Ofsted’s 2020/21 annual report: FE and skills hit ‘particularly hard’ by Covid

Ofsted has today published its annual stocktake of education for the 2020/21 academic year, which saw inspection activity mostly put on hold due to Covid-19.

But reflecting on the year, the watchdog says the further education and skills sector was hit “particularly hard” by the pandemic.

“Many apprentices found themselves furloughed, or out of work altogether and the number of learners experiencing significant mental health problems or safeguarding concerns increased”, according to Ofsted.

While the report mostly provides commentary about the past year, it does also repeat some statistical analysis of the little inspection activity that did take place, which FE Week was first to report last month.

Here are the key findings for FE and skills from today’s report…

Apprenticeships ‘curtailed and job prospects limited’

Ofsted has shone a light on the “significant disruption” that Covid-19 caused to most students, particularly apprentices and those studying courses with a practical element.

Many “were not taught the practical skills and knowledge required to progress or succeed at the next stage” as provider and college doors closed during lockdown.

Apprenticeships and courses linked to the sectors hardest hit by the pandemic, for example retail, customer service, childcare and health and social care, were “least likely to be running fully”.

Ofsted says reasons for this varied. “For example, in some courses, learners had still not returned from furlough or learners were on a ‘break in learning’, and in other courses, employers were not taking on new work placements due to economic uncertainty or because of health and safety concerns.”

Some apprentices were unable to finish their course because they had been furloughed, their employer had ceased trading or because of Covid restrictions. Others had been delayed in completing their end-point assessment (EPA) as increased work demands meant they did not have time to focus on their apprenticeship. Some EPAs were cancelled, which led to a “sizeable backlog” in the system.

Around 80 providers that delivered apprenticeships lost their funding or closed during the year.

‘Disjointed’ curriculums surfaced

Ofsted says many colleges and adult community education providers assessed learners at the beginning of the autumn term to establish any gaps in their knowledge following the summer lockdown.

They then used this information to change curriculum content. Providers identified gaps in English and mathematics and in practical skills for apprentices, for example.

For “some”, having to “reorganise assessment and teaching due to restrictions, along with meeting learners’ different needs”, led to learning becoming “disjointed and the logical sequencing of the curriculum being disrupted”, inspectors found.

“This is likely to have hindered learners from developing and embedding new knowledge and skills.”

Heightened concern for learners’ safety and wellbeing

Providers reported to Ofsted that the number of learners with significant mental health problems had increased during the pandemic.

The watchdog’s report does not provide any data about this but says inspectors heard of increases in safeguarding concerns such as domestic abuse, county lines, knife crime and larger numbers of families experiencing destitution or needing to access foodbanks.

“Many” leaders referred more learners to local mental health, safeguarding or early help teams during the year.

Learners with high needs ‘severely affected’

Senior leaders in independent specialist colleges for learners with high needs, and in other providers that run supported internships, told Ofsted they are unlikely to see a “rapid restoration” of work placements and activities designed to promote independence for their learners. Many of these placements were run with the support of small businesses and charities that have closed during the pandemic.

Many learners with high needs found online learning “more difficult” and it was also “challenging” for providers to offer them an individualised curriculum.

Additionally, learners’ behaviour was “severely affected by the circumstances of the pandemic”. They “found it hard to talk to inspectors and were not able to work with other learners”.

Adult participation rate dropped substantially

Ofsted said that in the first national lockdown, between March and July 2020, the numbers of adults participating in learning declined by 44 per cent.

The overall adult participation rate declined by a further 11 per cent between August 2020 and April 2021.

Ofsted said this was due to a combination of venue restrictions, other learners being “prioritised”, the reluctance of some to return to face-to-face teaching and the difficulties some learners had accessing remote learning platforms.

And in many instances, the number of adult learners was low because job centres had only just reopened and begun mandating them to go on courses again.

Prisoners unable to leave their cells to learn

This year, Ofsted was unable to carry out routine inspections of prisons and young offender institutions but was able to carry out a number of remote interim visits and face-to-face provider monitoring visits.

Ofsted found that opportunities for prisoners to take part in classroom education stopped. Many prisoners were limited to in-cell work packs, with little feedback from teachers. In some prisons, these were not available until up to six months after the first national lockdown started in March 2020, meaning there was no education to speak of until September 2020.

Some prisoners told inspectors that, without a tutor to help them while working through the packs, they had to “turn the page” if they came across something they could not do. They found this “frustrating and demotivating”.

In September, Ofsted launched a prison education review with HM Inspectorate of Prisons.

Just 44 full inspections were carried out

During 2020/21, full inspections were only able to take place during the last three months, between June and August.

All of these were to independent learning providers, including employer providers, that had not previously been inspected.

Of these, four were judged ‘outstanding’, 26 were judged ‘good’, 12 received ‘requires improvement’ and two were judged ‘inadequate’.

But almost 230 new provider monitoring visits were conducted

In between the national lockdowns, Ofsted continued with new provider monitoring visits as these were “deemed to be the highest priority”.

Of the 229 visits carried out in 2020/21, just over three quarters (76 per cent) were judged to be making at least ‘reasonable progress’ in all themes. Ofsted said this was unchanged from 2019/20.

The watchdog judged 19 per cent to be making ‘insufficient progress’ in at least one theme, however – a judgement which typically triggers the Education and Skills Funding Agency to suspend the provider from starting new apprentices.

From the European Social Fund to Shared Prosperity Fund: ‘It’s a shambles’

Billions of pounds have poured into skills and education projects through the European Social Fund. Its replacement, the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, is set to go live in 2022 ̶ but is it ready?

“That money was an absolute lifeline, especially through the pandemic,” says Nickala Torkington, managing director of a not-for-profit which skills up unemployed women in Greater Manchester. “I’m really nervous about the move, and there’s not enough information out there.” 

We are discussing the European Social Fund (ESF), a pot of money from the European Union the UK can no longer access since the vote to leave the EU. The last funding cycle ran from 2014 to 2020, but because of some delays in Whitehall, the final tranches of money will run out between now and June 2023.

This means thousands of not-for-profits, training providers and further education colleges are staring down an uncertain funding future. Many staff recall using the ESF since the 1980s. 

‘UK got £4.4 billion in last cycle’

First, to untangle the jargon. The European Social Fund is one of the ‘EU structural funds’ the UK was eligible for as an EU member. It’s focused on unemployed adults and young people not in education, employment or training, and funds contracts for employment-related projects and vocational skills training.

It is almost entirely about resource spending on programmes – day-to-day costs – rather than capital spending. The other main EU structural fund is the European Regional Development Fund, which invests in enterprises. Skills and education organisations mainly accessed the ESF, say policy wonks. 

And access it they did. The Department for Education told FE Week that in the 2014 to 2023 (extended) cycle, the ESFA has contracted out £912.5 million of ESF funds for education and training – with £708 million paid out by October. 

Beneficiaries of ESF money training as gardeners

But that’s only the amount contracted by the ESFA; combined authorities and others hold ESF contracts too. FE Week has crunched the government’s “list of beneficiaries” who got ESF cash not via the ESFA from 2015, last updated in July this year, searching for colleges only.

That showed £130 million was awarded to colleges, for work that in total cost £233 million, thereby covering about 55 per cent of costs.

The remaining project costs are usually match-funded by the Department for Work and Pensions at around 50 per cent, or 60 per cent for “transition” areas that are more deprived, and up to 80 per cent in especially deprived areas, such as Cornwall. 

Just last year, college accounts show £32 million of ESF income in 2019-20 for 64 colleges, according to the Association of Colleges. Of those, 49 reported more than £100,000 in income and eight reported more than £1 million. This is not petty cash. 

That’s before we come on to independent training providers and other organisations. In 2019, 84 independent training providers got £232 million in ESF money, according to the Association of Employment and Learning Providers.

ESF was a “quite consistent” income stream for ITPs, who weren’t always successful in domestic funding pots, according to Rebecca Durber, AELP’s director of public affairs. 

Overall, £4.4 billion poured into the UK through the ESF in the 2014 to 2020 cycle. 

‘Bitterly disappointing lack of detail’

“It’s safe to say there’s a lot of concern over the transition,” continues Durber. “ITPs are very much in the dark about the details.” 

The transition is to the ‘UK Shared Prosperity Fund’. In 2017, the Conservative Party general election manifesto announced that a “community renewal fund” would act to prepare areas for the “UK SPF”.

The CRF offered £220 million to successful bidders from 2021 to 2022. It would then be followed by the UK SPF in 2022, which is meant to “reach around £1.5 billion” a year by 2024-25 and “at least match current receipts from EU structural funds”. 

It’s safe to say there’s a lot of concern

But there have been major teething issues with both the CRF and SPF. Four years after SPF was first announced, organisations tell FE Week the only details they now know is that the fund will sit in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and is in Neil O’Brien’s brief ̶ the department’s parliamentary under-secretary.

The only other detail is that £560 million of UK SPF will go on a new adult numeracy fund called ‘Multiply’.

But it’s not enough clarity.  

A recipient in Greater Manchester who set up her own cake business through ESF funds

Elizabeth Taylor, chief executive at Employment Related Services Association, a membership body, said her members were “bitterly disappointed” there wasn’t more detail in the spending review.

“The end of the European Social Fund is of real concern to the employment services sector – it’s been a major part of funding for decades,” she says.

Her organisation published recommendations in a report called Sharing Prosperity two years ago but she says few details have been forthcoming since then. 

Come and talk to us about the transition

The next hope for clarity is the Levelling Up white paper, which the government has promised will be published this year. It leaves just a few weeks to go – and providers warned FE Week they haven’t been consulted about the design of the SPF. 

“Come and talk to us about the transition,” urges Simon Parkinson, chief executive at the Workers’ Educational Association, adding: “The government must also look at current ESF providers now and identify those projects with a strong business case for continuation funding, so there isn’t a cliff edge.” 

In other words, the call is for ministers to find out what has – and hasn’t – worked with ESF. 

‘Bureaucratic but flexible and diverse’

One of the ESF’s best qualities was the range of programmes it would fund, says Parkinson. “The clue is in the title: ‘social’. The ESF funded a diversity of provision with a community focus. It’s important that isn’t lost to a replacement ‘skills’ fund.”  

The range of ESF projects is indeed broad. Take Calderdale College in West Yorkshire, which is listed in the government’s “beneficiaries” spreadsheet as getting exactly £1 million, running from January 2021 to June 2023, to “enhance equal access to lifelong learning for all age groups”.

Ebrahim Dockrat, director of commercial services and partnerships, says the college has secured more than £180 million of ESF income since 2007, to work with 28,000 businesses and 130,000 individuals, including a ‘rapid response’ redundancy support programme. 

The application paperwork was bureaucratic, says Dockrat, but the ESF was “much more flexible” than “other mainstream funding pots”, allowing the college to target missed groups and set its own strategies for engaging them.  

A confidence building programme for adults funded through ESF in Greater Manchester

This point is brought up again and again by providers – that the ESF involved too much paperwork, but mostly allowed a variety of approaches to engaging people, without demanding particular skills or qualifications as outcomes. 

A very different provider to Calderdale College is Flourish Together, a social enterprise in Greater Manchester, whose contract is administered through the Workers’ Educational Association.

Torkington, the managing director, has won four lots of £20,000 to help women set up as social entrepreneurs, but is worried she might not get SPF funding for her careers programme in holistic health and wellbeing sectors. 

“Because of the way the government sees employability skills, there’s a concern that there could be a narrower focus, into just sectors like construction.” Around 20 women handed up to £1,000 in ESF have then won further charitable or seed funding worth up to £50,000, she says.

The government needs to “see from the ESF what bang for your buck you can get from £20,000 if you scatter it to a diverse array of providers”. 

In Blackpool, a charity called ROC won £20,000 in ESF cash and managed to support 11 out of 16 people into employment through gardening experience. “Lots of other small grants are for other costs,” explains James Baker, garden development manager.

“The hardest thing to find money for is staff costs, and the ESF did that.”  

His words are echoed by Mark Cowling, a trustee at Third Space, a charity in Bolton which trains people in property renovation, whose funding runs out in 2022.

Cowling didn’t actually find the ESF too bureaucratic: “They wanted video testimonies as well as statistical records. It’s a resource to do, but it then means you’ve got impact data to communicate to other organisations.”

The contracts were also well managed, he adds, with payments arriving quickly after bid decisions. 

‘Community renewal fund not fantastic’

The same speed cannot be said about the Community Renewal Fund, according to those who won contracts for it. 

“The CRF commissioning process has not been fantastic,” warns Anthony Smith, development director at DBC Training, an ITP in the East Midlands. Organisations put in their CRF bids around April for decisions in July, with contracts to run from August 2021 to March 2022.

But decisions were delayed by three months, and deadlines are now in June. 

“But now for me the question is, how will the CRF truly inform the design of the SPF? They should be fine-tuning it it off the back of the CRF, but there won’t be time.” 

Calderdale College also won a bid for the CRF, but Dockrat warns: “The application process was overly bureaucratic.”  

Lessons from the ESF are not being learned.  

“The CRF is a case study of how not to do it,” summarises Stephen Evans, chief executive at Learning and Work Institute.

The SPF should also not pit bidding organisations from different areas to compete against one another, says Evans, as some areas could miss out. Instead, the government should use a formula to ringfence money for areas and “let local areas decide where the money goes and on what”.  

But the omens aren’t good. The Multiply programme specifies a skill – numeracy – and is UK-wide, ignoring devolved education powers. “The UK government is taking control and centralising things, rather than devolving them across the UK, and in England as well,” warns Evans. 

‘Lack of consultation or partnership’

Meanwhile, more questions remain: it’s not yet known who will administer the contracts ̶ combined authorities or chambers of commerce? Nor whether ministers will try to align the SPF with local skills improvement plans. “What’s the integration with this? There’s no synergy,” sighs Smith. 

Andy Churchill, chief executive of the Network for Europe, which supports organisations in the north-west to deliver ESF projects, points out that “a condition of ESF funding was partnership work. There’s been no partnership work or proper consultation about the SPF so far.” 

Of course, the biggest question of all is whether the SPF money will really be the same as ESF. FE Week asked the DfE whether the government is including its own match-funding in its projections of SPF, but was simply told “more details in due course”. 

A lot is resting on the leveling-up white paper in the next few weeks. 

“It’s a shambles,” says Churchill. “It really is.”

Let’s inspire learners with SEND to realise they benefit employers

Many learners with SEND are held back by self-doubt, writes Lee Dale

You are sat in a waiting room, scanning back over your notes, reciting your preparations quietly in your head.

You hear a clock ticking, a water machine quietly humming, then the ring of a phone on reception, “We’re ready for you, just through the door ahead, good luck!”, says the receptionist.

We have all experienced nerves prior to an interview.

For some, this is heightened even further by the daunting prospect of disclosing to their prospective employer at interview that they have a physical or learning disability.

The fear of rejection due to prejudice or discrimination can often lead individuals to choose not to disclose.

However, we would like to think that most employers are fair and, during their selection process, genuinely offering the role to the most suitable candidate.

For those supportive employers, the knowledge of a candidate’s circumstances can pave the way for supportive discussions around reasonable adjustments. They can also consider the benefits the individual can bring to their role, team and organisation overall.

The role of a training provider often extends beyond the core curriculum of a programme. We hold a social responsibility to actively promote and drive equality and diversity, where difference is recognised as an opportunity to contribute, rather than a detractor.

Working in a unique sector where employment is directly linked with education, we in FE are able to actively drive change through engagement with learners and employers alike.

Between 2013 and 2019, disability employment increased by over 1.3 million, according to the Office for National Statistics. And in 2020, the number of disabled individuals in employment continued to rise.

This is clear evidence that positive change is occurring amongst employers during the selection phase.

However, although the number of those in employment rose, the proportion of disabled people in work overall decreased.

That means there is a wealth of potential talent that is missing from the labour market, which would bring neurodivergent thinking and varied experience.

There is a wealth of talent missing from the labour market

Teams where everybody has similar experience and backgrounds stifles creativity and can reduce the potential for success.

A unique opportunity afforded to further education is to openly discuss this topic with employers that we engage with, potentially sparking change.

It could also open a potential talent pipeline that prospective employers could tap into, thus positively impacting SEND learners moving into full-time employment.

Further education establishments then have to consider learners themselves, by educating and supporting them to understand the rights they have, as well as recognising their own potential.

A key factor to succeeding in this is supporting learners to identify the areas of their SEND requirement that could positively impact in sectors they are seeking a career within.

Many learners can experience feelings of self-doubt, limiting their ability to reach their full potential. These feelings are often due to a lack of awareness of the support mechanisms available, or due to poor experiences within past education.

To ensure that every learner, no matter their background or circumstance, has the ability to achieve, our aim should be to have sound processes. These could lend themselves to positive discussions around the benefits of disclosure and support available.

For this to succeed, a genuine learner-centric culture, championing diversity and change, must be at the core of what we do.

At this point, I ask you, why did you choose a career in education? Passion for a subject you want to share? To make a difference?

This will take extra time, effort and focus.

But the amazing feeling of inspiring just one person to walk more confidently into that interview room, and positively promote their additional needs ̶ maybe that’s why you chose education?

Further education still needs more effective governance

We have developed a ‘governance maturity matrix’ to strengthen college boards, writes Fiona Chalk

Fraud, insolvency, and poor outcomes for students are some of the major risks of “non-mature governance”. Because of these, concerns have been raised by stakeholders, funders and regulators about the need to strengthen mature governance.

This includes FE Commissioner reports that have also expressed concerns about complex, non-transparent and ineffective governance. 

Meanwhile the fourth chapter of the Skills for Jobs white paper says the government will work with the sector to “level up standards of governance”.

This includes “setting out clearer expectations, requirements and support to empower weaker colleges to address problems earlier”. 

Similar to the concept of good governance, governance maturity possesses fundamental requirements. These include accountability, legal compliance, ethical compliance and effectiveness and efficiency of operations.

Previous research undertaken through the Further Education Trust for Leadership (FETL) on the topic of governance maturity in further education makes for interesting reading. 

It notes that despite inspection – or perhaps because of it – high-profile failures of FE governance appear to stem from docile rear-view governance. 

High-profile failures stem from docile, rear-view governance

This form of governance is overly concerned with a ritualistic preoccupation around performative regulatory mechanisms.  

So it was perhaps unsurprising that the ensuing FETL report supported the view that effective, mature governance is crucial. 

Extensive stakeholder conversations have revealed a consensus that any governance maturity matrix needs to address current issues such as sustainability, inclusion and digital. 

The matrix should focus on behavioural governance as well as procedural governance, and should have due regard for the fundamental principles in governance codes. 

So the Education and Training Foundation has developed a “governance maturity matrix” with support from Nottingham Trent University, The Good Governance Institute, The Skills and Education Group and stakeholders within the further education sector.  

The matrix is based on nine themes across three levels that represent the main building blocks of effective institutional governance.  

Each statement allows an assessment to be made against it and the matrix is progressive in terms of maturity from “fundamental” – the compliant board – to “advancing” – the skilled board.  

This matrix is a practical tool for reflection on current organisational performance against a range of indicators of good governance. It demonstrates how boards can develop governance to a level of maturity that makes it both impactful and sustainable. 

Boards can apply the matrix in various scenarios, including but not limited to:   

  • As an internal assessment tool on the effectiveness of governance  
  • As a tool for recruitment of governors  
  • As part of a skills audit 
  • To help shape a training and development plan for governance  
  • To inform management’s understanding of the role of governance in positively impacting on organisational performance 
  • Planning of the annual cycle of board work  
  • As part of an external review of governance

The matrix allows progress to be assessed in a nuanced, consistent and effective way over time.

A current assessment can be built on by setting a governance maturity target, which is the level of maturity the college would want to achieve within an agreed period.

The board can then put in place a developmental programme to facilitate a strengthening of institutional governance and leadership over a longer period of time.   

The matrix is available on ETF’s governance support page. Over the next year, the usage and impact of the matrix at a number of colleges (varying in size, location and complexity) will be monitored.

A review will then be undertaken to ensure its impact is maximised and that it remains current in a constantly changing policy landscape.

The government says in the Skills for Jobs white paper that “excellent college governors and leaders are pivotal to delivering high-quality provision and enabling their workforce and learners to succeed”. 

There is an increasing need in FE to quickly assimilate an effective governance model. 

FE can show HE how to support disadvantaged adult learners

A trusted adviser makes a huge difference to re-engaging adult learners with education, writes Abi Angus

New research recently showed us that disadvantaged adults are almost twice as likely not to have engaged in learning than their more advantaged peers. 

The findings from the Learning and Work Institute found 37 per cent of adults in the two least advantaged socio-economic groups have not taken part in any learning since leaving full-time education, compared with only 18 per cent of wealthier peers. 

One of the big barriers for disadvantaged adults is accessing higher education. 

At the Centre for Education and Youth, we have turned our attention to the experiences of adult learners in a recent project for the “Aspire To HE” partnership in the Black Country, based at the University of Wolverhampton. 

Aspire To HE found there was a gap in support for adults to re-engage in education. So we worked with these adults to carry out research and develop a ‘knowledge curriculum’ with corresponding resources, to help them re-engage.  

We undertook interviews and workshops with current and potential adult learners in HE and expert practitioners, alongside a review of existing research. 

This gave us a clear picture of the barriers to HE facing these adults, and good practice to improve access for mature students.  

‘Key role for FE staff’

Our research focused on identifying knowledge that adult learners need to be able to make informed decisions. The ‘knowledge curriculum’ sets this out, taking learners from considering courses that suit their interests, circumstances and career aspirations, through to application stage. 

For many adults considering HE, just knowing how to find information presented a major barrier. Many of the people we spoke to highlighted the key role that staff in FE colleges, widening participation departments and adult education services play.  

Some of our interviewees described the difference it made to be supported by a trusted adviser. One interviewee was about to begin a nursing degree: 

“It was [my advisor] who first explained [the process] to me, from the certificate that I need [for the course]… [what to do] if I don’t have maths and English, what I need to have, and this and that… She put me through, from stage one to the end [of the application process].” 

Others spoke about how difficult they had found applying without someone to talk to. One of our interviewees was just about to begin a degree, but had been delayed after enrolling on a course to gain qualifications for HE access that they already held. 

They believed that accessing tailored advice during the application process would have made it easier: 

“I wanted to go [to HE] because I always wanted to further my education. But because I was new in the [English education] system, everything was new. I didn’t know who to turn to or where to go.” 

Understanding HE processes can feel a daunting task. But FE colleges could ensure that at least one member of staff can provide the specialist advice that adult learners often need. 

Our research also identified a need for advice on finance, such as childcare costs, benefits, or grant and bursary opportunities, for example. Unless this information is provided, adult learners might see the cost of HE as a deterrent, as one current student explained: 

“I was concerned about the financial side of [HE]  ̶  paying for it. I think the access course was about £3,000. I just assumed, when I was told that, that I would have to pay for it and I thought, ‘Well, how am I going to pay for that?’” 

Access is not the end of the journey though, and our research also highlighted the importance of support within universities. While FE colleges often do well supporting adult learners, higher education institutions can assume that learners are all beginning from similar starting points ̶ failing to recognise social, financial and learning needs specific to mature students.  

So FE colleges are well placed to share best practice for supporting these learners with local HEIs. 

Policymakers should refocus energies on enabling adult learners to access HE. These learners deserve a far better deal.

The FE Week Podcast: Adult training reforms, degree apprenticeships and the new shadow education secretary

In this episode, Shane is joined by Mary Curnock Cook, chair of Pearson and former chief executive at UCAS, Eddie Playfair at the Association of Colleges and Asfa Sohail, principal at Lewisham College.

Are adult training reforms happening fast enough?

Are universities struggling to deliver degree apprenticeships?

And with a new shadow education secretary, what next for Labour’s skills policy?

Listen to episode 9 below, and hit subscribe to follow the podcast!

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 372

Sam Parrett, Trustee, Education and Training Foundation

Start date: November 2021

Concurrent jobs: Principal and chief executive, London and South East Education Group

Interesting fact: She is a family season ticket holder at West Ham United Football Club

Asfa Sohail, College principal and chief learning officer, London South East Colleges

Start date: Early 2022

Previous job: College principal, Lewisham College

Interesting fact: She has a pet cockatoo called Toby. He joined Asfa’s family six months ago and “behaves like one of my children: Always seeking to grab my attention – he is just obsessed with me and loves to talk”.

Debbie Filgate, Senior learning coach, WELL Training

Start date: November 2021

Previous role: Business and management specialist, Veolia UK & Ireland

Interesting fact: She became an educator after having previously worked as a barrister.

Top civil servant offers reassurance to T Level students unable to find placements

Students will be offered special treatment if they cannot undertake T Level industry placements owing to Covid-19, a senior Department for Education official has said.

This could mean students receiving a certificate for the qualification without having
spent any time on an industry placement.

The department’s deputy director for T Level delivery Stella Pearson told a Westminster Education Forum this week that there were a “small number of learners” from the first wave of T Level learners who are yet to find a placement.

But she said that there are not many providers with more than perhaps two or three gaps in placements and added that this was changing day-by-day. “We are obviously having a think about what we will do if there are some students who haven’t been able to get a placement because of the situation created by the pandemic.”

Pearson added: “We are clear that there will be no students who lose out on their T Level because of this situation that we’re in. It’s out of their control.”

Since her comments, a DfE spokesperson insisted data they have gathered shows “all” T Level students who started in 2020 “will complete the majority of their placement hours by the end of the academic year”.

They added that they expect the short-term measures introduced this year will ensure that all 2020 students undertake an industry placement.

Government needs to ‘rocket boost’ T Levels, Halfon says

Government guidance on T Levels states providers have the discretion to allow students two years after their T Level to complete any component of the qualification that is unfinished, namely the mandatory 315-hour placement.

Pearson’s comments have had a mixed reaction from the sector, with the Association of Colleges senior policy manager Cath Sezen calling DfE flexibilities, which also include allowing students to complete part of their placement virtually, “a welcome recognition of the current challenges”.

t level
Halfon

However, she called for flexibilities to be extended in sectors such as digital “where there will be more remote working in the future”.

Chair of the Commons education select committee Robert Halfon called it “disappointing to hear some of the first cohort of T Level students may not be able to fully complete the industry experience the qualification promises, especially if this has resulted from the disruption caused by the pandemic”.

This, he said, “highlights the need to factor in potential Covid-related contingencies when designing the practical elements of these qualifications”.

Halfon called on the DfE to “fulfil its ambition to rocket-boost the skills agenda by ensuring T Levels can work for every learner,” with a nation-wide team liaising with businesses to ensure employers in every region can support industry placements.

Pandemic has ‘exacerbated challenges’ of securing T Level placements

Exeter College principal John Laramy, whose college began delivering T Levels last year, told FE Week he “welcomes any additional strategic support as T Level numbers grow.

“Clearly the pandemic has exacerbated the challenge of securing sufficient high-quality industrial placements, made even more difficult in health, due to the additional requirements related to vaccinations.”

The fluctuating Covid-19 situation has impacted on the supply and running of industry placements and forced providers of the early years educator T Level to postpone placements for their students at the start of this year.

The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education introduced a flexibility around that time, reducing the minimum number of placement hours for the early years qualification from 750, already longer than the 315 required for other T Levels, to 415.

Suzanne Straw, education to employed lead for research organisation NFER, wrote for FE Week in July last year, that the pandemic had “intensified pre-existing challenges in securing industry placements,” exacerbating anxieties in the sector about accommodating them.

Higher technical education belongs in colleges – let’s prove why

A research project will build the case for colleges delivering higher technical education, writes Ian Pretty

Early this year, the government set out its intention to improve the level of technical education across the UK by publishing the Skills for Jobs white paper (often dubbed theFE white paper).

Within this paper, the government specifically points to improving the relationship between FE providers and employers.

This is so that skills delivered by these courses more closely match the deficiencies currently affecting the UK’s labour force and contribute to government ambitions of a high-skilled, high-wage economy.

‘White paper fails to pinpoint providers’

The UK severely lags behind comparable economies in the availability of vocational and technical skills. 

As a result there are fears that England’s place within the OECD’s rankings could suffer, if current trends continue as projected. 

Nevertheless, this white paper did little to address which providers are best placed to deliver the education necessary to bridge this gap. 

Increasing the provision of higher technical education at levels 4 to 5 is seen as a key means to address it. 

‘Graduates going back to study level 4’

Generally, courses at this level are more vocational in nature than those offered at level 6 (degree level) and often work in conjunction with employers to provide students with experience suited to specific industries. 

For example, while an engineering degree involves copious academic study, a level 4 course marketed at someone wanting to be an engineer may be specialised in a specific kind of engineering, such as robotics or electrical.

However, it would also teach the skills necessary for them to begin work in this area right away. 

There are increasingly reported instances whereby graduates of technical subjects go back to study at level 4 or 5 after finishing their degrees so that they can begin working. 

If students are forced to take up lower levels of education in order to become employed in these industries, it really does bring into question how necessary it is for them to complete a degree in the first place. 

There is also evidence that students who undertake these courses often command higher salaries than those who have completed undergraduate degrees. 

But systemic biases across our education and employment systems still make degrees the go-to path for those wishing to continue education past level 3 (A/T levels). 

Systemic biases still make degrees the go-to path

Consequently, most uptake of level 4 or 5 courses is among older learners, with 30 being the average age of students currently on these courses. 

‘We need an evidence base’

We agree with government that there needs to be a greater focus on higher technical education to support the needs of key parts of the UK economy. 

In our view, achieving this ambition is only possible if the college sector, particularly the larger college groups, play a core role in the development and delivery of higher technical education.

As a result, Collab Group has embarked on a substantial research project to build an evidence base to support this claim. 

This research will focus on pedagogical excellence, value for money, and how we can ensure effective destinations for those who complete these courses.

To build this evidence, we will be undertaking a substantial level of fieldwork within our colleges over the coming months. 

We are confident that the findings of this project will demonstrate  the capabilities of the college sector. 

The specialisms of larger colleges will be at the forefront of the elevation of higher technical education in the coming years. 

Furthermore, we believe these results will provide useful insight to policy-makers, employers and others as to where their focus should lie.