Randomised control trials are the answer to FE’s biggest questions, writes Ben Gadsby

I have a confession: My name is Ben and I am a fan of randomised control trials (RCTs).

Take two similar groups of people, give one a skills bootcamp, one not-a-skills-bootcamp, and then compare the outcomes. It’s hardly life or death – unlike if you replace “skills bootcamp” with “vaccine” in that sentence…

Last week’s paper seemed to somewhat disagree, and now the government has U-turned. But this is not good news ̶ FE Week readers should be fans of RCTs too. 

Do skills bootcamps work? This is a simple but vital question. No one knows. Skills bootcamps might be the sector’s finest invention ̶ or a bigger waste of time than trainspotting. An RCT is the most effective way to answer the question. 

If you’re curious about why an RCT is the best way to answer “does it work” questions, I recommend the blogs of the late American psychologist Robert Slavin. Suffice to say if you really want to know if something works then randomness is a necessary feature, not a bug ̶ as is making sure your comparison group doesn’t end up getting the benefits (or otherwise) of what you’re testing.

But much more important than research methodology is this: if we want the FE sector to be the best that it can be, we need more research, not less. It’s good for the sector and it’s good for the people it serves.  

It’s good for the sector because it’s how we address the longstanding underfunding in comparison to schools. We need to convince the government in the next spending review to invest more money in our colleges.

But the only way to do that is with evidence that the money will lead to better outcomes – better skills, better pay, less worklessness, etc. The Treasury will be willing to invest in things that change lives, not things that don’t change lives.

And these outcomes are the outcomes we all want for students too. How much money is currently wasted on projects and schemes that have zero impact on anything that matters? Probably a billion.

Not only do we not know that it’s not having an impact (because no one is investigating), but even if we did, we don’t know what we should do instead (because no one is investigating).

A comparison with schools is illuminating. Our sister charity, the Education Endowment Foundation, has conducted numerous RCTs and found that most of the initiatives they trial don’t have an impact on attainment. These are things schools should probably think more carefully about spending money on.

But the initiatives that do have an impact on attainment tend to attract money – big money. The government is currently retendering for a school breakfasts programme, because Magic Breakfast proved in an RCT that it works.

Initiatives that have an impact on attainment tend attract big money

The government is throwing money at tutoring for millions of pupils – because the Tutor Trust proved in an RCT that it works. Impetus has funded and supported both charities in recent years.

Ironically, that RCT for the Tutor Trust is actually the reason colleges have access to the 16-to-19 tuition fund at all. But not because an FE tutoring model got an RCT. The sector is fortunate to have providers building on the schools evidence base, such as Get Further, which offers an impressive tutoring programme built on similar principles to the Tutor Trust model but tailored to the needs of FE learners.

No, it is concerning that colleges didn’t get a chunk of money because they made an evidence-based case to fund provision. Instead, they only got the money because the sector would have otherwise complained. That shouldn’t be the basis on which FE gets money. It’s a patronising pat on the head: run along and stop moaning.

Incidentally, that’s the same instinct that has probably led to the U-turn. I wish the government were now making the case for RCTs in FE but instead you can almost hear the sigh from the DfE: fine, we won’t do it. Now run along and stop moaning.

FE is failing to get the investment it needs because we don’t have proven programmes to make the case.

As a sector, we should aspire to prove our worth, and demand the investment that is merited.

The key word in that sentence is prove. We need evidence.

The Church’s proposals have little to do with education and more to do with reversing its declining numbers among young people, write Chris Higgins and Keith Sharpe

The Church of England is on a missionary offensive in our FE colleges. This is the thrust of a recent report, Vocation, Transformation and Hope: a vision for the Church of England’s engagement with further education, fronted by the bishop of Winchester, Tim Dakin.

How is it that the “bishop for higher and further education” can produce a report that has so little to say about the realities of education and so much to say about how the church might increase its membership?

The report rather gives the game away by acknowledging that the aim of engaging with FE colleges is to “build a younger and more diverse church” and that “colleges can, especially, be a way to engage with what is often a missing generation… There is genuine potential here to help revitalise the local church in the long term.”

It appears the Church of England views FE colleges as a potential source of new recruits, rather than the pluralistic communities of learners and educators that they are.

The lord bishop of Durham confirmed this strategy, stating in the recent Queen’s Speech debate: “We as a church recognise that we must become younger and more diverse. Engaging in further education needs to be at the core of what we do.”

He added that the church is “committed to an ongoing working partnership with the secretary of state and the government to explore these issues together”.

The report laments the fact that, unlike HE, no Christian church now operates an FE institution, and suggests the establishment of a church “FE Colleges Group”.

Even more worryingly, this latest report follows a report published in 2020 called Faith in Higher Education – A Church of England vision, also under Bishop Dakin, which states that the church’s approach to further and higher education is theological, not educational.

That report declares that education and wisdom are achieved by “aligning all our ways – our thinking, acting, belonging – with those of God”.

Most strikingly, it adds “sustained theological attention is needed on the distinct questions of the content of any particular discipline

Most strikingly, it adds “sustained theological attention is needed on the distinct questions of the content of any particular discipline or field, the methodologies with which these are examined and interpreted, and the curriculum through which it is taught”.

In the 21st century, no educational institution should be subject to the constraints of theological doctrine.

One proposal being considered by the Church of England is that “each diocese should engage with further education and sixth-form colleges in its strategic planning and an appropriate member of the bishop’s staff should have responsibility for linking diocesan strategy with FE and sixth-form college activity”. 

But fewer than one per cent of college students are members of their particular church. Meanwhile, governors of FE colleges are charged with developing an independent strategy for the benefit of all their students.

Another proposal in the report is to provide house-for-duty posts and to “reimagine chaplaincy provision”. This neglects the fact that FE colleges already have a cadre of professionally qualified and committed staff who work diligently to enhance the welfare and wellbeing of students of all backgrounds, abilities and aspirations.

Support for all students’ wellbeing is fundamental to the pluralistic life of our FE colleges and the communities they serve.

While, of course, most individual chaplains are well-intentioned, a “cuckoo-in-the-nest” chaplaincy whose first loyalty is towards a particular church would privilege a very small minority of staff and students. This would undermine every college’s purpose of building a community in which people of all faiths or none have equal opportunity.

The potential for conflict between the doctrinal beliefs of chaplains – for example, on same-sex marriage, other faiths or LGBT+ rights – and the inclusive support provided by the professional pastoral support teams in FE would also be ever present.

Support for further education from any source is, of course, to be welcomed, but the Church of England’s latest proposals have little to do with education and skills and much to do with reversing its own declining numbers amongst young people. 

That’s why the specific proposals in this report must be resisted.

We need a revolution to close the potentially disastrous skills gap, writes Kirstie Donnelly

Skills gaps are nothing new. But, since March 2020, the arrival of the Covid-19 pandemic and a series of subsequent lockdowns simultaneously unlocked a wave of seismic change in the UK labour market, significantly changing the sorts of skills sought by employers. 

With over 800,000 workers displaced from their jobs and 11 million people furloughed, the numbers paint a stark picture of how the pandemic impacted the jobs market.

Yet the UK’s shrinking economy is just one piece of the puzzle. Sweeping changes in the way people lived and worked have caused some industries to contract. But new and existing trends – such as digital transformation and automation – have taken off, further propelling labour market transformation. 

In our new annual Skills Index report published last week, which is intended to show how skills supply and demand is evolving, we uncovered some striking findings. This includes how demand for skills shot up most notably in the health and social care and tech sectors.

For example, as businesses and individuals increasingly relied on technology for their day-to-day lives, job postings for tech and digital roles rose by 21 per cent between April 2020 to April 2021 alone.

And with remote working creating a plethora of new cyber-security risks for businesses, demand for cyber-security technicians rocketed, rising a staggering 19,222 per cent.

Meanwhile, as the pandemic put increased pressure on the health and social care sector, specific technical skills – such as nursing, mental health support and personal care support – were among those that saw the greatest increase in demand in 2020.

Our report also pointed to a growing mismatch between the skills that people possess, and the skills employers need, suggesting that businesses’ productivity is at stake.

Fifty-six per cent of organisations faced some kind of barrier to meeting their skills and talent needs, while 61 per cent of working-age adults don’t feel they are equipped with the skills they will need in the next five years.

The bottom line is that while many businesses were facing skills gaps before the pandemic, these gaps are now even wider – and are poised to be disastrous unless we urgently reconcile the disparity between skills supply and demand.

The solution? It’s no surprise that there’s no easy one.

We’ll need a revolution, and a significant shift in attitudes

We’ll need a revolution, and a significant shift in attitudes.

At an individual level, people need to be equipped to identify where they need to develop skills, and where their existing skills are transferable, so that they can seek appropriate support and opportunities – and be empowered to fund their own training if need be.

Employers must facilitate this process, by providing mechanisms for individuals to understand which skills are likely to be in demand throughout their lifetimes, and by providing employees with the training they need to stay relevant. 

The reality is that many workers are now facing a five-decade-long career – so, practically, this will mean a mixture of better “all ages” careers advice, and a commitment to re-skilling and upskilling workers throughout their working lives. 

Meanwhile, the government must provide a wider programme of support for people who need to retrain. The Lifetime Skills Guarantee makes headway on providing such support, allowing adults without a level 3 qualification access to a free college course.

But it is limited to lower-skilled individuals and misses others who may have lost their jobs due to the pandemic now, those who will do in the future, or those who are older.  

Current government support doesn’t go far enough ̶ we need a less restrictive offer available to all those displaced so that we can retrain workforces and divert labour to where it’s needed. 

This sort of countrywide culture shift won’t be easy, but if we seize the opportunity with both hands, this could be the jumpstart we need to create a long overdue lifelong skills culture that works for all.

The government is measuring colleges by using unfair historical references that are of out of date and do not present a level playing field, writes Chris Webb.

Colleges that are graded 3 and have shown significant improvement are consistently being denied access to money due to their Ofsted grade especially when they have been waiting for an inspection for some considerable time. However, colleges that are a grade one that haven’t been inspected of over 10 years now continue to have access to the capital funds.  It doesn’t seem fair and it’s not a level playing field.  Students are being denied high quality facilities and investment in this process.

Bradford College has been stuck in limbo for over a year now and despite raising this with Department for Education and Education and Skills Funding Agency the barriers restricting funding opportunities still remain. At the current time there is no opportunity for the college to get an Ofsted ‘good or better’ until Ofsted resumes its inspections in the autumn by which time the college will have missed out on another year of opportunities.

Colleges are measured using historical references that are of out of date, and a result of 10 years ago and should not be used to determine its current and future capability.

The system rewards the privileged.  If you have a financial health notice to improve, or even a satisfactory health rating, you are excluded from applying.  Ultimately the system rewards colleges who have sufficient income at the detriment of colleges who desperately need the money.  It allows colleges that have money, opportunity for more money and those colleges that need money and support to catch up are excluded.

The system pushes “good and outstanding” colleges forward and restricts those that are graded as “requires improvement” or ‘inadequate’. There is no way to bridge the gap.  Simply by not allowing colleges to move forward it ensures that the gap widens.  If this was a classroom you would put in more support for those students who are struggling whilst still supporting those doing well. The system should recognise this concept but the current process seeks to exclude those colleges from the classroom.

Bradford College has ambitions to develop its higher and professional technical offer but is not eligible to apply for the Office for Students growth fund because the rules state “If you are eligible for an Ofsted inspection, you must have a rating of ‘outstanding’ or ‘good’”.

Higher and technical education is delivered at level 4 and 5 which is not graded using an Ofsted measure. The college has a number of good quality measures, positive QAA visits, TEF Bronze, and an Ofsted ‘good’ for our level 6 provision in our Initial Teacher Education.  The key question is why is the system not using more relevant measures rather than choosing to operate a single source of grading to determine funding opportunities that do not relate to the level 4/5 provision being bid for.

The college had been delivering technical education and apprenticeships through one of its subsidiary companies and due to changes in funding, subcontracting rules and the restructuring deal we have been forced to subsume the company into the college.  This has resulted in the provision which was good with elements of outstanding now forced to be viewed under the college umbrella of requires improvement.

The system should be determined on an individualised case rather than single source evaluations. The system is arbitrary, rather than based on reason or sense.  A sixth forms that is good could effectively apply for provision that it has never delivered and has no track record by the outcome being based purely of an Ofsted grade. How is this fair? Especially as universities that are not subject to Ofsted can apply.

There has to be a review in order for there to be a level playing field set.  In addition to this the college has a restructuring agreement that severely restricts the college’s opportunity to spend its own cash; which means it is restricted to an annual capital limit of £1.3 million and a cash sweep being applied for any over performance so not allowing the college to build any significant future cash reserves to re-invest in students.

What chance does the college have of positioning itself as a college for the future, when simply held back by its past.  Two years ago the college secured a ‘fresh start’, that clearly isn’t the case if it’s past determines its future.