Two independent training providers face being struck off the government’s apprenticeship register after receiving ‘inadequate’ Ofsted ratings – but one is challenging the inspectorate.
The Chartered Institute of Housing is a charity and independent learning provider based in Coventry that runs apprenticeships for 198 people, in housing and property management at levels 2, 3 and 4.
Following an inspection of CIH’s apprenticeship delivery in November, Ofsted deemed the provider ‘inadequate’ in four out of five categories.
“The quality of education that apprentices receive is inadequate. In most cases, tutors and associates do not provide apprentices with the teaching and support they need to gain significant new knowledge, skills and behaviours,” inspectors said.
Ofsted said that many apprentices lose motivation for their apprenticeship over time due to the poor-quality training they receive. As a result, too many apprentices are making slow progress and withdraw from their programme.
“We are disappointed with the result of the recent Ofsted inspection of our apprenticeship programme, and we accept that we need to implement significant changes,” said Sarah Dunkerley, director of professional development at the Chartered Institute of Housing.
“We are disheartened that some areas of good practice were not reflected – such as our 100 per cent success rate, with 48 per cent achieving distinction grades.”
Dunkerley told FE Week that her organisation has challenged a number of findings from the inspection, particularly surrounding withdrawals from the programme as they felt this did not reflect the reality of the circumstances in recent months and years.
“Given the difficulties caused by Covid-19, the predominant cause of withdrawal over the past two years has been the pandemic, which unfortunately was not recognised,” she said.
“We are now waiting for a meeting with the ESFA to discuss further action. Our understanding is that we will be able to continue to offer our apprenticeship provision to those that we currently have on programme,” Dunkerley added.
Another provider, Construction Works (Hull) Limited, was deemed inadequate in three out of four categories after being inspected between October 12 and 14, 2021.
The company provides apprenticeships mainly in engineering operations and fabrication and welding across the city of Hull.
At the time of the inspection, there were 46 apprentices in training. Inspectors said that the provider failed to maintain the stronger aspects of the provision identified at their previous monitoring visit in June 2019.
“Temporary changes to leadership over the last 15 months have contributed to a significant decline in standards,” inspectors added.
Safety concerns have been raised at two independent specialist colleges for students with special educational needs, with inspectors at one finding that staff were recruited without knowing if they are suitable to work with vulnerable learners.
Following a monitoring visit at The Michael Tippett College in November 2021, Ofsted found that senior leaders and trustees did not have effective safeguarding arrangements in place.
The college caters for young adults aged 19 to 25 who have a range of profound multiple learning difficulties or severe learning difficulties. At the time of Ofsted’s visit the institution had 40 students.
“Leaders do not follow safe recruitment processes properly in order to ensure that staff are suitable to work with vulnerable learners,” inspectors said.
“Too often, staff do not complete the background checks thoroughly or follow up on employer references.”
The report also found that senior leaders, including some of the trustees, were not suitably trained to fulfil their duties in relation to safeguarding and Prevent.
“Consequently, senior leaders and trustees do not manage safeguarding concerns effectively. Leaders do not regularly review and update safeguarding policies and procedures,” inspectors said.
Ofsted said that the college’s safeguarding policy contained inaccurate information on designated safeguarding leads contacts and did not provide any guidance for staff on managing concerns of learners with the most complex needs.
“Consequently, the safeguarding policy is not fit for purpose,” the report concluded. Ofsted also raised safety concerns about Rotherham Opportunities College in South Yorkshire.
Inspectors said that leaders at the independent specialist college failed to ensure students knew about the risks of radicalisation and extremism, following a monitoring visit carried out in November 2021.
The college provides programmes to students with high needs who are between the age of 19 and 25. At the time of the visit, there were 37 students on a variety of courses.
“Leaders do not ensure that students know about the risks of radicalisation and extremism,” inspectors said.
“They do not teach students about these dangers, even though they are aware that their students are vulnerable and potentially at risk.”
Neither Rotherham Opportunities College nor The Michael Tippett College responded to requests for comment.
The first general FE college to lose its ‘outstanding’ rating since Ofsted lifted an exemption on inspecting grade one institutions has been revealed.
Blackpool and the Fylde College has received a grade two in its first visit from the watchdog since 2013.
‘Outstanding’ schools and colleges began to be inspected last term for the first time since 2010, after an exemption was removed last year.
The college follows other previously ‘outstanding’ general FE colleges – such as Walsall College and Havant and South Downs College – that were inspected following mergers prior to the exemption being lifted last January and are both now also ‘good’.
Ofsted previously said it expects fewer schools and college to stay ‘outstanding’ following the introduction of the education inspection framework in 2019. There are currently 29 colleges with the top overall judgement that are now in scope for routine inspection and 17 of those haven’t received a full inspection in more than a decade.
Blackpool and the Fylde College was teaching more than 5,000 students at the time if its inspection.
The college was graded ‘good’ in seven of the eight themes judged. But it was judged to be ‘requires improvement’ for apprenticeships.
The college was praised for how it helps students transition successfully into the world of work, and for how leaders have worked with employer partners to co-create its curriculum, which is aligned to local skills priorities.
Adult education programmes also “often transform students’ lives as they enable them to progress to further study or into employment”, while students’ confidence “improves markedly because of the support they receive from tutors”.
Ofsted said most apprentices do develop substantial new knowledge, skills and behaviours, but a “significant minority” of the 1,643 apprentices at the college “do not remain on their course or complete their apprenticeship programmes on time”.
Bev Robinson, principal and CEO of the college, said: “At Blackpool and the Fylde College we welcome all feedback as a means to further enhance our high-quality professional and technical education and training to ensure that all students and apprentices receive a rewarding learning experience that will enable them to secure meaningful careers.
“We continue to develop our support for students, apprentices and businesses across Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre and the wider region.”
A university that rapidly recruited almost 1,000 apprentices has been slammed by Ofsted for delivering graduate schemes rebadged as apprenticeships.
Inspectors found ‘insufficient progress’ in two of the three themes judged at Leeds Beckett University, which received its first report from the watchdog this week since beginning to offer apprenticeships in 2017.
Ofsted said one of its three business schools has developed a curriculum that meets the needs of employers and apprentices. But there is a “lack of understanding of the principles and requirements of an apprenticeship” at the other two schools.
As such, these schools have “not developed a curriculum beyond the degree programme” and are “therefore not providing sufficient training for apprentices to develop their skills and behaviours”.
Ofsted was handed powers to inspect level 6 and 7 apprenticeships from April 1, 2021. Before then, the inspectorate’s remit only extended up to level 5, while the Office for Students held responsibility for overseeing higher-level apprenticeships.
Chief inspector Amanda Spielman had voiced concerns multiple times that some universities were getting away with offering level 6 and 7 apprenticeships that are simply “repackaged graduate schemes”.
Ofsted said Leeds Beckett University – which has almost 1,000 apprentices mostly at level 6 in engineering, building and management – had ineffective governance over apprenticeship delivery.
Leaders do not identify well enough what apprentices already know and what they need to learn at the beginning of the apprenticeship, and they do not coordinate on- and off-the-job training effectively, according to inspectors.
Ofsted did, however, say that leaders have accurately identified most of the weaknesses in their apprenticeship provision and have plans to rectify them.
Academic staff are also “highly qualified and have appropriate industry experience to deliver their academic subjects”.
A Leeds Beckett University spokesperson said: “We accept Ofsted’s findings that while our apprenticeship provision clearly meets the needs of local and regional employers and delivers its degree content effectively, there are areas where we need to improve.
“We are urgently addressing those areas of concern ahead of a full Ofsted inspection, which will take place in the next 12 months.”
Another university, the University of Wolverhampton, had a ‘requires improvement’ full inspection report published by Ofsted this week.
The university delivers to more than 1,000 apprentices at levels 5 to 7. Ofsted praised the university for ensuring most apprentices who complete their courses develop the “essential attributes to succeed in their roles”.
But “too few” apprentices remain on their course or achieve all aspects of their programme “as well as they could in the time allocated”.
Nicky Westwood, director of apprenticeships and higher technical education at the University of Wolverhampton, said: “The university has put in place a full action plan in response to the recommendations of the Ofsted report.”
Some colleges have told students they should keep wearing face masks in classes, despite the government lifting its recommendation to do so.
Guidance for face masks in classrooms was brought back in January this year, with face coverings being recommended in communal areas since last November.
On Wednesday, Boris Johnson told MPs that Plan B regulations put in place to tackle the Omicron variant of Covid are to end.
This includes face masks in classrooms, which would no longer be required (with effect from yesterday), and rules requiring coverings in indoor communal areas would no longer apply from January 27.
While most colleges have announced policies in line with this new government guidance, some are still urging, and in one case forcing, students to keep covered up.
“Following yesterday’s announcement of the phased removal of Plan B measures, we are continuing to require all staff and students to wear a face mask in all corridors, circulation spaces, communal spaces and classrooms,” the City of Stoke-on-Trent Sixth Form College said in a tweet.
“Students without a mask will not be permitted to enter the college and are asked to return with a mask before entering the building. The usual exemptions apply. We will continue to assess these measures and communicate to explain any changes and when they will take effect.”
ℹ Following yesterday's announcement of the phased removal of Plan B measures, we are continuing to require all staff and students to wear a face mask in all corridors, circulation spaces, communal spaces and classrooms.
— The City of Stoke-on-Trent Sixth Form College (@SOT6FC) January 20, 2022
FE Week contacted the college but did not receive a reply by the time of publication. Other colleges took a less hardline approach, but still encouraged to students to wear masks.
Wakefield College advised students to keep wearing face coverings while Covid-19 cases remained high.
A spokesperson from Nottingham College told FE Week that as well as taking national guidance into account, they closely monitor what is happening locally, so they can implement measures to keep their students, staff and wider community safe.
“Taking all things into consideration we will continue to recommend the use of face coverings when out and about on our campuses, reflecting the excellent work we’ve done to keep cases to a minimum across the college,” the spokesperson said.
“This will not be a mandatory requirement but part of our ongoing cautious approach that has helped us keep all our onsite provision open and available to students during this period.”
One college, Oldham College in Greater Manchester, took a completely different approach and told students they did not have to wear masks anywhere on campus.
This was despite government guidance saying masks should be used in indoor communal areas for another week.
“We have informed learners they don’t need to wear face coverings in classrooms and have also stressed that anyone who wishes to do so, in any area, will be fully supported in their choice,” an Oldham College spokesperson said.
“Our campus is a series of many separate buildings with a wide mix of indoor and outdoor spaces, and with good ventilation. “That is why we are not mandating the wearing of face coverings in other areas and have made it optional for a period of just five learning days before January 27.”
General Secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, Geoff Barton, said Boris Johnson’s decision around the wearing of face masks in classrooms will be welcomed, if it is supported by sound public health and scientific advice.
Geoff Barton
“However, the situation in schools and colleges remains extremely challenging, with significant levels of pupil and staff absence because of Covid-19 as well as difficulties in obtaining supply cover because of high demand.
“We continue to be very concerned about the ongoing disruption to education and the lack of sufficient support from the government for testing, ventilation, and the costs of supply cover. This really does need to be addressed.”
One college on an awareness drive around labour exploitation was amazed at how many learners were being mistreated. Jess Staufenberg reports
“It was coming up to Christmas time and my work just stopped and I really needed money. Then one morning, he came and knocked on my door. He said, ‘I can give you good money, and good accommodation, don’t worry. Everything will be alright.’”
Raitis Darzins, who is 35, came to England to pick strawberries. He has a skills background in construction and mechanics, and while staying in Birmingham he found himself offered roofing work. “For me, it was like gold stars in my eyes. Big mistake.”
The man took Darzins to an isolated caravan. There was only a cold shower, no safety equipment to carry out the roof work, and Darzins got just £20 a day to work from 8am until 6pm.
“Every day I am hungry, hungry, hungry,” he tells me. “But I can’t say anything because I am thinking, he’s British and I’m an immigrant.”
In 2020, 10,600 referrals for modern slavery were made to the government. Of these, referrals of adults accounted for 48 per cent, with the rest – unbelievably – referrals for potential child victims.
The scandal was increasingly raised during Theresa May’s stint as home secretary, first through the Modern Slavery Act in 2015 and then when, as prime minister, May called it “the great human rights issue of our time”. Since the act, referrals have shot up, regularly increasing by a third or more year-on-year.
Workers with English as a second language are particularly at risk, with Albanian and Vietnamese nationals the second and third most likely to be referred. But UK citizens make up the largest nationality group for referrals, at 34 per cent.
“One night I escaped,” continues Darzins. “I lived in a tent in Birmingham for three or four months. It was better to be a homeless man than to be trafficked.” The man who exploited Darzins was never prosecuted, as far as he is aware.
It was better to be a homeless man than to be trafficked
Now experts on the frontline of tackling modern slavery, and other forms of labour exploitation, have turned their sights to further education as a crucial battleground against abusive practices.
Alison Gardner, who is associate director at the Rights Lab at the University of Nottingham and is leading the world’s biggest team of modern slavery researchers, explains why the sector is fundamental to enabling long-term change.
“Many of the students served by the FE sector tend to be those who are going into riskier professions, where there can be less regulation, wages are already low, and a lack of unionisation.”
Risk sectors include construction, personal and social care, health and beauty, agriculture, catering, tourism, factory work and events. Car washes and garment factories, as seen in Leicester, have also been exposed as hotbeds for exploitation.
Car wash
But the type of work matters more than the sector – low paid, low skill, high demand and short term – meaning agencies and temporary work are a key concern. Gardner has seen an uptick in workers employed by agencies, who are not always passed their full wage.
“There may be deductions from pay packets, unreasonable payments for travel and expenses, or for accommodation.”
Such labour exploitation could be modern slavery – defined by government as the “recruitment, movement, harbouring or receiving of children, women or men through the use of force, coercion, abuse of vulnerability, deception or other means for the purpose of exploitation” – or could include “poor and illegal practices” that don’t clearly meet the threshold for modern slavery, explains Gardner.
This includes deducting pay, not paying into a pension or national insurance, not putting employees on the right contract or no contract at all. The area is particularly grey where someone is on an exploitative zero-hours contract but is ‘choosing’ to take on that work.
The employer may even be doing everything right, but the worker is under the control of someone else, or another agency – which is why employers checking their supply chains is so important.
“There’s not a clear dividing line on modern slavery,” says Gardner. “But FE students and the courses they’re pursuing can be much more vulnerable to it.”
There’s not a clear dividing line on modern slavery
The hard-to-spot nature of labour exploitation makes it all the more important that colleges know the signs.
Frank Hanson is a former equality and diversity manager at Boston College in Lincolnshire, who is now head of prevention and partnerships at the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (GLAA), the government’s investigative agency for labour exploitation.
He contacted his old college, whose community includes many migrant workers, to propose a pilot in labour exploitation awareness last year. “Colleges know their local economy really well, which can help build community resilience,” he says.
Boston College, where a fifth of learners have English as a second language, agreed to deliver training on labour exploitation to 200 staff.
Kaley Boothby, teaching and learning coach, said staff were “quite surprised” by what they learnt. “They weren’t really aware. It wasn’t at the forefront of their minds at all.”
More alarming was when the college went on to pilot a new qualification with learners, from January last year – a level 1 in workers’ rights and labour exploitation, developed with the GLAA by awarding organisation Skills & Education Group.
In classes of about 15 learners (across plumbing, hairdressing and health and social care) on average four students would report experiencing exploitative practices or knowing someone who had done so, says Boothby.
“Learners quite frequently weren’t getting paid properly, were paid under the minimum wage or weren’t being treated well,” says Boothby.
Nail technician
The college delivered the ten-hour course in tutorials (nationwide it was piloted to 351 learners). Zac Lumley, a 17-year-old level 2 plumbing student, says he would rather labour exploitation was taught in college than left to students to find out about it.
“When you come from school, you don’t really know anything. You might need to get a part-time job, but you might get taken advantage of.”
He also learned to spot warning signs. “It told us about how people might be quiet and not mix with others if they’re exposed to things like that. It opens your eyes that people might need your help or support.”
According to an impact assessment of the qualification by Gardner’s team at Nottingham University, the percentage of learners who said they “knew a lot” about recognising labour exploitation rose from 15 per cent to 47 per cent following the course.
In one case, a student took the learning materials home to show his father, because he was worried he was being exploited, according to Kaye Jackson, head of relationship management at Skills and Education Group.
Students and staff from Boston College visit parliament to raise awareness about labour exploitation
Another FE provider taking it seriously is Route2Work College for learners with special educational needs in south Tyneside. Last year staff delivered lessons around workers’ rights and labour exploitation in employability sessions on Tuesdays.
“We did it because we know these learners can be more at risk and more vulnerable to labour exploitation,” says Georgia Smith, learning and standards project officer, who created a booklet for learners. Students can at first be “uncomfortable” about the tough message. “It’s just about being clear that it does go on.”
Smith is right to do so: learners with learning disabilities particularly worry Gardner, back at the Rights Lab. They are especially at risk of financial exploitation, but “currently there’s almost no consistent reporting of cognitive impairments among those people found to be exploited”.
Her team has now run a study with Nottingham City Council, due to be published soon, which found individuals with a cognitive diagnosis such as a learning disability, autism, memory loss or poor mental health, make up one-third of previously exploited people.
FE providers and employers should also check their own supply chains, urges Louise Gore, manager of the Equiano project, which supports survivors of modern slavery through Birmingham-based charity Jericho.
The charity runs a series of real businesses, and so rescues modern slavery survivors and gives them legitimate work instead.
“It’s really important organisations do everything in their power to eradicate modern slavery from their supply chains,” she says. “We know agencies who use agencies who use agencies, and the further down the line it gets, the harder it is to spot.”
Fruit pickers
If providers are concerned about something in their supply chain, or even a job advert, they can report it to the GLAA.
One employer taking the issue seriously is Kier Group, according to Gore. The construction and infrastructure firm, which has 12,000 employees – not including its supply chains – decided to train its 350 volunteer mental health ‘first aiders’ in modern slavery, so they could spot tell-tale signs while on worksites.
Doing an audit of suppliers from afar without being on the ground is not enough, says Sheryl Moore, social sustainability manager.
“It is a kind of abuse, these are people under duress, so the signs of struggling with mental health could be similar,” says Moore. “So that’s why it’s so good to train up the mental health first aiders in this. They can ask, are you alright? Are you really alright?”
All in all, it seems extraordinary that only a handful of colleges are switched on to the topic: FE Week reached out to five other colleges in areas with high-profile stories of modern slavery, but was told that no one led on the issue.
The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner’s office, set up with the 2015 act and led by Dame Sara Thornton, sees FE as a key player.
“Access to education can be a crucial part of a survivor’s recovery journey,” Thornton writes in this year’s annual report. But “survivors continue to face significant barriers to accessing […] further education courses”, with Brexit having the “potential to exacerbate these issues further”.
Thankfully, Darzins now has settled status. I ask him what he would like to do next. “I want to go back to college. My certificate is not English and I want to fix cars. I want to go to college.”
Trying to do the best by your child, and your class, often come into conflict with one another, writes Charlotte Marshall
One of the most rewarding jobs you will ever have is being a teacher.
One of the most rewarding jobs you will ever have is being a parent.
What happens when you have two great jobs but they don’t complement one another?
I absolutely love my job. I can talk about my subject, the books we are reading, the lively discussion; I can talk about the classroom; the posters I’ve put up, the artwork learners have produced; I can talk about my colleagues, their foibles, their funny stories.
I can talk about my wonderful job all day. It’s a great job and it is extraordinarily rewarding.
And I also absolutely love my child. I adore them and I can’t wait to get home to them. I could talk about them ̶ but I don’t. Notice the difference there? The present tense ‘can’, the future conditional ‘could’, the definitive ‘don’t’.
I can talk about my job and the things we do openly. You’ve probably worked out I’m an English teacher in a lively FE department.
From the second paragraph you wouldn’t be able to tell the age, gender or interests of my offspring. I can talk about work but I cannot talk about my child. It’s not possible because I worry about what that could lead to.
I cannot talk about my child
What we have learned as teachers recently is that you absolutely must keep your private life private. If you don’t, just wait for the memes about aspects of your private life to be created.
Wait for the TikTok videos to become viral or simply the student comments to appear in lesson. I even heard a student say they had found a picture of a member of staff’s daughter online, and thought her skirt was too short.
As much as I shout from every social media platform about being an FE teacher, people will often be surprised when they learn in a conversation that I am also a parent.
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could celebrate openly both our passions?
But we live in a kind of fear about revealing our home lives, and especially our most precious aspect of our private lives, our children, because students can choose to be unkind on the internet.
Another inner conflict you experience is around sick days. If you yourself are unwell, chances are you take some medicine and plough through.
But there is nothing that breaks your heart more than when your little one is unwell. Yet you feel torn, because who is going to look after the other 20-plus young people under your wing?
Who will make sure they get the attention they deserve?
There might be a cover teacher, but they aren’t you. Mum guilt vs teacher guilt. Somehow you’re destined to feel rotten!
Teachers are missing out on key milestones with their own children, writes Marshall
And here’s another way the two great loves of our lives come into conflict: holidays. I live on a county line, so my child attends a school across the border, meaning our holidays don’t align.
It’s hard enough being in FE where you don’t get all of the holidays in the ways that schools do, but it’s even tougher when you’re having to ask friends and family to watch your children while you work.
And it’s worse working through the half-term break, knowing that next week you’ll be missing out on the fun of the holidays. It’s rubbish!
One of the reasons that many people find themselves within the education sector is that it works for family life. But we need to talk about the ways in which the FE sector could do more to support parents.
We need more flexible working patterns, and we need to give staff time to attend nativities, first days at school and sports days. We also need to seriously tackle the problems with student behaviour online.
We are teachers, we are passionate about our jobs. We are also parents, we are passionate about our families. It is a match made in heaven when passion marries compassion.
Accepting students with T Levels is more complicated than it looks, writes Nick Hillman
There is just one objective of university admissions: getting the best match between applicants and places. Delivering this single goal can be difficult.
In pre-pandemic times, the job of university admissions officers was sometimes compared to landing a jumbo jet on a postage stamp. It is even harder now, due to soar-away grade inflation and record application rates.
One challenge is the multitude of level 3 qualifications, such as A-levels, BTECs and dozens of qualifications taken by international students. Nor is it a static picture, as shown by the current phasing out of the pre-U qualification and the rise and fall of Labour’s flagship level 3 diploma.
Now, the government wants level 3 BTECs, which are taken by around a quarter of a million students each year, to be largely replaced by T Levels.
In late 2021, ministers asked universities “to accept T Levels for entry to, at a minimum, all courses of study for which you currently accept other technical qualifications”.
But as FE Week revealed last week, not all universities have responded positively to this edict. This newspaper reported that less than half of all UK universities have confirmed they will accept T Levels for entry this year, with most Russell Group universities opting out. This is causing huge frustration for students and staff.
I share this frustration. Young people typically do not lack aspiration but they often lack knowledge on how to turn their aspirations into reality. So when some institutions are unclear if the new T Levels are an acceptable entry qualification, it is no wonder there is disquiet.
I have urged universities to ensure that they understand T Levels, and to consider these applications fairly. And when it seems T Levels will not provide effective preparation for a specific course, I have urged them to make this really clear too.
But despite the need for some institutions to do more, universities have been stuck between a rock and a hard place on T Levels.
Accepting T Levels now might look fair to applicants, but the situation is more complicated than that for at least three reasons.
1. The U-turn on maths and English
The rollout of T Levels has been far from smooth. In November education secretary Nadhim Zahawi abolished the requirement for T Level students to achieve GCSE-level English and maths by the end of their course.
This U-turn makes T Levels less effective preparation for higher-level study than was expected.
2. Possible drop-out rates
Universities will be rightly criticised if they let in more people who then drop out.
In the past, universities have been so flexible with regard to vocational qualifications that around one-quarter of students now arrive with BTECs. Yet BTEC students are twice as likely to drop out in their first year, according to research published last week by the Nuffield Foundation.
So it is not unreasonable for some higher education institutions to be wary about letting in students holding an untested vocational qualification.
3. Universities are autonomous
We have the best universities in Europe, because we have the most autonomous universities in Europe. That autonomy is reflected in primary legislation on admissions.
No one ̶ not even the education secretary or the new director for fair access and participation at the Office for Students ̶ can tell universities exactly who to admit. So policymakers would be better off using carrots rather than sticks.
Policymakers should use carrots rather than sticks
Ministers should discuss with universities whether there are enough resources to ensure applicants with T Levels will thrive on degree courses. In return, universities should, wherever possible, give the benefit of the doubt to those applicants who are T Level guinea pigs.
But in the meantime, it would be wholly premature to start shutting down the proven BTEC route.
Historically, education policy tends to go wrong when it is reduced to simple binary divisions, as with grammar schools and secondary moderns, or polytechnics and universities.
The idea that providing only two main educational routes for most young people – A-levels and T Levels – is a sensible response to the complexity of the modern world makes similarly little sense.
The HE sector needs to engage with the Department for Education and FE providers quickly, writes Mary Curnock Cook
New qualifications are always a challenge for university admissions practitioners, and it seems that the higher education sector has still to get its head around T Levels.
T Levels have been designed for a very specific purpose – they are aligned to occupational standards and aim to qualify holders for a range of job roles.
The policy objective was to develop technical skills for the economy and to encourage students to progress directly into skilled employment or to higher technical qualifications (HTQs) at level 4 and level 5.
T Levels are designed at level 3, which should also mean that they pre-qualify students to progress to degree level study (level 6) on appropriate courses.
However, given that they are large qualifications (equivalent in size to three A-levels) in a single occupational area, they will always have narrower potential to support entry to HE than the traditional three A-level subjects. Or even the broader BTEC and applied general qualifications.
And at a time when universities are under pressure from the government and the Office for Students to ensure that students should succeed on their chosen course, universities are being cautious before embracing T Levels in their entry requirements.
Nevertheless, last week’s FE Week story that only 80 out of approximately 140 mainstream universities had confirmed that they would accept T Levels is not a good look for the higher education sector, because it has confused and disappointed staff and students alike.
But it did not come as a surprise to me. Some universities will not have courses that fit progression from the first wave T Levels in construction, digital and education/childcare. However, they might be able to accept T Levels from the subsequent waves.
Some may judge that this technical qualification, which includes specialist skills and knowledge for specified occupations, is better designed for progression pathways other than degrees.
Others may want to work with FE colleges to design a level 6 top-up after students have completed higher technical qualifications.
And others – around 80 it seems – have clearly already signed up to recruit T Level candidates on to their programmes.
But while I understand why the list of universities and courses accepting T Levels is limited at this stage, there is clearly a lot more that universities could do.
The government must be much clearer about who and what T Levels are for
First, they should make things clear to T Level students – many of whom might have expected a wealth of HE course opportunities on the back of the fanfare about UCAS points being awarded.
Even while there are good reasons for some universities to exclude T Level candidates for the time being, there’s nothing to stop the higher education sector articulating its position.
This means students making their post-16 choices know which doors are open, which are closed, and why.
Second, if universities have doubts about the suitability of T Levels, they should engage with the DfE to ensure that future waves of T Level development take those concerns into account.
If T Levels successfully attract a significant proportion of level 3 learners in future years, universities surely don’t want to be excluded from recruiting these students where the progression pathway makes sense.
Thirdly, universities would do well to engage closely with FE colleges and other providers of first wave T Levels to get a thorough understanding of the curriculum, in the same way they did when BTEC Nationals started to become an important pathway to higher education.
This is vital to ensuring students not only get into higher education courses but also get on and succeed.
Finally, all of this would be easier for universities, T Level providers and students if government were clearer about exactly what and whom T Levels are for.
A qualification highly specified against occupational standards and clearly tilted towards specific job roles might never do well in supporting pathways to higher education.
Positioning T Levels as all things to all pathways is unfair to students when the choices they make at 16 are so critical to their future working lives.
