SEND review consultation may be extended as accessible versions delayed

Ministers are considering extending their consultation on plans set out in the landmark SEND review, following delays in publishing accessible versions of the documents. 

The green paper was launched at the end of last month, with British Sign Language and an easy-read version of the consultation promised by “early April”.

But almost a month has now passed, and the additional accessible versions have still not been published. This is despite the government having had over two years to prepare the review for publication.

Asked on Twitter by campaign group Special Needs Jungle about the documents, children’s minister Will Quince said he was “sorry” it had taken “longer than I had hoped”.

He said the team was “working as quickly as possible to make accessible versions available in the coming days”. 

Quince added today that he had “heard your concerns about accessible versions of the SEND review green paper not being ready and whether you’ll have enough time to respond”.

“I’m considering extending the consultation period as I want as many people as possible to take part. I will update in the coming days.”

The SEND review was delayed three times after first being launched in 2019. 

It was finally published on March 29, marking the opening of a 13-week consultation. 

Post-16 qualifications inquiry: 5 interesting things we learned from former education ministers

Former education secretary Lord Blunkett and former universities minister Lord Willetts gave evidence to MPs on the House of Commons education committee today, as part of its inquiry into the future of post-16 qualifications.

In a wide-ranging session, the witnesses were quizzed on degree apprenticeships, BTECs and getting the policy balance right between vocational and academic education. 

Here are some key take aways from today’s session:

16-18 ‘heading in the wrong direction’

During the session Lord Willetts claimed that 16 to 18 education is heading in the “wrong direction”.

This was because A-levels have become “extremely traditional” with the abolition of AS levels, which was a “kind of module”, while at the same time the government looks to make higher education more modular under the lifelong loan entitlement.

He said: “There is a contrast where there is the agenda at HE for modular learning now under the lifelong loan entitlement but at 16 to 18 we are heading in exactly the opposite direction. The AS was a kind of module.

“So we’re heading for extremely traditional A-levels, and only three of them, and done in a sustained way over two years with no opting of in and out. It’s a very different model, 16 to 18 is heading in the wrong direction.”

Blunkett added: “It was sad for me that there was only a handful of universities who fought to stop the demolition and abolition of AS levels, Cambridge was one of them, when we were moving in exactly the opposite direction of what everyone was preaching.”

Cash constraints will restrict degree apprenticeship growth

Commenting on calls from committee members for a massive expansion of degree apprenticeships, former universities minister Lord Willetts warned that cash constraints are likely to restrict their growth.

“If higher level apprenticeships on this model keep on growing, we’ll end up with exactly the same dilemma as we had with conventional higher education, which is the Treasury saying ‘hang on, this is very expensive. How can we fund it?’”

His warning comes after the National Audit Office reported in 2019 on the “clear risk” the apprenticeship programme was not financially sustainable, after the average cost of training hit double the sum the government predicted in 2015.

Willetts also made the point that with degree apprenticeships there were issues around disadvantaged students and access.

“There the uncomfortable evidence is that degree apprentices are less socially diverse than students doing the same subject at university, not part of degree apprenticeship. We know from Office for Students data that degree apprentices are more white, they’re less disabled, they’re more male,” he said.

Hard to reverse trend of there being higher apprenticeships done by older people

During the session MPs heard that there is a clear trend that apprenticeships are being done by older people at a higher educational level.

“I personally think it’s very hard to see that trend being reversed,” said Willetts.

“I think this is a change in the quality and type of apprenticeships, based on the big fact that to be an apprentice you already have to have an employer who has decided to take you on as an employee with all the rights and costs that go with them.”

He called for the expansion of traineeships, sometimes referred to as pre-apprenticeships, that doesn’t require the employer to take on young people as full-time employees.

“I would start with that to plug that gap rather than try to push apprenticeships back down to 16-year-olds and back down to level two. I think they’re heading in a different direction,” he added.

BTECs offer valuable niches

Robert Halfon told witnesses that when he talks to the skills minister or the department about BTECs, they say qualifications produce poor outcomes for students.

Halfon quoted statistics from the Education Data Lab which suggest pupils who take BTECs are more likely to be in employment by age 22 compared with those who take A-levels and that they earn £800 a year more on average.

He asked the witnesses “is this your view or are there too many BTECs, is it quantity over quality?”

Lord Willetts told MPs that the applied general qualification, of which many are BTECs, is well understood by employers and has got an employer focus.

He said that while there are issues with BTECs, you can try to improve them and make sure that quality with the qualifications is high.

“But saying after 40 years, we are going to close them down and shift to this new thing called T levels, is a high-risk strategy,” he said.

Willetts said that some BTECs are niche – citing stonemasonry as an example – but that some of these niches are recognised and valuable and ministers should be careful when they say there are “too many” of the qualifications.

Stop the standoff between vocational and academic education

Education committee chair Robert Halfon kicked off the session by citing a recent report from the Tony Blair Institute which argued for expanding the proportion of young people entering higher education to 60 per cent by the end of this decade and 70 per cent by 2040.

Halfon challenged the findings of the Blair report, noting that the Institute for Fiscal Studies said one in five students lose money by going to university and the financial returns for graduates are “often underwhelming”.

He also cited research by the Centre for Social Justice which said that a graduate earns less than on average five years after graduation, than a level five apprentice earns three years after completion.

“So should we be setting a higher target for university admissions when our current university system is misaligned with the needs of the economy, and fails to deliver a return on investment for many young people?” he asked witnesses.

His question was met with a gruff response from Lord Blunkett.

“Firstly, chair, I think there’s an absolute load of garbage talked in this area, there should not be a standoff between properly equipped technical and vocational education with high rewards and the future of education in terms of higher-level skills, which can be often obtained during one’s adult life and not just when a young person leaves school,” he said.

Blunkett explained that he appreciated the IFS statistics, but some of the statistics read out by Halfon were “highly dubious, to put it mildly”.

However, he acknowledged “we desperately need hands on technical skills, partly because of a million people going back to their original homeland in Europe following Brexit, partly because of the fallout of Covid”.

And he argued the UK government should invest heavily in technical and vocational education, including T Levels, maintaining high level BTECs, national diplomas and other high quality, advanced qualifications.

But he said: “Until we actually stop the standoff between vocational and academic and realise that quite often we need both… unless we do that in the new era with new qualifications and new ways of teaching. We’ll be miles behind.”

IfS: 1 in 4 poorer pupils could lose out under proposed student loan grade thresholds

Plans to deny student loans to pupils who fail their English and maths GCSEs could deprive around one in four disadvantaged learners of a higher education place, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned.

Setting a minimum GCSE threshold for student finance would also have excluded almost one in 10 entrants to education degree courses in the middle of the last decade.

It comes after the government’s own equality analysis concluded students with certain protected characteristics, such as those from black and ethnic minority groups and those with SEND, were “likely to be disproportionately impacted” by the proposed changes.

The think tank analysed the potential impact government proposals would have had on students who sat their GCSEs in 2011 and 2012. They focused on these cohorts so they could observe their degree outcomes.

The analysis found that almost one in four undergraduates from those cohorts who were eligible for free school meals at the age of 16 would not have been able to access student loans if a GCSE English and maths requirement was in place.

This compares to 9 per cent of state school pupils not eligible for free school meals, and just 5 per cent of private school pupils.

Bigger impact on black, Bangladeshi and Pakistani students

The analysis also found a GCSE requirement would have a “much bigger impact” on participation by black, Bangladeshi and Pakistani students than on white British students.

While around 7 per cent of white British undergraduates would have been affected, 18 per cent of Bangladeshi and Pakistani students would have been hit, and 23 per cent of black undergraduates.

The impact would be smaller if the requirement was two Es at A-level, rather than passes at GCSE, the IfS found. For example, an A-level threshold would affect only 5 per cent of undergraduates previously eligible for free school meals, while a GCSE threshold would affect 23 per cent.

The government says its reforms, set out in its response to the Augar Review of post-18 education, would  “ensure students aren’t being pushed into higher education before they are ready”.

Most lower-attainers still graduate

A consultation has asked for views on making access to student finance dependent on having either two Es at A-level or at least a grade 4 in English and maths GCSE.

The IfS did find that students who did not achieve the minimum qualifications at school had worse degree outcomes than their peers. But it also found that close to 80 per cent still graduate, with around 40 per cent doing so with a first or upper second class degree.

The think tank also warned that a GCSE threshold would have excluded around 9 per cent of entrants to education courses from obtaining student loans.

A DfE spokesperson said no final decisions had been made about reforms.

“Evidence shows that students with lower prior attainment are less likely to complete their degree and get a ‘good’ classification, and more likely to have worse employment and degree outcomes.

“The aim of minimum eligibility requirements is to make sure that only those who will benefit from it, go on to study at degree level, regardless of their background.”

Ofsted to review how it inspects FE and skills, new strategy states

Ofsted will review how “complex and diverse” FE providers are inspected as part of its new five-year strategy, the inspectorate has announced today. 

Inspectors will also visit every college in the next four years to assess how well they are meeting the skills needs of the economy in its renewed effort to raise standards. 

Ofsted has made a series of high-level commitments in its new strategy for 2022-2027 guided, it states, by a “fundamental principle” that inspection is a “force for improvement”.

The strategy encompasses Ofsted’s full remit across early years, social care, schools as well as further education and skills.

However, the strategy is silent on areas that were thought to be priorities for inspectors, such as apprenticeships and prison education. 

The chief inspector, Amanda Spielman, has said that the new strategy “takes account of the impact of the pandemic and raises still further our ambitions for children and learners. Ofsted’s mantra of ‘raising standards, improving lives’ has never been more important.”

Spielman’s strategic ambitions have been arranged across eight priorities for her organisation which include “right-touch regulation”, “making the most of our insights” and “keeping pace with sector changes”.

Keeping pace 

Referencing the size and complexity of the sector, and the growing number of large FE college groups, Ofsted’s new strategy states that it will “review” its inspection model for further education and skills, while not abandoning its education inspection framework (EIF): “We will, while retaining the EIF, review whether we have the right model of inspection in further education and skills, given the complexity and diversity of provision and the size of some individual providers.”

Today’s strategy also restates a commitment made in the government’s SEND green paper, published earlier this month, to introduce a new area SEND inspection framework. The strategy says this will “hold the right agencies to account for their role in the system.”

An FE Week investigation into area SEND inspection findings exposed common failings in local systems leading to a “cliff-edge” of support at ages 16 and 18 in many areas.

Meeting skills needs

Over the next four years, all colleges will be assessed on how well they are meeting the skills needs of the economy, Ofsted has said, under its strategic heading “inspections that raise standards”.

The strategy doesn’t say whether this apply to other FE and skills settings, such as independent training providers or adult education providers.

An “enhanced” role for Ofsted in making judgements about meeting skills needs is not new.

It was proposed in last year’s Department for Education (DfE)  consultation on reforms to FE funding and accountability.

DfE proposed a new “skills measure” would be part of a new “performance dashboard” for general further education colleges that measured how technical training offer matched local need.

That measure would, it was proposed, in turn give Ofsted and the FE Commissioner a steer on where intervention and support activity might be needed. 

The government has been quiet on its funding and accountability reforms since the consultation closed back in October.

The current education inspection framework already has provisions for inspectors to make judgements about how well a provider’s education offer is meeting local skills needs.

For example, the inspection handbook sets out how in order to achieve at least a ‘Good’ judgement for ‘quality of education’, inspectors have to see evidence that leaders provide a curriculum that is “appropriately relevant to local and regional employment and training priorities”. 

At the other end, the existing handbook tells inspectors to award ‘Inadequate’ for leadership and management if “the curriculum fails to meet the needs of learners, employers, the local community or local and regional economies.”

Today’s strategy document says that, as a result of assessing how well colleges are meeting skills needs, more colleges “will agree that [Ofsted’s] inspections and guidance help them better match their offer to skills needs in the economy”. 

Help boost apprenticeship starts among young people and fix the drop-out rate, skills minister tells IfATE

The skills minister has told the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to help boost apprenticeship starts among young people, including by reviewing level 2 and 3 programmes to ensure they “meet the needs of career starters”.

Alex Burghart (pictured) has also instructed the apprenticeship quango to address “issues” within its remit that are leading to the high drop-out rate, as well as to help improve achievement rates.

Burghart’s tasks appeared in new “strategic guidance” issued to the institute today.

It comes a month after the skills minister told FE Week’s annual apprenticeship conference the government “must” increase the number of young people starting apprenticeships.

Apprenticeship starts among young people have been steadily decreasing since the government’s levy reforms in 2017.

In 2018/19, under 19s made up 24.8 per cent of all starts, this dropped to 23.6 per cent in 2019/20 and in 2020/21 it fell to 20.3 per cent.

In a letter to IfATE chief executive Jennifer Coupland today, Burghart said: “The department is aiming to increase participation by young people in all levels of apprenticeships. I would like the institute to support the department with this, including in its work on mapping progression routes.”

Jennifer Coupland

In 2022-23 he wants the institute to review “availability” of level 2 and level 3 standards and “consider whether the current offer meets the needs of career starters across all sectors”.

The institute should also “explore and make proposals to the department on how some standards might be flagged as particularly suitable for career starters, so that young people, employers and providers are much clearer about their potential”.

Burghart is also seeking the institute’s assistance in addressing the high drop-out rate in apprenticeships which is concerning ministers, and boost the achievement rate.

Data published by the DfE in March showed that only 53 per cent of apprentices on the new-style standards stayed on their programme until their end-point assessment in 2020/21 – meaning that 47 per cent dropped out.  

The figure was even worse in 2019/20 when 53.4 per cent of apprentices on standards dropped out.

Meanwhile, the overall achievement rate for all apprenticeships hit 57.7 per cent in 2020/21. The achievement rate for 2019/20 stood at 57.5 per cent.  

For 2020/21 the achievement rate on standards was just 51.8 per cent, while in 2019/20 it was 45.2 per cent.  

Former skills minister Gillian Keegan ordered an investigation into the “astonishingly” high drop-out rate for apprenticeship last year.

Burghart said today that by 2024-25 the institute is expected to have reached a position where it has “addressed issues within the scope of its remit regarding occupational standards associated with high levels of withdrawals; and has successfully worked with the department and the Quality Alliance to identify and support the improvement of achievement rates across the range of levers collectively available”.

In response to the letter, Coupland said: “I’m delighted that the minister has recognised the impressive progress made by IfATE and the vital role we will play with creating a unified skills system that delivers for everyone.

“To ensure quality, the new skills system must all be based on standards set by employers and be easier for learners and employers to understand and navigate. Supporting more young people from diverse backgrounds into rewarding careers, pushing up achievement rates, and ensuring entry level training supports social mobility are all areas we are fully committed to.”

The FE Week Podcast: Is there a device crisis in FE?

Is device use seriously negatively affecting student learning?


How can devices be used well?


And what is the situation with device poverty?

In this episode, The FE Week Podcast looks at the use of phones, tablets, laptops, social media and more among students and staff – from all angles of the debate.

Tune in with education journalist Jess Staufenberg as she chats to psychologists, staff and students on the frontline as they spill the beans and shine a light on this big, under-discussed topic in FE.

Deadline to claim apprenticeship cash incentives extended by 5 days

The deadline for employers to claim £3,000 cash incentives for hiring new apprentices has been extended by five days.

Businesses will now have until Friday May 20 instead of Sunday May 15 to get their claims in.

The Education and Skills Funding Agency told FE Week the change has been made in response to customer complaints that the deadline was on a weekend.

A spokesperson also issued a reminder that it is employers’ responsibility to “apply for the incentive before the deadline otherwise they will not be eligible to receive the payment”. 

The cash incentives were first introduced by chancellor Rishi Sunak in August 2020 to help boost starts after a huge drop was caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Firms were initially offered £2,000 to take on apprentices aged 16 to 24, while those that employed new apprentices aged 25 and over were paid £1,500. Incentives were increased to £3,000 for all apprentices in February.

Employers can only apply for apprentices with an employment start date from October 1, 2021, to January 31, 2022. They will also need to have an apprenticeship start date from October 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022.

Latest ESFA data shows that as of March 8, 2022, a total of 179,450 claims for the cash bonus had been submitted by employers.

Of the total, 77 per cent (139,010) of claims were for 16- to 24-year-olds and 83 per cent (148,943) were for level 2 or 3 apprenticeships.

Sector leaders have hailed the success of the incentives in boosting the number of starts and called for the cash bonuses to be extended, but the Treasury and ESFA have resisted doing so.

Here are 3 urgent ways T Levels still need reforming

Everything from too-strict entry requirements to the exams timetable are stopping T Levels from working on the ground, writes Vernon Shaw

T Levels need urgent reform if they are to become the option of choice for the majority 16-19-year-olds who want to progress into skilled employment or higher technical education. 

At the moment, T Levels pose providers like mine significant delivery challenges around the size of the qualification, assessment requirements and industry placements.

Here are the three key reforms I would like to see for my students:

1.      Reduce and standardise the size of the qualification

T Levels are different sizes and many are too large. The two-year programme must be standardised at no more than 1,300 guided learning hours for the technical qualification, including employability, enrichment and pastoral hours.

Instead, the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education gave too much freedom to employer panels to set guided learning hours for their technical qualifications, resulting in large variations in size.

So for example, the education and childcare assisting teaching T Level amounts to 844 total guided learning hours. But the engineering and manufacturing design and development T Level amounts to 1,360.

This means T Level learners are required to commit more hours to study than their peers on certain study programmes. 

That also impacts students who need part-time employment to finance themselves, or who have caring responsibilities – in other words, socially disadvantaged students.

There is also an inequality in how the UCAS tariff affects T Levels. Regardless of size, they attract the same UCAS points. This inequality also exists between T Levels and alternative level 3 qualifications and A-levels.

Providers also face real challenges when timetabling the current guided learning hours into the academic year and accommodating a 315-hour industry placement.

This often results in part of the placement taking place during holiday periods, further disadvantaging some learners.

2.      Modularise technical qualification core assessment

Providers need more flexibility to develop T Level delivery plans that work for students and employers.

Many providers deliver the core learning in year 1 followed by the occupational specialism learning in year 2.

In term three of year 1, students sit both examinations, typically 2.5 hours each, and complete the employer set project.

But this is too soon for many students who would previously have been enrolled on an applied general, such as a BTEC level 3 extended diploma.

Staff can only continue to be successful at developing students over two years if the qualification enables this.

Modularisation would open up T Levels to adult learners

Separating the exams and the employer-set project into three modules alongside additional assessment windows would allow providers to stagger assessments, improving the sequencing of learning. 

Meanwhile, providers have set entry requirements for T Levels that are closely aligned to those for A-levels and significantly higher than level 3 applied generals.

This is typically five GCSEs at grades 9-4 including English and maths, with additional requirements around science and maths grades for STEM T Levels. This limits access to T Levels for 16-year-olds and progressing level 2 students.

Ofqual chief Jo Saxton also recently suggested that there should be a T Level the size of two A-levels so students could do a T Level with something else.

Modularising them would facilitate this and also open up the qualification for adult learners.

3.      Alternative industry placement model

Providers are unable to generate the volume of industry placements required for the full rollout of T Levels.

The industry placement has to remain at the heart of all T Levels, but there needs to be a viable interim model while employer relationship and capacity building takes place.

Flexibilities, such as the fact that placements can be at route and remote working is allowed, need to go further if T Levels are to become the main post-16 option for technical education.

Reducing the placement to a minimum of 4 weeks would result in more placement opportunities and would still be long enough to develop essential sector employability skills.

An integrated work-based project contextualised around the employer and sector could supplement a reduced industry placement, providing an autonomous learning experience similar to the Extended Project Qualification.

T Levels are now at a critical juncture. They require urgent changes to prevent them becoming niche qualifications and a barrier to social mobility.

Views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily represent an official policy position of the author’s employer.

Scrapping smaller level 2 qualifications would be a national disaster

Many of the small qualifications the government wants to scrap are the best stepping stones for vulnerable individuals, warns Adrian Grove

The announcement last month of a consultation on technical and academic qualifications at level 2 and below has sent shockwaves across the further education sector.

Claims that the current offering is “too crowded”, with multiple courses covering the same or similar subjects, is extremely short sighted.

Whoever has drawn these conclusions has failed to recognise the range of abilities and experiences of those candidates typically accessing level 2 education.

Put simply, scrapping level 2 qualifications would be a disaster on a national scale.

These qualifications represent the first rung of the career ladder for many people. Why would you take that first step away?

Do those in Whitehall only consider achievement at GCSE level to be the first step?

What about those students for whom GCSEs don’t work?

Should these candidates not access education and opportunity in another way?

Should they really remain unqualified and unemployed instead?

It seems baffling that we must even ask these questions in 2022, when accessibility should be top of the agenda.

It seems baffling we must even ask these questions

Level 2 qualifications allow many individuals a chance to develop their skills from an accessible starting point. This is the place from which these candidates can develop the necessary basic skills and knowledge to gain employment.

The Department for Education proposes a cut of nearly 3,700 level 2 qualifications from the current 8,000 available. Such large-scale reforms will deny entry-level opportunities to learn, train and enter the workforce to thousands of people, of all ages.

It is said that the cuts will remove “the smallest qualifications, where they are unlikely to be able to provide a student with the knowledge, skills and behaviours contained in a relevant employer-led standard, or to provide them with broad content relevant to an occupational route”.

However, the smallest qualifications hold the greatest power as stepping stones for those who may have struggled with formal education in the past.

Whether it was difficulty concentrating or participating in a traditional classroom environment, additional learning needs, difficult personal life, mental health conditions or for any other reason, many individuals find themselves in need of education from the ‘beginning’.

It is these ‘small’ qualifications that may be the key to unlocking job opportunities for those who are too anxious to handle job interviews or phone calls, or who struggle with maths or literacy skills.

This means that the ‘bigger’ qualifications that the government wants to keep are too much of a step up for these candidates.

So a workable alternative for these individuals should be provided. Meanwhile, the restriction of accessible education opportunities in such circumstances may be considered, in my opinion, discriminatory.

It also follows that these level 2 qualifications have a positive impact on lifting people out of poverty. For those who want to work but who cannot access the level 3 courses, provision must be made for training. 

It is in the government’s interest to encourage and support people into work, and this is the first step for many into a sustainable career ̶ and later, level 3 training when appropriate. Level 2 provision is therefore crucial in reducing pressure on the benefits system.

The impact on the UK workforce if these first rungs of the career ladder are removed will certainly be felt, particular as many entry-level jobs are struggling to recruit post-Brexit and post-pandemic.

Not only this, but the gap between the qualified and unqualified workforce will leave a severe impression on social mobility and a knock-on effect of increasing the national adult skills gap over time.

The deadline for responses is next week. It is clear to me that this is about as far from the prime minister’s levelling-up pledge as we can get.