Eight of out ten teachers believe high stakes exams should be taken throughout the year, and most want more autonomy over testing, an exam board survey has revealed.
Pearson has published initial findings from its review into the future of qualifications and assessment in the UK.
The awarding body surveyed 5,000 people, including students, parents and around 1,100 teachers. It also polled 104 MPs and interviewed expert panel members, including three former education secretaries.
Pearson said its consultation “did not find evidence of a strong desire” to remove GCSEs or replace our current assessment system with an entirely new one.
It is the first stage in the review, with a final report and recommendations expected by the end of this year.
Here’s are some of the key findings from the survey.
1. Testing should be done ‘throughout the year’
Asked about the frequency of high stakes assessment, 84 per cent of teachers said they should be taken in more than one session throughout the year. More than half – 54 per cent – said they should not be taken at the end of the course.
Opinion was split on whether tests should happen on demand when students are ready, with 56 per cent agreeing and 43 per cent saying they disagreed.
Pearson said most of its expert panel members “cautiously welcomed” the idea of a return to some form of continuous assessment, but were “mindful of the reasons why continuous assessment was removed from general qualifications following the 2012 reforms”.
The government began to phase out modular GCSEs from 2012. New linear exams require pupils to sit all the tests at the end of the course.
2. Teachers want ‘more responsibility’
Seventy-eight per cent of teachers surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that they should be given “more responsibility and autonomy” over student summative assessment.
Pearson said teachers generally felt all assessment types were effective, but with a “strong preference” for more regular assessment through the year, marked by them.
Asked about the effectiveness of different assessment approaches at “validating the acquisition of knowledge and skills” in 14 to 19 year olds, 61 per cent said end of term or year tests marked by a teacher were “very effective”.
Only 32 per cent of teachers said final high stakes exams were “very” effective.
3. Subjects ‘restricted’ by funding and accountability
A majority of teachers surveyed – 65 per cent – said they felt the choice of qualifications on offer at their school or college was “restricted by funding and accountability pressures”, while 22 per cent disagreed.
Asked to what extent high-stakes assessments should be used to judge schools or colleges on their performance, 77 per cent said “some extent”, 17 per cent said “no extent”, while 5 per cent thought it should be a “great extent”.
4. Teachers favour ‘option of both’ paper and computer tests
Respondents were asked which format they would prefer formative and summative assessments to take.
More than four in ten teachers said they would prefer the “option of both” computer and pen and paper tests for formative and summative assessments, depending on the subject. Thirty-six per cent said they preferred pen and paper for summative assessments, while 32 per cent preferred that option for formative assessments.
When key stage 4 and 5 pupils were asked the same question, 40 per cent said they would prefer to use pen and paper and 27 per cent would prefer to use a computer for summative tests, while 26 per cent favoured having an option of both.
Nearly all teachers – 95 per cent – believed they needed more regular technology training for teaching and assessment to increase their confidence.
5. Address the binary split of academic and vocational pathways
In the open responses to the consultation, 16 to 19 education was characterised as having divergent vocational and academic pathways “pushing” young people into making decisions they “may not be ready for, and in some cases regretted with hindsight”.
Pearson said some members of the its expert panel saw this as “inhibiting the realisation of a broad and balanced curriculum for all”.
The Department for Education has been forced into an embarrassing U-turn by dropping “secret” plans to ban thousands of eligible jobless people from taking part in skills bootcamps.
The DfE has also launched an investigation into how the plans, laid out in a document sent to 18 providers and over 100 of their partners (see photo), were leaked to the media.
Announced by the prime minister Boris Johnson in September 2020, bootcamps are typically three-month courses at level 3 and above and form part of a number of new flagship adult education policies.
As reported by FE Week, the bootcamp providers were refusing to sign contracts after finding out the DfE would be paying research consultants to randomly reject half of all eligible applicants.
In a randomised control trial (RCT), rarely used in the education sector, the Institute for Employment Studies would take at least four weeks to “randomly select candidates for you from your qualifying candidates list and inform you of who is receiving [bootcamp] training and who is in the control group”.
The DfE “delivery requirement” presentation, sent to winners of the £18 million bid, also spelt out that they must “not offer bootcamp training to any candidates in the control group for at least a year after they have been assigned to the control group, even if they ask/get referred again”.
DfE researchers’ bootcamps presentation
But with the “secret” RCT plan now revealed in FE Week the DfE is now telling providers they will scrap the RCT plan completely.
And after repeating their plea for providers to not speak to the media the civil servant revealed an investigation had been launched into how FE Week was leaked the RCT plans.
Several providers approached FE Week with similar ethical concerns about the DfE researchers spending weeks to randomly separate the unemployed applicants into this “treatment group” and a “control group”.
The DfE refused to comment on, or defend, the ethics of the research approach.
Education secretary Gavin Williamson will open the Festival of Education today, kickstarting the two-week long virtual event.
The festival will include some of the best-known names in the education sector alongside thought-provoking debate sessions. New ‘Friday Fest’ days will also feature invaluable CPD opportunities for all education professionals. (See the full schedule here).
Thanks to the support of Wellington College – the home of the festival – and partners, the whole event is free this year. FE Week and FE Week are media partners.
Williamson will provide the opening festival keynote at 3pm. You can watch the speech here:
A confused picture has emerged after Ofsted’s chief inspector contradicted her FE director on whether poor careers advice could limit inspection grades.
Chief inspector Amanda Spielman told the Commons education select committee this morning it was “unlikely” a school would receive an ‘outstanding’ rating if its careers guidance, namely compliance with the Baker Clause, was not up to scratch.
This is despite the watchdog’s deputy director for FE Paul Joyce telling the Association of Employment and Learning Providers national conference last week limiting inspection grades based on the quality of careers advice is not the “best way” to improve it, and “should not be the sole determining factor of what grade the school gets”.
Under the Baker Clause, introduced in 2018, schools and colleges must, by law, allow other training providers access to their learners to inform them of technical qualifications or apprenticeships.
Ofsted research has found careers advice in schools is moving in the right direction, with its national director for education Sean Harford, also giving evidence today, saying a recent trawl of inspection data had found one-fifth were not providing high-quality careers advice.
This contrasts with an inspection data trawl from 18 months ago, which found two-fifths of schools were not providing high-quality guidance.
Harford, though, did admit “there are still weaknesses” in this area.
‘It is not the case it is a lesser priority’
Spielman told MPs careers education is “incredibly important,” but how the watchdog prioritises it in inspections is up to government to decide.
Committee chair Robert Halfon said this was “passing the buck,” and there was “nothing wrong” with Spielman saying Ofsted “wants much greater scrutiny to make sure that that the Baker Clause is complied with”.
Spielman challenged that, saying: “If we had the brief and resource to do that, we could certainly do that,” but she asked: “What would you like me to take out of the inspection,” to prioritise scrutinising careers guidance.
She told MPs it would be hard for Ofsted to “change our model significantly” in order to move careers advice “up the pecking” order, as committee member Ian Mearns put it.
Not unless “government wants a significantly bigger inspection model, or wants to just substitute, for example, the short inspections which don’t have the capacity to cover this at the moment, with more full inspections which do have the capacity,” she said.
Spielman insisted inspectors are “not enforcers” of the law, yet Halfon argued she saw it as a “lesser priority because it’s about skills and apprenticeships and technical education and not academic study”.
“It is not the case it is a lesser priority,” the chief inspector retorted, “but the inspection model that we operate is not a list of the statutory requirements and ticking off against that”.
Spielman had also pledged to the select committee last November that careers education would get the “attention it deserves” when full inspections restart, which is currently set for September.
How schools comply with the Baker Clause has been coming under increasing scrutiny in recent months.
The government’s Skills for Jobs white paper, published in January to lay the ground for the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill currently going through Parliament, set out a plan to strengthen the clause.
This included a new minimum requirement “about who is to be given access to which pupils and when,” and making government-funded careers support for schools conditional on Baker Clause compliance.
Oli de Botton, chief executive of the government’s own careers quango, The Careers and Enterprise Company, told the AELP conference last week it was “true historically that there hasn’t been enough access for ITPs or enough information about apprenticeships and technical routes for young people”.
The Department for Education has promised a consultation on reforms to the Baker Clause, which is expected to run this summer.
Labour will seek amendments to the Skills Bill so that metro mayors have a bigger role in local skills improvement plans, the House of Lords has heard.
The party will also seek to remove proposed new powers for the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, warning that the plans would “undermine the independent status” of Ofqual.
The government’s Skills and Post-16 Education Bill received its second reading in the Lords this afternoon, following the publication of the first draft last month.
Among 53 speakers was Baroness Wilcox (pictured) for the opposition, who outlined the amendments that Labour is proposing.
Local skills improvement plans (LSIPs) led by employer representative groups (ERBs) and new powers for the education secretary to intervene when colleges “fail to meet local need” are central new pieces of legislation in the Skills Bill.
Wilcox said she is “concerned” that the government’s “desire for employers to take the lead in skill reform, lack clear structures, transparency, and will render providers passive recipients of LSIPs”.
“We will seek to amend the bill to empower the metro mayors and combined authorities to co-produce the plans in recognition of the crucial role they have to play,” she added.
“We will also seek to extend LSIP consultation to student representatives, trade unions, local and devolved governments and other relevant agencies.”
It comes after FE Week revealed in April that London mayor Sadiq Khan had slammed the government for cutting mayoral authorities out from leading new LSIP pilots.
Wilcox also said Labour is concerned that the education secretary will have the power to “select or sack ERBs, sign off on all LSIPs, to detect whether colleges are fulfilling these requirements, and to merge or replace colleges without recourse to local circumstances”.
“The first port of call for approving local plans and remedying poor local performance should be local, and not a centralisation of taking back control to Westminster,” she continued.
Wilcox called for the education secretary’s to be “narrowed to apply only in clearly defined exceptional circumstances”.
Another key proposal in the Bill is to give the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, a non-departmental public body directly accountable to ministers, the ultimate sign-off power for the approval and regulation of technical qualifications in future.
The Federation of Awarding Bodies has already warned that this would be a “retrograde step” from the independence of Ofqual and introduce a conflict of interest.
Wilcox said Labour is “concerned that this handing back, day to day of political control of technical qualification regulation would undermine the independent status of Ofqual and risks of cumbersome new dual regulatory approval system”.
“We will seek to amend the bill to ensure that off call remains the sole body,” she added.
The Centres for Excellence in Maths are headed into their fourth year. With just two years of funding left, FE Week looks at how it all adds up
“I’ve been in the sector 20 years, and this is the first big initiative on maths I’ve seen with FE in the title,” says Zia Rahman, head of maths at Newham College in London. His colleague, Liz Hopker, nods. “Prior to this project, there hadn’t really been that much about maths in FE – mastery had been mainly about schools.”
The initiative they’re talking about, the Centres for Excellence in Maths (CfEM), was launched by the Department for Education in 2018. Schools already had ‘maths hubs’, maths mastery was a big topic, and there were even paid trips to Shanghai. But specific initiatives for post-16 maths seemed to have been forgotten.
It was not for a lack of trying over the preceding two decades. Various attempts had been made to shift stubbornly low pass rates in maths GCSE, improve adult numeracy and create more vocationally focused qualifications, explains Andrew Davies. He’s vice chair of the National Association for Numeracy and Mathematics in Colleges, which he says was set up precisely because there was so little cross-sector collaboration on maths in FE.
“There’s been an awful lot of efforts on maths that have been very well meaning,” he begins. “The chief flagship policy in recent years has been the centres, which has given the opportunity to share good practice.”
Prior to that, there was the 1999 Moser report, which sounded the alarm on the state of numeracy among adults. Then there was the 2004 Inquiry into Post-14 Mathematics Education, which warned of huge teacher shortages and issues with the curriculum and CPD. It prompted a well-regarded resource package by the University of Nottingham called Standards Unit – but then again all went quiet.
Then came the “gamechanger” recommendation in the Wolf review in 2011, says Davies. The report warned that less than half of students aged 18 held both maths and English GCSE passes. Worse, only four per cent were achieving them during the 16-18 phase. By 2014, it was a condition of college funding for students without a grade 4 to enrol in maths and English.
But the problems rolled on. Both the Sainsbury review of technical education in 2016 and the Industrial Strategy in 2017 warned of the need to improve maths study. A review of post-16 maths by professor Sir Adrian Smith said the country must “recognise more explicitly…the fundamental importance of further education”.
Various initiatives followed, including Maths for Life, which espouses “dialogic teaching” (encouraging students to discuss). At the same time a level 3 “core maths” qualification arrived in 2014, GCSE maths was reformed in 2015, and functional skills maths was also reformed in 2019.
Despite all these efforts, data shows less than a quarter of students who arrive without a GCSE grade 4 in maths aged 16 will have achieved this two years later.
So three years ago the government announced £40 million to be shared between 21 colleges, which would act as Centres for Excellence in Maths, working with up to ten partner colleges. The Education and Training Foundation and the University of Nottingham got a slice of the funding to support the project.
It wasn’t entirely without controversy – as FE Week pointed out at the time, six of the 21 centres actually had below average GCSE resit pass rates.FE Week analysis can also reveal the latest Ofsted reports for seven centres actually highlight concerns around maths attainment. Meanwhile, the colleges with the very best GCSE maths pass rates, such as Dudley College, had not become centres at all.
Perhaps this explains why the CfEM focus is on research. While the equivalent Centres for Excellence in SEND (also overseen by the ETF) disseminate their proven good practice, the maths centres were handed a fact-finding mission.
This is two-fold: first, ‘action research projects’ led by staff, and second, national trials on mastery led by Nottingham University. Findings from the latter have been stalled by Covid, and will now come out at the project’s finish in 2023.
These are centres for excellence, not of excellence. No one would claim to have all the answers
“It evolved into being research focused,” explains Steve Pardoe, head of the CfEMs at the ETF. “These are centres for excellence, not of excellence. No one would claim to have all the answers. The action research, for instance, has been hugely popular.”
The colleges agree. Running their own research has allowed staff to address one of the first problems facing the sector, explains Hopker ̶ the lack of academic evidence in an FE setting. “We did literature reviews, which did show there was very little on maths in FE,” she says. “Just since doing the action research, there’s now already so much more available.”
The centres pitch the projects to the ETF who help refine research questions and methods. Colleges must investigate four areas: motivation and engagement of learners, use of mastery, use of data and technology, and use of contextualisation (in which maths is placed in an applied context). In 2018/19, up to £170,000 was available per centre, and this year, it was up to £210,000.
The maths mastery handbook developed with the ETF, Centres and Pearson
At Fareham College in Hampshire, staff decided to research motivation by training learning support assistants to become one-to-one maths coaches, providing an extra hour of learning a week. “We did a lot of work around growth mindsets,” says Rosie Sharp, centre lead. “It’s about recognising that the students have already done the GCSE once and failed, so more of the same isn’t going to work.”
A major issue facing the centre project is that hard attainment data over the past two years has been impossible to get, owing to cancelled exams.
So Sharp’s team surveyed the students using questionnaires. Before coaching, 32 per cent reported feeling positive about maths; afterwards, 65 per cent did, she says. Meanwhile attendance at maths lessons has gone from 76 per cent to 82 per cent. The centre has now trained 11 coaches across it six ‘partner’ colleges.
Motivation and ‘contextualisation’ was the focus at City College Plymouth. The college decided to interpret the idea of a “centre” literally, using funding to create a more inspiring physical space kitted out with re-purposed tablets, says Nadia McCusker, centre lead.
Meanwhile other lessons were held in unusual locations, including orienteering sessions in woodland, or using ratios to mix dyes in hair and beauty workshops. “By taking them out of the traditional environment, we were able to engage them with maths more than usual.”
GCSE resit passes rose 20 percentage points in the latest November exam series, to 58 per cent, she adds.
Some of these changes have been inspired by “maths mastery”, which is explained in an FE-specific handbook compiled by the ETF and Pearson. Geoffrey Wake, professor at the University of Nottingham, and director of the centre trials, explains. “Slow down, first of all. It’s about working out where the student’s understanding is, and building it up, block by block, from there. It’s giving students the time to think through the concepts. Not rushing through the curriculum.”
This is key for FE maths teachers, who can feel they must squeeze a two-year GCSE course into about 30 weeks, he says. “We’re saying, do the fundamentals.”
Debra Jory, maths manager at City College Plymouth, says the centre team changed its maths scheme of work to reflect this. “Instead of teaching all the GCSE again, we went back to the basics. That’s also been motivational for students.”
At Leicester College, ‘network’ meetings between centres and their partner colleges have allowed such approaches to spread, says Michelle Bilby, centre lead. Students now use HegartyMaths, an online resource, to learn the basics themselves. This has also allowed the college to halve class sizes, which has improved learning in more complex topics, she adds.
Meanwhile at Leeds City College, the college used centre funding to buy £1,000 annual licences for maths software for its college partners after trialling the software itself. It focuses, mastery-style, on teaching maths in “personalised building blocks”, says Jonny Diamond, head of English and maths.
Another approach to maths mastery “with an FE lens”, spearheaded by Emma Bell, centre lead at the Grimsby Institute, has even been shortlisted for a national award.
Emma Bell presenting to staff from other colleges about the Centre
But with full attainment data lacking, for now the biggest claim to success is probably the CPD opportunities.
“Anything that can allow teachers to collaborate and improve in this area is very welcome,” says Julia Smith, a spokesperson for the Mathematical Association. “It can be a very tricky arena to work in. This has raised the profile of post-16 mathematics.” Diamond puts it more succinctly. “When maths teachers from Leeds are emailing maths teachers from Shipley, that’s great. They’re happier when they work.”
But big issues remain, which the centres – currently working across 172 colleges – do not directly address. Teacher shortages is one, but several staff warn that the numeracy crisis among adult learners is being overlooked. Others say that similar Centres for Excellence are badly needed in English and digital skills.
However, the most unanimous call from staff and experts is for a closer look at the GCSE itself, and whether it is the right qualification for FE. The government has remained quiet, but Alison Wolf, author of the 2011 review, has stated she doesn’t think it should be “compulsory” to do GCSE English and maths. She is looking at alternative curriculums for 16-19 learners, she says.
The CfEMs are a start, building up a much-needed catalogue of ideas. Professor Wake reflects: “It’s a project, funded for five years. But we know that embedding what we’ve learned into the fabric of FE can be really difficult. So, what’s the legacy?”
Government plans to remove funding for the majority of BTECs will hit the most disadvantaged young students the hardest, numerous sector-representative groups have warned.
In a joint statement published today for a campaign called #ProtectStudentChoice, 11 organisations urge ministers to rethink plans outlined in the level 3 qualifications review.
They express concern that removing funding for BTEC qualifications “will leave many students without a viable pathway at the age of 16 and will hamper progress to higher education or skilled employment”.
Exams regulator Ofqual raised similar fears in January after a consultation on the review closed, warning that learner choice would be adversely narrowed and that the move would destabilise the qualifications market.
The Department for Education’s own impact assessment concludes that students from disadvantaged backgrounds have the most to lose if applied general qualifications are defunded, as it is these students who typically choose to take the courses.
Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, described the plans as a “hugely unnecessary risk which will hit disadvantaged youngsters hardest”.
School, college and university groups are now encouraging their members to write to their MPs to make the case to ministers to protect BTECs.
The Department for Education is expected to publish the final outcome of the review before the end of the summer term.
Under proposed plans, the department would introduce a binary system of T levels and A-levels, where most young people pursue one of these qualifications at the age of 16.
It will involve stripping down what the DfE claims to be a “confusing landscape” of over 12,000 courses on offer to young people at level 3 and below, removing funding for those that compete with T Levels and A-levels by autumn 2023.
Ministers claim there are multiple qualifications in the same subject areas available – many of which are “poor quality and offer little value to students or employers”.
The review includes applied generals, tech levels and technical certificates. While these cover a wide range of courses, BTECs, awarded by Pearson, are the most popular.
In their joint statement, the 11 organisations warn that for “many” young people, applied generals will be a “more appropriate route to support progression to higher levels of study or a meaningful job, than an A level or T level-only study programme”.
Defunding them would “leave many students without a viable pathway at the age of 16 and will hamper progress to higher education or skilled employment”.
The organisations also say the present implementation timeline is “not feasible, particularly given the unfolding impact of the Covid pandemic”.
They add that funding should not be removed for any applied general qualification unless an “impartial, evidence-based assessment has concluded that it is not valued by students or employers”.
‘It is a hugely unnecessary risk’
Bill Watkin, chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association said: “The government’s plan to sweep away the majority of applied general qualifications like BTECs will make it harder for many young people to access higher education and harder for many employers to access the skills they need. Ministers must protect student choice and guarantee that applied general qualifications have a major role to play in the future.”
Barton added: “Scrapping applied generals will pull the rug from under the feet of the 200,000 young people who benefit each year from taking these proven and established qualifications which provide a great pathway to university courses, training and careers.
“It is a hugely unnecessary risk which will hit disadvantaged youngsters hardest.”
A DfE spokesperson said: “Our reforms to technical education are more crucial now as we recover from the pandemic. For too long we have allowed too many young people to leave education without the skills employers need – it’s critical we act now to address these skills shortages.
“We are putting employers at the heart of the skills system and boosting the quality of qualifications on offer so that all students, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, can be confident that whatever option they take post-16 it will be high quality and will lead to good outcomes.
“We have always been clear we want to phase these reforms in so that they are manageable.”
The 11 organisations that have issued today’s joint statement are:
Association of School and College Leaders
Collab Group
Grammar School Heads Association
NASUWT: The Teachers Union
National Education Union
NEON: The National Education Opportunities Network
University and College Union members at 11 colleges across England are voting on industrial action from today.
Ten of the ballots follow college bosses’ “refusal to make a decent pay off to staff”, while a separate one has opened at a group that is planning to make 30 staff redundant while investing in a controversial “teacherless” tech venture, as revealed by FE Week on Friday.
If the UCU members vote to strike, the action will be planned for the autumn term. The ballots close on July 14.
The union says bosses at the 10 colleges voting over pay have refused to provide a good salary increase despite the government announcing a £400 million increase in FE funding in late 2019.
They warn that the pay gap between college and school teachers currently stands at £9,000 as staff working in further education have suffered real terms pay cuts of over 30 per cent in the past decade.
UCU is demanding a pay increase of greater than 5 per cent at the 10 colleges.
In December, the Association of Colleges recommended colleges give their staff a 1 per cent pay rise because of the unforeseen and “severe financial pressure” colleges are now facing owing to the Covid-19 pandemic that has “forced many into deficit”.
Commenting on the strike ballots, UCU general secretary Jo Grady said: “Employers have millions more in the bank after government investment, so staff should not have to threaten to strike to be paid fairly. Colleges across England need to urgently offer staff a decent pay increase to avoid disruption.
“We are supporting members to vote ‘YES’ in a ballot to take strike action in the autumn. Strong, properly funded further education is central to creating a fairer society, and is more important than ever as we come out of the recent pandemic.”
The separate ballot is being held at Capital City College Group over pay, working conditions, and compulsory redundancies.
As this newspaper revealed last week, the college is planning to make over 30 staff redundant while investing millions into a new coding school which involves a “sink or swim” admissions model and no teachers.
Two governors resigned at the group as a result of the venture.
Number 10 is seeking a “deputy director for education, jobs and skills” to work in a new unit set up to drive policy implementation.
According to a job advert, the new £71,000 to £117,800-a-year role will be based in the Number 10 Delivery Unit, a new team within the Cabinet Office that “should grow to around 40 staff” over time.
The vacancy is likely to exacerbate concerns that education policy is increasingly run not from the Department for Education, but from the prime minister’s office itself. Although it is normal for Downing Street to have advisers on education policy, the new role is for a senior civil servant.
Sir Michael Barber
The delivery unit, set up based on the recommendations of former Tony Blair adviser Sir Michael Barber, will “support capacity building in government departments”, and take “a clear leadership role in how we can collectively achieve successful delivery of the government’s ambitious agenda for the people of this country”.
The unit will also act as “guardian of the centre’s delivery priorities and the associated tools and techniques for getting things done”.
New official to ‘focus departments’ on delivery
The new deputy director, who will be appointed on a two-year contract, will lead an education, jobs and skills team and “focus departments and delivery partners on the successful delivery of critical outcomes in that area”.
The new role will involve using the prime minister’s “backing” to “intervene effectively where delivery is slowing to get projects back on track”.
The appointed official will also work with the head of the delivery unit to “communicate their team’s mission and purpose across government”, and build “robust networks at the most senior levels in departments to both monitor and support delivery, as well as strengthening the focus on delivery at the centre of government”.
It will also be their responsibility to work with data experts “both in departments and in Number 10”, to develop a “world-class system for collecting information on, and visualising progress in the delivery of the education, jobs and skills mission”.
Deputy director will ‘track progress’ on departmental outcomes
This will involve linking the work of the delivery unit to “wider systems and processes (in Cabinet Office and HM Treasury) for tracking progress on the government’s priorities and departmental outcomes”.
They will also work “closely” with the director of the levelling up mission to “oversee the contribution of education, jobs and skills to the delivery of levelling up”.
According to the advert, the delivery unit is looking for someone with “the personal presence, effectiveness and credibility to operate at a very senior level across government and beyond”, with a “proven track record” of working with “senior stakeholders” such as ministers and chief executives.
The successful candidate will also have expertise “relating to the education, jobs and skills mission”, for example, in “education or skills policy or education bodies”. Experience working in a devolved setting, like a local authority or mayoral office, is “desirable but not essential”.
Candidates will be assessed on their ability to see “the big picture”, to change and improve, their leadership, communication and influencing capabilities and their ability to deliver “at pace”.
The closing date for applications is June 27.
PM complained of ‘sluggish’ response to Covid
Boris Johnson
The new delivery unit, which will be run by England’s vaccine deployment lead Dr Emily Lawson, will replace the Downing Street implementation unit set up by David Cameron. It will be similar to a unit run by Barber during the Blair years.
Boris Johnson warned in a speech last year of a need to fix problems “brutally illuminated” by Covid, including the “parts of government that seemed to respond so sluggishly so that sometimes it seemed like that recurring bad dream when you are telling your feet to run and your feet won’t move”.
According to Civil Service World, Johnson’s official spokesperson said earlier this year that the unit would not affect policymaking at department level, but was “about making sure that the prime minister’s priorities are being delivered”.
But i News reported that Johnson risked accusations of trying to “override” the civil service.
