety net to ensure students who narrowly missed a 4 still got a grade.

But Saxton said leaders found tier decisions harder post-pandemic. “I would love that to not be a decision that leaders have to make – if we could make the testing mean that nobody had to have a limited curriculum, and everybody had the opportunity to succeed.”

However, the National Foundation for Educational Research has warned such tests could limit a student’s opportunity to show their ability. Entering “uncharacteristic” responses to earlier questions could impact the rest of a students’ test, it said.

Ofqual’s academics will now begin “long term” work on the testing method, including how “validity and access” to qualifications could be improved through technology.

The regulator’s three-year plan also outlines how exam boards will be supported to use “innovative practice and technology”, as well as “removing regulatory barriers where innovation promotes valid and efficient assessment”.

Up to 2,500 students from 100 schools and colleges will take part in a trial of adaptive testing run by exam board AQA.

‘Smart’ tests could also help resitters

Saxton wants to know if the method – also known as “smart” testing – could help drive down the number of students having to do resits.

School leavers without a grade 4 in English and maths must resit exams, although the number doing this dropped 13 per cent last summer to 133,982 for English and 165,150 for maths.

“There’s not enough research yet [on] what is it that means they’re failing. It could be that it’s the format of the test itself, it’s not necessarily the content.

“I’m saying this recognising, as the regulator, that there are some good technical reasons why it exists in the way that it does, but I would be interested in looking at ‘does technology gives us a way to do it better?’”

Advance information more work for students In the plan, Ofqual pledges to “secure trust and confidence” in exams this year “and beyond”, as well as “be ready to implement contingency arrangements if needed due to the impact of the pandemic”.

Saxton said conversations with heads had given an “overwhelming sense” of schools and colleges wanting to get back to normal exams next year.

Although adaptations were welcome this year, such as advance information, “all of it is additional cognitive load”, she said.

“The vast majority of students I speak to are very grateful for the advance information, but they also tell me it’s been a lot of work working it out.

“They say we’d rather just have normal teaching and not have needed it. If we can get to a place where it’s not needed, that’s the optimal situation.”

Pressed on when leaders would know about next year, she said Ofqual and the government were clear schools and students needed clarity “well before” the new academic year. 

Delay (again) in accessible versions of SEND review

Delays to accessible versions of the government’s SEND review has excluded some of the communities it seeks to support from the consultation process, almost six weeks after its launch.

The government has missed its own second deadline for publishing British Sign Language (BSL) and easy-read versions of the green paper.

When it was published on March 29, the Department for Education said the accessible versions would be ready “in early April”. A large print version is already available and a braille version on request.

Simon Knight, the head of Frank Wise special school in Oxfordshire, said the lack of accessible materials was “hugely concerning and is materially impacting on the ability of our students to have their voice heard”.

“It is tragically ironic that a consultation designed to address the dysfunctionality of the SEND system is, through the lack of suitable adapted materials, disadvantaging those very people the consultation is intended to improve outcomes for.”

In an answer to a written parliamentary question last Thursday, Will Quince, the children’s minister, said the additional accessible documents would be published “in April”.

But five days into May, the DfE had no update on their progress.

Quince apologised for the delay last week and said he was considering extending the consultation, due to end in July. He then promised an update in “the coming days”.

FE Week understands the documents are unlikely to be published until next week at the earliest.

As well as the lack of BSL and easy-read versions, Knight said there was no function for submitting non-narrative contribution “so those people who are not yet able to write do not need to have their thoughts interpreted and recorded by others”.

The consultation involves an online questionnaire, with no function to upload video.

“It would be extraordinarily unfair, if those in need of adapted materials had less time to participate in the consultation than those who do not need the content or process adapted,” Knight said.

A snap poll by Special Needs Jungle found 97 per cent of respondents backed extending the consultation because of the delays to accessibility.

Ian Noon, head of policy at the National Deaf Children’s Society, said the review could radically change deaf education, “yet many deaf children, young people and parents are being excluded from the chance to have their say”.

“Unless everyone affected is able to contribute, we risk emerging with a new SEND system that still doesn’t meet their needs. The deadline needs to be extended to give everyone a version that works for them and enough time for their voices to be heard.”

The delays to accessible versions follow substantial delays to the review itself.

The green paper was delayed three times after its 2019 launch. It was finally published on March 29, marking the opening of a 13-week consultation.

The proposed policies look to establish a “single national SEND and alternative provision system that sets clear standards for the provision that children and young people should expect to receive”.

Quince said last week he was sorry the publication of accessible versions had taken “longer than I had hoped”.

UCU threat: Raise pay or we’ll strike on exam day

College GCSE students are set to have their exams disrupted after teaching staff announced plans to strike over pay – a move leaders have called “deeply disappointing”. 

The University and College Union threatened the bosses of six colleges in the north-west to “urgently raise staff pay” if they want to avoid strike action set to take place on Wednesday, May 18. 

This is the same day on which many GCSE students are due to take what UCU calls a “crucial English exam”. 

After two years of teacher-assessed grades, because of the Covid pandemic, this is the first summer in which exams are due to be sat. 

UCU claims around 900 staff at the colleges will down tools, and over 50,000 students could be impacted. 

“Staff have timed their strike to take place the same day that many students are due to sit GCSE English language. If the strike goes ahead, exams will be disrupted,” the union said in a statement. 

“From Thursday May 19 staff will also be taking action short of strike, which includes working to contract, not covering for absent colleagues or vacant posts, and not rescheduling lectures or classes cancelled due to strike action.” 

The six colleges facing the strike action are: Burnley College; Bury College; City of Liverpool College; Hopwood Hall; Nelson & Colne College Group; and Oldham College. 

Some of those affected have hit out at the decision and reassured students and parents that measures are being taken so that exams will be able to continue with minimal disruption. 

A spokesperson for City of Liverpool College told FE Week: “We are deeply disappointed that this action has been planned to coincide with this year’s first GCSE English paper. 

“However, as we have reassured our students and their parents/carers, we have robust measures in place to ensure there is no disruption to students and their exams.”

Bury College in Greater Manchester said that while it is still open to further discussion with UCU after making what they considered to be a “very fair offer”, it was “disappointed at the planned strike action” and will take action to minimise impact on learners. 

UCU is demanding the colleges increase pay by at least 8.5 per cent to meet the cost-of-living crisis. 

The union claimed that since 2009, pay in further education has fallen behind inflation by 35 per cent and the pay gap between school and college teachers stands at around £9,000. 

“As inflation and energy costs soar, bosses urgently need to raise pay so we can avoid disruption to crucial GCSE English exams,” said UCU regional official Martyn Moss. 

UCU highlighted the fact that in 2021, the government announced an 8.4 per cent increase in funding targeted at those in England aged 16 to 17 years old. 

This came after £240 million in additional funding was announced in 2018 – suggesting that colleges could pay more to their staff. 

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said his members are facing a “very challenging economic climate”, off the back of a decade of funding cuts and “enormous inflationary pressures”. 

He said the strike action relates to “yet another year in which college funding rates did not increase at all. 

Despite this, the colleges affected have already made pay rises through further efficiency gains.” 

He added: “I am disappointed at the vote for strike action and particularly the plan to strike on dates when students are taking external exams – many of them for the first time ever, because of Covid.” 

Despite the fact students will be affected by the plans, the National Union of Students stood with the UCU, blaming colleges for ignoring staff concerns. 

“Employers are saying that they are willing to compromise student learning conditions and staff working conditions all to keep to their bottom line,” a spokesperson told FE Week. 

“The same education system that forces students into food banks exploits staff on insecure contracts, who have seen their pensions cut and real-terms wages dramatically slashed in recent years.” 

The NUS called on colleges to come back to the negotiating table and to stop “inflicting damage” on education. 

“The only way to move forward from this is to meet the demands of striking staff,” the spokesperson added.

College to trial four-day week

A college group in London will trial a four-day working week for English and STEM teachers in a move to tackle staff shortages.

London South East Colleges (LSEC) is believed to be the first college group to pilot the shortened working week, which is gaining popularity around the world.

It aims to make the prospect of working at the college more attractive by offering a better work-life balance with no loss of pay.

Further education is in the midst a teacher recruitment and retention crisis. An Association of Colleges report published in March found there were around 6,000 job vacancies in the sector – estimated to be the highest number of vacancies seen in two decades.

High levels of persistent vacancies were found in government priority areas such as construction, engineering, health and social care and science and maths.

LSEC is one of the many colleges struggling to recruit enough English and science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) teachers to meet high student demand.

College principal Asfa Sohail said that by introducing the option of a compressed four-day week, the college is “hoping to increase the number of potential candidates and secure the talent we need to continue delivering high-quality maths, English and STEM teaching”. 

She added: “As an organisation, we are committed to the mental health and wellbeing of all staff. Work-life balance and managing workload are a huge part of this – so we hope that offering a four-day working week will be an attractive option for many people.”

LSEC has 14 posts they’re looking to fill for the pilot, which will also be opened up to existing English and STEM staff.

Those involved will continue to work a full-time teaching post of 37 hours a week but spread across four days instead of five.

The pilot, which will start in September, comes after the Covid-19 pandemic led many businesses and people to rethink working patters in favour of hybrid and more flexible practices.

But the University and College Union is not yet sold on a four-day week in colleges. A UCU spokesperson told FE Week: “We have concerns about proposals to encourage staff to teach the same hours but in fewer days. To attract staff the college should cut contact hours and seriously address heavy workloads.

“Despite shortening the week, the working hours will still be the same, which may not help when workload is already sky high in the sector.

The UCU said workload, along with pay, is one of the major contributing factors to staff leaving the sector. Colleges should “look to pay staff properly and reduce workload, rather than simply tinkering with timetables,” the spokesperson added.

Sohail said LSEC is keen to explore further options for more flexible working across its whole workforce going forward – including home-based and hybrid support roles.

“We must support people’s changing lifestyle needs while meeting the needs of our business and, ultimately, our students and communities,” she added.