If we don’t act on grading soon, higher education providers will start to set their own entrance exams, writes Mark Dawe

With the new academic year in full swing, it’s vital the education sector looks back at all we’ve learned over summer 2021.

There’s no debate that the pandemic has created challenges for those obtaining their education, causing rifts and controversy around grades that ultimately impact their entire future.

A-levels have seen two exceptional years when it comes to results, with the latest figures showing a substantial increase in A* and A grades, building on an already significant increase in 2020.

However, we now need to think about the year ahead and the years to come. Should we keep letter grading, return to the percentage system, or come up with a future-thinking approach?

There is no perfect solution for the future, just as there wasn’t when we entered this unprecedented period.

After five years as chief executive of exam board OCR, to me one thing became clear, very quickly.

We must look for the best in what will always be an imperfect system full of compromises.

What are the purposes of A-levels?

While designed to build knowledge and skills in a particular area of interest, ultimately, A-levels rank thousands of students specialising in one area.

It was recently agreed the primary purpose of A-levels is university entry. But 45 per cent of A level students achieved an A or above in 2020 (25 per cent in 2019), with 37 per cent of students getting at least three As.

So our capacity to rank students based on their A-level results alone has diminished significantly.

Do we really want a system where each university has its own entrance exam because our national system is failing them? This is the inevitable consequence if we don’t make changes.

I would suggest we do not want this.

How do we move forward?

If the pandemic has taught us anything when it comes to grading, it’s that we need to hit the reset button.

It won’t come without upsetting either Covid or post-Covid students to some degree.

But moving to a 9-1 grading system, like the current GCSE approach, along with widening the skillset taught at A-level stage, will enable us to differentiate between our students again.

It’s designed to distinguish those working at a higher level, using harder exam questions and the need for more coursework to be delivered.

The current letter grading system, however, uses assessments at the end of modules throughout the year. It’s a system that is much more reliant on exams and results in more people achieving higher grades.

This is making it harder for universities and employers to spot those who truly excel in their areas of expertise.

Additional courses

Many have also argued that A-levels aren’t broad enough, don’t cover the “soft skills” such as communication and teamwork and don’t produce a rounded individual with an easy pathway into work.

Surely every student should have digital skills plus an understanding of the workforce and issues like sustainability and low carbon when they leave education?

So with online learning increasingly popular, it’s more possible than ever to provide a blend of core A-levels alongside a whole range of online courses to add value to a student’s development.

In fact, these additional courses are now even more essential when it comes to both university entry and employment.

At The Skills Network, we use AI to determine our students’ individual strengths and gaps to pinpoint exactly what additional programmes they should undertake to support their development.

From there, an individualised online learning plan provides the young person with access to a whole range of additional skills unique to their current skillset.

This also doesn’t add further strain on already overworked teachers.

Going forward, let’s build a better system for grading, and focus on the other skills our students need to help get them prepared for the working world.

The paper will have three overarching goals going into this new and challenging year, writes Shane Chowen

The start of an academic year naturally comes with a sense of optimism and renewal. It’s an opportunity to bask, however momentarily, in the potential of what’s to come.

After all, despite the disrupted and sometimes chaotic experience in education over the last 18 months, and with little promise of a ‘normal year’ this year, staff have come back for another adventure in further education.

For students beginning their post-16 journey, they deserve the best experience the sector has to offer.

Colleges and providers will be mindful of the fact that, more so than any year previously, prior attainment means precious little and the temptation of a £11 per hour job in an Amazon warehouse will, for some students, be too hard to resist.

Recovery and reform are my watchwords this year. While pleasantly alliterative, both are complex for our sector in many ways.

Just what role should FE play as factors like Brexit and Covid coalesce on the economy?

How can FE leaders lobby most effectively for the sector as the Skills Bill reaches the House of Commons and a spending review looms in the near-distance?

Who wins as the economy recovers and FE reforms are passed, and who doesn’t?

But it’s going to take more than a deadly global pandemic to dampen the sector’s resolve to get the job done and do its bit for students and the recovering economy.

It’s that resolve and that ability to adapt and change when times get tough that keeps us coming back and is why we love FE.

At FE Week, we need to adapt too.

Taking over as editor as FE Week marks 10 years serving the further education sector was too enticing to pass up.

I firmly believe that a committed and independent press makes the sector stronger, and a strong FE sector means it can provide more people with the lifechanging opportunities in-and-out of the classroom that it did for me.

My job as editor is to dispassionately steer FE Week into the heart of the issues that matter most to our readers. Building on its first 10 years, I have three overarching goals for FE Week:

Through breaking news, expert analysis and diverse commentary, FE Week will contribute to good decision making in FE.

We will work tirelessly to cut through the noise and keep you informed about what’s going on, give you thoughtful insights and fresh perspectives on what’s to come and hold those with power to account by being forensic about the facts.

FE Week began as a weekly in-print newspaper but is now delivered to subscribers electronically. The paper is complemented by a newly redesigned website and will, from this October, be accompanied by The FE Week Podcast.

Through the paper, the website and the podcast, FE Week can achieve my second overarching goal; to foster a sense of community across FE.

With brand new features you will see more diverse voices, on-the-ground insights and provocative opinions across all of FE Week’s platforms.

Finally, FE Week will remain unapologetically pro-FE.

In a sector as diverse and as multi-faceted as ours, there will probably be times you don’t agree with something you’ve read in our pages.

Having your opinion or perspective challenged must be part of a strong sector press because it’s how we collectively grow stronger.

And, in a sector renowned for constant change and churn, FE Week will be reliable and resolute in its mission for the sector with zero chance of being abandoned by faceless global shareholders.

The coming weeks and months will not be short of challenges and difficulties, but nor will they be short of moments of inspiration and growth.

So, whether you’ve been with us since day one or you’re coming to FE Week with fresh eyes, join me on this journey, and subscribe today.

If BTECs continue to be perceived as easier, institutions will always be tempted to teach them, says Ed Reza Schwitzer

Government gets a lot wrong. I worked in the Department for Education for six years, and for every new policy we introduced there was always a group that disagreed (and it was sometimes proved right).   

But the skills agenda is an exception. You struggle to find people who disagree that England needs to dramatically improve its technical education. Complaining that we treat vocational professions as second class is a bit like complaining about the weather. 

A-levels remain the default route for academically minded children. But apprenticeships are increasingly part of the mainstream – 80 per cent of time spent on the job and 20 per cent on training. 

The challenge is whether 16 is too early for young adults to make a binary decision between academia or a vocation. It’s a question even high-performing technical education systems grapple with. 

Enter T Levels. These blend the two, keeping learners’ choices open.  

T Levels flip the 80/20 proportions, with 80 per cent of time spent in education and training, and 20 per cent on the job.  

In principle, great.  

But much of the criticism has centred around delivery.  

It’s fair to say that the DfE initially shared some of these reservations. Jonathan Slater, the department’s former permanent secretary, took the rare step of asking for a “letter of direction” from Damien Hinds, the then-education secretary (read: “you need to publicly tell me to do this, because I don’t think it’s doable”).  

Detractors also point to the difficulty of sourcing work placements that total 45 days.

It’s right that the permanent secretary seek additional clarity when concerned about the effective use of public money.  

Shouldn’t we commend politicians for injecting some urgency?  

But given decades of heel-dragging on vocational education from the political and Whitehall class (which, let’s be honest, wasn’t educated in FE colleges), shouldn’t we commend politicians for injecting some urgency?  

The broader challenge from the sector on delivery is right, but not insurmountable.  

The delivery of work placements definetely will be difficult.  

You don’t want a scarcity of placements, leading to a poor quality experience, with learners doing the photocopying and coffee rather than developing new skills.  

Much of this criticism is informed by research the department itself commissioned. In layman’s terms, it finds that subjects that are easy to find placements, such as hair and beauty, “have a long history of offering young people work experience” and tend to be local.  

Conversely, “digital and creative and design routes [were] the most difficult” because they have neither a track record of work experience nor much local availability. 

But the fact it’s hard is exactly why it needs to be done.  

If T Levels gave us the same work experience opportunities as before, what would be the point?  

We need providers to link to industries such as tech and design if we’re to genuinely revolutionise the system and put it on a par with A-levels.  

To get there, T Levels have a classic delivery problem – critical mass.  

Once employers really understand what T Levels are about, it will be easier for them to offer placements (and post-Covid, location should be less of a barrier). 

But to get there, you need enough students doing T Levels. Fortunately, this is in employers’ interests, as they will benefit most from higher quality entrants to their industries.  

It’s also true that the blended approach behind T Levels will put greater onus on apprenticeships to deliver the fully vocational route. 

Which leads us to the final criticism, around BTECs. I sympathise with educators standing by qualifications they teach.

But for T Levels to change things for the better, they must have the numbers going through them to build that critical mass.

And, whether true or not, if BTECs are perceived as easier, their existence will always tempt institutions to use that route.

If the department gets it right, this could be a big step forward in truly fixing our skills problem.