Latest news from FE Week | FE Week

Owner of defunct awarding body demands Ofqual repays £115,000 fine

The boss of an awarding body that fell victim to a high-profile case of qualifications fraud is threatening to take Ofqual to court unless it repays a £115,000 fine.

Industry Qualifications (IQ) Ltd’s board dropped an appeal following an investigation from the qualifications regulator in 2019 due to spiralling legal costs that led to the firm paying the six-figure sum.

But the decision was made without the blessing of IQ’s owner, Raymond Clarke, who suffered two strokes in 2017 because, he claims, of the stress of Ofqual’s pursuit. This left him paralysed and unable to work.

Clarke has now reignited the case after recovering to a stage where he feels fit enough to challenge the regulator again. He claims Ofqual’s investigation was carried out despite conflict of interest concerns and alleges there was “manufactured evidence” against his firm.

He also claims to have a stronger case now because IQ was censured for offering free appeals to students caught up in the scandal – an approach that Ofqual adopted during the recent A-level fiasco.

Clarke wrote to the regulator last month demanding repayment of the £115,000 by March 30, and warns that he will also set out a case for damages to his health and the fact that IQ went bust as a result of Ofqual’s investigation.

A spokesperson for Ofqual refused to comment on Clarke’s claims but told FE Week IQ was fined for breaching the regulator’s rules and that it took regulatory action to “protect learners”.

Case sparked by undercover sting operation

Ofqual’s inquiry into IQ began in March 2016, a year after one of the training provider’s it awarded – Ashley Commerce College, in Ilford – was subject to an undercover BBC investigation that alleged staff were prepared to sit exams for students training to work as security guards.

IQ revoked 251 level two and three door-supervision and CCTV surveillance qualifications it certificated in 2015 following the BBC’s exposé.

Ofqual’s report said that IQ had failed to “identify the potential for conflicts of interest to arise” or to manage any such conflicts when it approved the college to deliver its qualifications.

The head of the college was also an assessor and moderator for IQ qualifications and had a financial interest in the provider “such that it was in his interest for learners to pass assessments”, the report said.

The awarding organisation’s monitoring of the college was deemed “defective” as IQ had “failed to recognise” the proportion of learner work reviewed by its external verifier was “substantially less” than was required by IQ’s policy, the report added.

Ofqual accused of institutional corruption

Clarke, in his new letter to Ofqual, claims the regulator was “institutionally corrupt” in its pursuit of enforcement action against IQ.

Among a list of complaints, he alleges the “vengeful” regulator failed to manage conflicts of interest because the person responsible for leading the investigation had been the subject of a previous complaint by his awarding body.

He claims the investigation team also planned to use “false” allegations made by a whistleblower in the case, which showed IQ exam papers were being distributed online before they were sat by students. Clarke said Ofqual was going to use this as evidence of an organisation which “was not learning and is consistently failing”.

Clarke also takes issue with Ofqual’s annual report from 2017 which cited the enforcement action being taken against IQ prior to the conclusion of the case, which he says was “unfair and prejudicial”.

His main new complaint is that IQ was “heavily censured” by the enforcement team for offering free appeals to “manage any potential adverse effects” for students who had their certificates withdrawn following the BBC investigation.

Ofqual allegedly stated at the time that this breached the conditions of approval but then went on to adopt “an identical approach during the recent A-level fiasco, evidencing double standards and a lack of clarity in the conditions of approval”, Clarke said.

He told FE Week: “If Ofqual doesn’t repay the fine, I will go to the Civil Service Commission, and the parliamentary ombudsman. We’ll then look to court if we need to.”

The FE white paper has galvanised support for the sector

The government still needs a national strategy but there are positive signs, writes David Hughes

A year on from the publication of the Skills For jobs white paper is a good time to reflect on any progress made since.

At the time, I was one of many who welcomed the white paper because it affirmed the central place that skills and colleges had achieved in the government’s plans for recovery from the Covid pandemic and for the long-term success of the nation.

A year later, with the pandemic still having a major impact on life and work and with a new education secretary, it is heartening to see that central place maintained, and indeed built upon over the year.

The skills bill has been a key focus for parliamentarians over the course of the year, with many more senior MPs and peers now informed advocates for the sector.

The chancellor’s autumn spending review also gave skills a prominent place – strongly in the rhetoric, perhaps less so in the substance for adults, but very much so for young people. This was one of the key ‘wins’.

The white paper specifically set out to achieve three things.

First, a new system of lifelong learning, which works for everyone. Second, a more empowered and collaborative skills system, freed up to meet needs, not controlled from Whitehall. And third, a more strategic relationship between providers and employers.

Unsurprisingly, it is too early to judge whether these will be fully achieved. But there are positive signs.

Colleges are working together in many areas of the country, with government funding, to agree higher level skills priorities. They are collaborating on stimulating demand and helping create a more joined-up offer to communities and to employers.

Meanwhile, employer organisations are developing the first local skills improvement plans (LSIPs) in partnership with colleges, working hard to engage employers and assess needs.

Put together, these changes could lead to a clear, strategic and pivotal role for colleges in local economic development, business innovation and skills delivery.

I say “could” because it is early days and there are risks. It would be a disaster, for instance, if an LSIP was simply presented to colleges as a wish list of skills and qualifications demanded by employers – we know that will not work.

The promise of a simpler system for funding and accountability is a critical element of this reform but perhaps the most difficult to achieve in a complex sector.

Other major challenges include getting the balance right between immediate skills issues and the longer term, and recruitment difficulties about pay and conditions versus those driven by skills shortages.

There are, of course, gaps in the reforms that we have been highlighting all year, not least through parliamentary debates on the skills bill.

We want to see an overarching national strategy for skills. This would help set the framework for policy, including LSIPs. We also want to see funding which supports national priorities, and which holds the government to account for its skills policies.

A second key gap is how we ensure that education and training is a realistic option for everyone. That means better student maintenance at lower levels and more freedom for people on universal credit to access courses.

I remain optimistic about the direction of travel

The third and most worrying gap, though, is that the white paper has focused mostly on level 3 and above, at the expense of the rest of the system, overlooking people who need basic literary, numeracy, ESOL and digital skills as well as levels 1 and 2.

We have seen the funding for this plummet over the past decade.

I remain optimistic about the direction of travel and have witnessed across the year how Department for Education officials as well as ministers have endeavoured to involve college leaders in the reform discussions. Long may it last.

But more than anything, we need to use our moment in the spotlight to keep winning over more advocates and supporters.

DfE keeps T Level placement capacity proof a secret to protect policy ‘safe space’

The government has refused to share evidence that it alleges will prove there will be enough T Level industry placements as the programme grows to tens of thousands of students.

Releasing that information would, in their words, “intrude” on the policymaking “safe space” which should be “sheltered from external distractions”.

Officials are also concerned that releasing the modelling would lead to the setting of a public target for the number of T Level students in each year of the rollout, something they are adamant they will not do.

A former adviser to multiple skills ministers criticised the secrecy, especially as the government continues with its plans to remove funding for most competing qualifications at level 3, such as BTECs, on the basis that T Levels will be a success.

But another ex-top DfE civil servant has backed the department, saying the reasoning is “understandable”.

Education secretary Nadhim Zahawi told FE Week in November he had seen evidence that shows enough employers will offer substantial 45-day work placements to tens of thousands of students each year when T Levels are fully rolled out.

His claim came amid concern from some college leaders who are delivering the first T Levels that they can’t find enough placements now for their small number of learners.

After an initial refusal from the DfE to share the modelling, the department has now rejected a freedom of information request from FE Week.

In its response, the DfE admitted there was a “general” public interest in being able to see if ministers are being “briefed effectively on the key areas of policy the department is taking forward”.

However, it deemed it more in the public interest to withhold the information to ensure the “formulation of government policy and decision-making can proceed in a self-contained, ‘safe space’ to ensure it is done well, sheltered from external interference or distractions.

“Without protecting the thinking space and the ability for ministers and senior officials to receive free and frank advice, there is likely to be a corrosive effect on the conduct of good government, with a risk that decision- and policy-making will become poorer as a result,” the DfE said.

Ed Reza Schwitzer, who worked in the DfE for six years in a variety of senior roles before becoming an associate director at public policy think tank Public First, defended the department’s refusal. “Whilst it is frustrating when ministers cite evidence that their departments are then unwilling to provide, it is understandable that officials have made this judgement,” he told FE Week.

“After all, it is vital that officials are able to advise ministers on deliverability of government policy honestly – and this would not be possible if such advice was made public.”

But Tom Richmond, a former adviser to two skills ministers, criticised the secrecy. “If the government removes funding for other level 3 qualifications, only for T Levels to stumble because they cannot secure enough placements, then the stability of the whole 16-to-19 system will be put at risk,” he said.

“On that basis, civil servants should be trying to reassure the sector with their supposedly robust evidence on the viability of compulsory work placements instead of keeping everyone in the dark.”

The DfE is also concerned that the release of industry placement modelling would “undoubtedly have the effect of setting a public target for the number of T Level students in each year of rollout”.

Such a target “would be likely to lead to both providers and government prioritising T Level student numbers above other factors, for example, the quality of courses being offered, which would be to the detriment of students studying these qualifications”.

The DfE has previously been criticised for shying away from setting T Level targets, including by Conservative MP and former skills minister John Hayes.

Jon Yates, who advised then education secretary Damian Hinds when he was developing T Level policy, questioned the reliability of any industry placement modelling. “In this case you’re asking people if they might take part in something they haven’t thought about, heard of, or know anyone who’s done it,” he said.

“It’s responsible to survey people here, but it’s probably about as reliable as asking people in February 2020, ‘would you support a national lockdown if there was a coronavirus?’”

T Levels began to roll out in 2020 and to date almost 7,000 students have enrolled.

Finalists announced for the 2022 AAC Apprenticeship Awards

The national finalists for this year’s FE Week and AELP AAC Apprenticeship Awards have been revealed.

The awards, now in their fifth year, are a celebration of the very best in apprenticeship delivery and provide well-deserved recognition for the people, teams and organisations that make excellent apprenticeships happen.

A record-breaking 370 entries were received from training providers, colleges, universities and employers and we can now reveal the worthy finalists going forward to the national awards ceremony in March.

Shane Mann, managing director of FE Week’s publisher Lsect, said: “We have once again been blown away by the quality of nominations and especially of this year’s finalists.

“It’s been an incredibly challenging couple of years for apprentices, employers and providers, so to be able to return to in-person celebrations this year feels extra special.

“The ingenuity, creativity and care taken by our finalists to give apprentices the best experience possible throughout the pandemic has been inspirational. I can’t wait for the entire apprenticeships sector to come together this March to mark their exceptional work.”

This year’s awards, in association with NOCN, will feature 23 categories, including the illustrious apprenticeship provider of the year, which will be won by either Manchester Metropolitan University, Myerscough College, Realise or Remit Training.

The organisations up for apprentice employer of the year are Barratt Developments PLC, Great Ormond Street NHS, Iceland Foods and Lloyds Banking Group.

AELP chief executive Jane Hickie said: “I am delighted that for the fifth year, FE Week and AELP have come together to host the AAC Apprenticeship Awards.

“We received so many strong nominations across all categories, highlighting the amazing work of providers and employers. This shows the real strength of our sector, despite the challenges of the past few years.

“Throughout the judging process, we saw so many impressive examples of best practice in delivery for our learners and employers. I am really looking forward to the AAC gala dinner on March 22, where the winners will be announced.”

Four individuals are in the running for the outstanding contribution to the development of apprenticeships category.

They are Amy Smith, head of talent at Framestore (visual effects); Carole Carson, non-executive director at DBC Training; Ian Bamford, chief operating officer at Paragon Skills; and Sharon Blyfield, head of early careers GB at Coca-Cola Europacific Partners.

Winners will be announced at the FE Week Annual Apprenticeship Conference taking place on March 21-22 in Birmingham.

AAC Judges:

Ben Blackledge, Deputy CEO, WorldSkills UK

Sharon Blyfield, GB Apprentice Lead, Coca-Cola European Partners

Charlotte Bosworth, CEO, Innovate Awarding

Thomas Burton, Group Director (Apprenticeships), NOCN

Rob Colbourne, Chief Executive Officer, Performance Through People Training

John Cope, Director of Strategy, Policy, & Public Affairs, UCAS

Patrick Craven, Director, City & Guilds

Sharon Green, Professor of Vocational Education and Deputy Head of School, NCFM

Jane Hadfield, National Senior Programme Manager – Apprenticeships, Health Education England

Jane Hickie, CEO, AELP

Jason Holt, Chair, Apprenticeship Ambassador Network

Susanna Lawson, Founder, OneFile

Anne Milton, Former Skills Minister

Sharron Robbie, MD, Devon & Cornwall Training Provider Network

Stewart Segal, Board member, AELP Board

Sue Taylor, Joint Chair, Association of Learning Providers Surrey

2022 Annual Apprenticeships Awards Finalists. Click to enlarge.

The white paper was promising – but why are ITPs still fighting for recognition?

Research out next month will prove the value of independent training providers, writes Jane Hickie

The past year saw significant challenges for learners, employers and training providers as Covid continued to affect us all. But the Skills For Jobs white paper, whose anniversary it is this week, offered an excellent opportunity for the sector to shift towards an outcomes-focused approach.

It was good to see the white paper finally recognise the massive contribution independent training providers make in delivering skills training. It was particularly heartening to see the extra emphasis the white paper placed on providers working closely with employers.

We also welcomed the expansion of digital skills provision, moves towards an all-age careers service, better Baker Clause enforcement measures and investment in workforce development across FE.

Yet there is still much to be done if we are to realise an adult education sector that truly prioritises the needs of learners and employers.

For instance, the extension of the Baker Clause to year 7 pupils and better enforcement measures were incredibly positive aspects of the white paper.

So it was surprising and disappointing to see these measures omitted from inclusion in the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill.

We know from our work with Lord Baker and the Department for Education that most schools are still not adhering to the Baker Clause as they should, despite the landmark legislation. The skills bill’s own impact assessment noted that there was only a 40 per cent rate of compliance.

This needs addressing to ensure that that all young people get fair and equitable access to appropriate careers information, advice and guidance – with parity for academic and vocational routes.

As ever, our biggest challenge is to overcome the lack of parity between ITPs and other FE providers. Recent procurement outcomes and the inability for ITPs to access Covid support packages have hit ITPs hard.

Why this lack of parity? We are all working toward a common goal which is to get the economy back on its feet. ITPs are key to that success. It is high time to level the playing field and give ITPs their rightful place in the system to support that recovery.

It is high time to level the playing field

Functional skills qualifications are another example where that lack of parity continues to cause problems for work-based training providers and their learners.

The UK government recently removed the English and maths qualification “exit requirement” for T Levels. As this hasn’t been extended to apprenticeships, the result is a worrying discrepancy between classroom and work-based learning.

Whilst AELP does not advocate for the removal of English and maths from apprenticeship requirements, parity of treatment for learners is a matter of fairness.

Therefore we want to see the same flexibility at the point of exit at the very least, as well as a review of funding for functional skills qualifications.

The announcement on T Levels has added extra pressure for training providers, who are currently being asked to deliver maths and English within an apprenticeship at a rate of just £471 per qualification.

Disappointingly this amounts to just half of the funding available for delivery in a classroom-based setting. It is a situation that is clearly unsustainable.

Despite these challenges, we do know there is a lot of support for, and interest in, what ITPs do.

AELP has been undertaking wide-ranging research on the role and impact of ITPs in the FE sector, which will be released on February 22 in the House of Commons. This will be hosted by Lord Aberdare, who has a long history of advocating for ITPs.

The research will present strong evidence outlining the unrivalled role that ITPs play in supporting the training needs of learner and employers and will support our calls for ITPs to be treated as an equal partner within the further education system.

Although there have been some steps in the right direction through the white paper, ITPs are still being considered an afterthought by FE policymakers.

If we are to achieve our collective ambition of a vibrant, world-class skills system, ITPs must be placed front and centre in a partnership between all providers.

The skills bill is the blueprint for transforming the country

Apprenticeships are extraordinarily popular – and more progress is being made from the skills bill, writes Alex Burghart

Skills lie at the heart of levelling up. Skills will help people drive their careers forward.

Skills will help towns and cities attract and nourish new businesses and developments. Skills will help the economy thrive and public services deliver.

Our blueprint for a major shift forward in the way we develop people’s skills – the Skills For Jobs white paper – was published a year ago today.

We want everyone at every stage in their life to have the opportunity to step up and move on – be it the school leaver who needs an apprenticeship, or the career changer who wants a higher technical qualification, or the person who sees opportunities and needs a skills bootcamp course.

Something so everyone can switch on, log in and skill up.

This is why, over the next four years, we are giving new support to post-16 technical education.

My department has secured a massive £3.8 billion to invest in further education and skills over this parliament, including an extra £1.6 billion boost by 2024/25 for 16-19-year-olds, to roll out ambitious, game-changing programmes.

This comes on top of the £1.5 billion we are investing to transform college estates and make them fit for the future.

We have rolled out skills bootcamps, our free courses for jobs offer, the digital skills entitlement ̶ and the chancellor has made a huge investment in basic adult numeracy through the Multiply programme.

Nine new Institutes of Technology will bring the total to 21 across the country. Created in collaboration with companies such as Microsoft, Esh Group, GKN Aerospace and the Met Office, they are playing a critical role in delivering the higher technical skills needed for our future success.

The rollout of T Levels – our new gold-standard technical qualification at level 3, to rival academic routes – marches on, with ten courses now available in over 100 providers.

And we are continuing to build on the almost five million apprenticeship starts since 2010, creating additional flexibilities to help more sectors and employers get the most out of this extraordinarily popular programme.

And, vitally, we have cemented our vision for lifelong learning, making an iron-clad guarantee that from 2025 there will be a lifelong loan entitlement, giving people the opportunity to train, retrain and upskill throughout their lives.

These changes will help our businesses get the talented, highly skilled workers they need, delivering productivity gains and an ever-stronger economy.

We are putting employers at the heart of our revitalised skills system.

As we have seen through the skills bill, there is real cross-party support to make sure we are training people with the skills that businesses need.

Already, we have established eight trailblazer areas where the first local skills improvement plans are being developed by employer representative bodies.

Alongside LSIPs, we are investing £65 million in delivering cutting-edge equipment, upskilling teaching staff and developing new courses across 18 pilot areas, realising the ambitions that providers and employers have for our young people.

These trailblazers and pilots are spurring new collaborative working.

Trailblazers and pilots are spurring new collaborative working

There are great examples of colleges, universities and other providers working hand-in-glove with employers to shape the training provision that local communities and businesses need (for example, in green construction).

With the hard work and support from the sector, we are making leaps and bounds in transforming skills across our country.

Rarely has there been a time when the economy has been so hungry for skills. As we look toward another crucial year, our reforms will gather pace and deliver a newly skilled and work-ready stream of talent to feed this appetite.

More courses, more opportunities, better life chances.

The skills white paper: too much rhetoric, too little action

A lack of movement is causing planning blight and eroding the skills landscape, writes Sue Pember

In January 2021, the long-awaited white paper setting out the government’s vision for reform of further education arrived. Along with it came a timetable for how the act would journey through parliament, starting in the Lords.

I wonder whether it was ever imagined by those directing the work of parliament that the Lords would relish the chance to talk about this bill in the way they did.

It was heartening to hear the lords and baronesses speak so knowledgeably and at length about the importance of lifelong learning, skills, apprenticeships and adult education.

Their ability to offer amendments was outstanding and relentless – they were determined to get us much out of this bill as they could.

We have yet to see what will stick, but in a way they have already done us all a great favour by raising issues the sector has long been trying to highlight. Mainly that the lifelong learning agenda is really important to this country in improving both productivity and wellbeing.

The main purpose of the white paper was to introduce a lifetime skills guarantee intended to enable people to gain the skills they need throughout their lives.

This guarantee looks like it will just turn into access to a loan for fees for level 4 and above and, we assume, a secondary loan for maintenance.

If it is as described, giving loans for modules and not just for full years, then it could open up the HE market to more students and be an exciting development.

But, one year on, I would have expected some movement on its introduction. Back in April 2021 we were told by the higher education minister that pilots would start in 2022; however, as yet there has a been little progress.

The white paper also set out plans to introduce local skills improvement plans (LSIPs), which will require colleges to work closely with employers in identifying local skills needs, and places greater emphasis on provider accountability for outcomes achieved.

There have been some pilots of LSIPs, but lots of teething problems too, with not all key players, such as local authorities, combined authorities and other key providers, around the table.

This was a lost opportunity and another year has gone by without achieving some really necessary local coordination.

Another year has gone by without really necessary local coordination

The focus on colleges in the white paper did also worry adult community education services and institutions. But these concerns were alleviated somewhat when the consultation document was published in July.

The consultation document clearly set out a role for adult community education services: “Grant funding of colleges and local authority education providers will be the main funding flow in our new system for adult skills.

“Alongside colleges, local authority adult educational services play a key role in meeting learner needs and supporting their communities, typically focusing on community learning and basic skills provision.”

With this statement, it was easier to envisage a future with adult education below level 2 being planned and coordinated by local authorities.

This leaves the higher-level courses to be covered in the new LSIPs. This is something we have been advocating at HOLEX, as we know learners prefer to learn close to where they live. Planning locally is the sensible option and allows place-based services to join up.

But going forward we need more assurances about the future.

We need progress on the three-year budgets and simplification promises that were proposed in the white paper consultation. And we need to see the response to supplementary consultations on areas such as level 2 and below.

This lack of information is causing a planning blight, eroding the skills landscape and reducing learner opportunity.

Next year, let’s up the pace. We must put in place a system that allows our learners to progress with equal financial support, whichever route they choose.

Crack down on ‘poor quality’ courses announced by Office for Students

Colleges and universities are being set tougher outcome measures by the higher education regulator – with plans for “intrusive sanctions” like fines and funding restrictions on those who fail to meet targets.

In a consultation launched today, the Office for Students said it wants to use numerical thresholds for student outcomes (see table below). These thresholds will be set around students’ continuation, completion and progression of courses, including degree apprenticeships.

The thresholds are designed to target poor-quality courses and outcomes which are “letting students down”.

One consequence of the measures, as acknowledged by the OfS, is that universities and colleges might withdraw from partnership arrangements and be “disincentivised” to enter them in the future.

“These proposals mark a landmark moment in our work to tackle poor quality provision in English higher education,” said Nicola Dandridge, chief executive of the OfS.

“Students from all backgrounds deserve to be on good courses leading to qualifications which stand the test of time and prepare them well for life after graduation.”

Dandridge said that universities and colleges in England run high quality courses that deliver positive outcomes for students.

“The thresholds that we have proposed will not affect them. They are instead designed to target those poor-quality courses and outcomes which are letting students down and don’t reflect students’ ambition and effort,” she said.

The OfS is proposing to amend condition B3 of its regulatory framework to include the use of the new numerical thresholds.

These thresholds will be for full and part-time students at both undergraduate and postgraduate level. They will also be used for apprenticeships.

According to the OfS, they have been designed to set a “high bar” which takes account of a university or college’s individual circumstances.

The OfS said it will use its regulatory judgement to set numerical thresholds that represent the point at which they would consider intervening to ensure providers are delivering positive outcomes for each indicator.

In its consultation the OfS gave an example of what these thresholds might look like:

Consequences of not meeting requirements

The OfS said that universities and colleges who do not meet the thresholds – which will underpin requirements for minimum acceptable student outcomes – could face investigation, with fines and restrictions on their access to student loan funding available as potential sanctions.

These proposals will sit alongside the OfS’s other conditions of registration on quality in higher education.

“Alongside the thresholds, we are providing detailed information to universities and colleges that will enable them to assess their own performance, and to make improvements where quality is low – whether that is across the board, or for particular groups of students, or in certain subjects,” said Dandridge.

“But we are clear that we are raising our expectations of universities and colleges. Low quality courses which lead to poor outcomes for students are unacceptable, and we are determined to take action where students are recruited onto courses which offer few tangible benefits,” she added.

Partnership arrangements

The OfS admitted that the proposed measures could lead to some providers withdrawing from partnership arrangements rather improving outcomes for the students involved.

“If partnership arrangements that do not deliver positive outcomes for students are terminated, we do not consider that to be adversely limiting student choice,” the OfS said in its consultation.

“It is, however, also possible that some providers may withdraw or decide not to enter new partnerships because of increased regulatory scrutiny, regardless of the quality of the courses delivered and the outcomes achieved.”

The OfS said it did not expect a provider to “churn” courses or partnerships to avoid regulatory attention.

“If there is evidence that a provider is withdrawing from partnerships to do this, we may undertake further investigation to confirm that its management and governance arrangements for its partnerships are robust and effective and that decisions to work with other organisations are the result of a strategic approach rather than opportunism,” the regulator said.

It added that outcomes of such an investigation could “raise concerns” about a provider’s suitability to hold degree awarding powers that can be used in partnership arrangements.

DfE campaign calls on skilled workers to teach part-time in FE

A new national campaign that calls on skilled workers to take up a part-time teaching role in further education alongside their current job has been launched today.

The Department for Education, which promised such a campaign in the skills for jobs white paper, said there was a particular demand for FE teachers in construction, engineering and manufacturing, legal, finance, accounting, digital and health and social care.

Radio, TV, social media and a new dedicated website will be used to promote the ‘Teach in FE’ campaign to tackle the shortages.

Education secretary Nadhim Zahawi said: “There are a huge number of industry professionals that already hold the knowledge and skills to make them a great further education teacher.

“We want to encourage those with industry experience to share their skills to inspire and train up the next generation of workers in their field.”

The DfE added that industry professionals looking to take up a “portfolio career” can teach their trade, skill or subject in a “wide range” of FE settings without the need for a specific qualification.

Last year’s skills for jobs white paper promised “significant new investment” to improve the FE workforce in 2021/22.

DfE surveys of college staff, cited in the white paper, showed that more than half of college principals find recruitment difficult and teaching vacancy rates in “crucial” subject areas such as engineering and construction were as high as five per cent.

Today’s campaign is hoped to “reach millions” of prospective teachers. A new website is expected to signpost current vacancies and help existing teachers and lecturers find professional development opportunities.

The campaign follows a £3 million expansion of the Taking Teaching Further programme, which aims to bring as many as 4,000 additional teachers into the FE sector by 2025.

The DfE did not say how much funding was earmarked for the Teach in FE campaign at the time of going to press.