Adult education providers need more clarity on whether a course will remain funded, writes Delrose Earle

Having navigated the hurdles necessary for curriculum planning, I have concerns about the long time it takes for announcements to be made about what courses are funded under the adult education budget (AEB).

The pandemic has disproportionately affected lower income individuals and families. The skills gap we recognise and that is acknowledged by all has been exacerbated following Brexit and through the pandemic experience.

The acceleration of the entitlement and essential digital skills standard, alongside the implementation of level 3 national skills fund courses, are welcome, and will help to close the skills gap for some.  

London has benefitted from the devolved AEB with a more targeted approach to industry needs and education provision. The Mayor’s Skills for Londoners’ three key priorities are an excellent vision but it has not managed to keep up with the fast-changing landscape.

The reduction of courses funded through the AEB affects those most disadvantaged who are more likely to attend the defunded courses.  

The late changes to funding impact the confidence of organisations scheduling these courses.

It also undermines the confidence of prospective learners who often have been outside of education for a long time and for whom making the decision to return to education is long thought through and takes some reorganisation of their day-to-day lives and lots of courage.

The reduction in the number of courses funded at level 1 and 2 particularly within the creative industries is of concern.

These are courses that have attracted a range of learners, including those with additional learning needs.

They give learners opportunities to return to education with a gentle re-introduction to academic learning, development of transferable skills, reducing isolation and building confidence to move into further study or work.  

These courses are building blocks to further and higher education as well as a platform for achievers to engage in better-paid employment.  

The value of such courses appears to be getting lost.

At the same time, courses offered within the national skills fund (NSF) require guided learning hours that exceed the weekly hours allowed for learners in receipt of most welfare benefits.  

If learners want to study on these courses and need to continue receiving benefits, their course of study will run beyond one academic year.

The obvious consequences will be high drop-out rates. And where learners are able to complete their course of study, it will take longer for them to re-enter the workforce.

When the NSF was introduced, an undertaking was given that “we will keep the qualifications list and sector-subject areas in scope under review to ensure this offer responds to changing labour market needs”.

It is hoped that this review is under way both for the NSF and AEB.

So having gone through a most unusual and volatile year in education, it has been gratifying to have been a part of the team of educators who have worked throughout to keep learners engaged and supporting them to achieve in their chosen areas of study.

But providers, particularly those working with adult learners, have to plan curriculums months in advance.  

Late funding decisions result in disruption to learners

Late funding decisions alongside the reducing of funded courses on offer results in disruption to learners and consequently will have a negative long-term impact.

There should be more options to attract adults back to education, from where they can take the knowledge they have acquired to refine their options for progression.

At a time when Londoners in particular have experienced a 44 per cent rise in people claiming welfare benefits (according to Trust for London’s Poverty Profile), now is the time to rethink the offer.

It’s October and we’re truly into the cycle of the new academic year. It’s now a steady march (and occasional frantic period) towards the summer, with lots of events, successes and struggles along the way – and results day waiting at the end. 

Colleges did particularly well this summer to focus the TV limelight on themselves as deliverers of successful outcomes, sharply elbowing schools well out of the way. 

But we also know that results season often has a negative narrative accompanying it. No, I’m not talking about the well-worn media tropes: “exams are getting easier”, “schools are gaming the system”, “too many kids got top marks” and so on. 

Instead, I’m talking about the naysaying from the FE sector itself. The bemoaning that vocational qualifications never get a look in. 

But why does the FE sector think it’s appropriate to tell journalists and editors what and who they should be interested in?  

I know it can be frustrating when a story of enormous importance and interest to us and our institutions is passed over. 

And there’s the rub. We are not in control. We don’t get to choose what makes coverage unless we pay for it. 

Play by the media’s rules – after all it is their game

The news media industry is shrinking. For our sector, it means fewer specialist education reporters, fewer outlets and fewer column inches devoted to us. And locally, news outlets are fighting for survival.  

The FE sector, like others, has played a small part in this demise. How many millions of pounds does the FE sector hand over to Google and the like every year? 

Question: what can FE do to ensure that it gets its share of media coverage? 

Answer: play by the media’s rules – after all it is their game. 

Here are five top tips. 

1. Don’t expect national media coverage about your hyper-local story  

The following mightmake your local or regional media but are unlikely to generate  national coverage. This includes new appointments (unless very special – e.g. pop singer Dua Lipa is your new performing arts lecturer); opening of new buildings; VIP visits from royalty, MPs, ministers (unless there is a policy announcement, but then the story becomes theirs, not yours); student field trips; students or lecturers raising money for charity (unless it’s eye-watering amounts and there’s a stonking photograph to go with it); awards ceremonies and celebrations of achievement etc; results days (unless you truly have a compelling and remarkable story and it’s packaged properly), and new courses.  

2.  Don’t expect journalists to understand FE jargon without clear and brief explanation

Acronyms and specialist words such as VTQs, frameworks and so on are a turn-off. If a journalist struggles to understand, you’ve lost.  

3.    Do offer useful ideas

Think about the kinds of stories that would work for their publication. 

4.    Do think beyond your organisation

Offering stories about issues that affect lots of learners are more likely to be successful, especially if they’re topical. For example, research says the mental health of young people moving to a post-16 vocational environment improves, compared to students staying on at school post-16. How could you use this information to get national coverage? 

5.    Comment! 

Media outlets are keen to get “opinion” and “how to” articles from people in the know (a bit like this one). Clearly, strongly articulated views on government policy of the day are a win, or leaders telling serious stories from the frontline of education. So don’t use over-used phrases like “learning loss” – describe real-life examples, tell stories and anecdotes. Or, helpful tips articles, such as: “How to decide whether to attend school-sixth form or an FE college”, with really insightful, not boring and not obvious, commentary.  

Like most games, you need to understand the field and plan your moves. But even then, there are no guarantees. Try to put yourself in an editor’s shoes, who has tens of these pitches come in daily. 

If you can manage that, this academic year it could seriously be “game on”.

The Conservative Party Conference needed to show some real investment, writes David Hughes

The rainstorms lashing through Manchester were a fitting setting for the Conservative Party conference this year. The party was facing challenges on gas prices, petrol, HGV driver shortages and cuts to Universal Credit.

The fringe programme seemed awash with sessions on post-16 education and training and a skills-led recovery from the pandemic, but perhaps I was just seeking them out.

What I did hear, however, time and again, in the fringe events and in several meetings with politicians and advisers, was a surprisingly full grasp of the need to properly fund colleges.

I even heard several university vice-chancellors saying the same ̶ how things change.

None of that was much of a surprise because the prominence of colleges has been growing rapidly over the past couple of years.

What was more surprising, though, was the prime minister articulating an explicit vision for the UK to move to become a high-skill, high-wage economy.

It’s hard to argue with the ambition for the system to “allow people of talent to come to this country, but not to use immigration as an excuse for failure to invest in people, in skills and in the equipment or machinery they need to do their jobs”.

It’s even harder to disagree with his pledge to invest in skills, skills, skills.

The big question college leaders are asking is, what does this signal for the spending review this month?

Our spending review submission should provide suggestions for the urgent and short term, and for the long-term investments to move the economy in the direction the PM wishes.

We structured our submission around the urgent need to ensure a successful recovery, while addressing the longer-term ambitions for a stronger and more inclusive economy driving towards carbon net zero.

But we also made it clear that colleges need proper and fair investment if they are to have the capacity to deliver on these ambitions.

So, we have provided a simple and affordable investment plan for colleges for the chancellor to consider.

But my fear is that the PM’s eyes are solely fastened on the high-level skills that our economy undoubtedly needs.

It would be easy for the chancellor to follow this with a shift of resources away from universities and towards the technical skills at level 4 and 5 in colleges.

Not only would that damage our universities, it would not go anywhere near delivering the sort of economy the PM wants.

The facts speak for themselves: more than nine million adults have literacy and numeracy needs; more than one-third of young people don’t have a level 3 as they enter adulthood; learning opportunities for adults more than halved in the past decade; educational inequalities worsened in the pandemic; college funding per student has not increased for over a decade.

Meanwhile, hours of teaching for young people have been eroded to around 15 per week compared with 25 to 30 hours in most OECD countries, and staff pay in colleges is around £9,000 lower than in schools.

I could go on.

The two big takeaways are the need to invest more in young people and adults at all levels, and to invest in colleges so that they can deliver the overall ambition in the long term.

My hopes are that the PM’s vision is backed by the investment colleges and communities need. He sounded serious in his conference address about this.

The trouble is that college leaders have got fed up with warm words and no funding.

College leaders have got fed up with no funding

We have accepted that the pandemic interrupted the modest step forward in the September 2019 spending round. At the time, the then chancellor recognised our arguments, so we have to hope that this spending review does too.

As a sector we have been patient, delivered with incredible efficiency, adapted rapidly in the pandemic and shown how willing we are to work with the government to reform the system.

Now our skilled staff must be properly paid, with the right kit and facilities to deliver high-quality education to more communities. For that, we need the investment.