Latest news from FE Week | FE Week

Here’s how to solve the ‘hyper problem’ of interrupted learning

Delivering ‘more, but faster’ is not what the evidence advises about improving learning, writes Tim Oates

The development of a national approach to “learning after interruption” has been controversial.

There are plenty of headline grabbing suggestions about what we might do, but it’s tricky to all at once hold in our heads everything we need to do.

It’s one of those intimidating “hyper-problems”.

Simply extending learning hours and doing more of the same is not going to address the scale or nature of the problem.

‘Reduce teacher load’

To start with, we need to acknowledge that teachers have been affected just as much as learners. Surveys tell us that staff are exhausted.

They have had to undertake one of the most pressured transformations of learning ever seen in peacetime.

So we need to aim at approaches which are manageable and ultimately reduce teacher load, not increase it.

The next thing is controversial. We need to attend to learners’ workloads to reduce the burden on teachers.

Learning happens in the changed knowledge, skills and behaviours of each young person. It is their learning. To achieve this, they will need to work in a focussed and effective way.

And we know that this learning consists of four things: high quality contact time, social learning, quiet reflection, and self-study.

In other words, we need to focus not just on what colleges and schools need to do, but on what students need to do too.

‘Start with learning habits not content’

So…what does research tell us about the action we should take?

John Hattie did a fascinating analysis of education in New Zealand after the interruption to learning following the Christchurch earthquake in 2011.

It shows how dedicated action managed to elevate educational standards above where they would have stood had the interruption to education not occurred.

Research has also looked at approaches in Louisiana (after Hurricane Katrina) and those supported by the Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but our starting point should not be content gaps: we know that even high attaining students tend to focus on subjects which they enjoy or are committed to.

Initial action should attend to decay in learning habits and changes in learning dispositions. And we must identify any welfare and safeguarding matters and address them.

‘Monitor learning’

Yes, tests can be stressful, but with good support they can be extremely helpful.

Accurately determining problems by using dependable tests of reading age, mathematics and by examining samples of writing can inform swift and effective action.

Monitoring learning and acting immediately on misconceptions is also essential.

My long-held view is that we need to flood the system with high quality questions and use them throughout contact time and self-study.

‘Target core concepts’

Failure to master core concepts in subjects can cause accumulated confusion and a lack of wider understanding of the subject. And that in turn ramps up teacher workload.

Experienced teachers are highly skilled at developing accessible and exciting approaches to learning these core elements. It’s what they excel at.

‘Use complex language and good textbooks’

The work of the late neuroscientist Jane Mellanby shows that complex language (such as “…what would happen if that were not the case…”) encourages development of reasoning and analysis, accelerating learning across the whole of the curriculum.

Some young people are never exposed to such language outside college or school – so it’s essential that it is present in education.

Here at Cambridge Assessment we are surveying research on textbooks and it’s clear from the evidence from high performing systems that they still have a valuable role.

Teachers can refer students to a key section or a defined task to be done. Students can go back over things or look forward. Textbooks are not to be underestimated.

‘Aim to improve, not just recover’

All of this moves us away from doing “the same, only faster” or “the same, but for a longer day”.

It is all heavily evidence-driven and geared towards a leaner, more focussed workload for teachers.

And it holds the potential for something special. Not just helping those most affected by interrupted learning, but actually improving both equity and attainment.

Subcontracting rules watered down just a day after being published

A new rule that would force providers to gain permission before charging subcontracting management fees above 20 per cent was published in “error”, the Education and Skills Funding Agency has claimed.

The ESFA says the policy will now be corrected, just a day after sending it out to the sector.

In a new subcontracting “standard” published yesterday, the agency had said subcontracting top-slices “should only exceed 20 per cent in exceptional circumstances, which, in all cases will require ESFA approval”.

This would be the first time that providers have ever had to seek permission before charging management fees above a threshold.

It was welcomed by the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, which has been lobbying for top-slices to be capped at 20 per cent for five years.

But the ESFA quickly rowed back on the rule and told FE Week it was an “inadvertent drafting error that will be corrected today”.

AELP chief executive Jane Hickie did not buy the ESFA’s claim.

She said: “Does the department think we were born yesterday? The wording was too deliberately crafted for it to be an inadvertent error and someone has obviously kicked up about the requirement since the standard was published.

“If the new rule had stood before today’s U-turn, we would have finally arrived at the correct and sensible solution. Programme budgets should reach learners at the frontline and there has never been any justification for holding back more than 20 per cent of the funding other than in exceptional circumstances.”

The ESFA added that while prior approval will not be required for the charging of management fees above 20 per cent, the agency does “reserve the right” to challenge where fees retained are more than this threshold, as set out in current funding rules.

FE Week has exposed controversially high top-slices over the past decade, finding examples of management fees that reach 40 per cent to cover administrative costs.

Previous analysis by this publication for the 2016/17 academic year, for example, found that top-slices exceeded £100 million, and 28 per cent of prime providers were charging more than 20 per cent.

The ESFA’s refusal to clampdown on excessive fees comes despite mayoral combined authorities doing so after they took control of the adult education budget for their areas in 2018.

First to impose a strict cap was the Greater London Authority, which rules that no top-slice of a subcontracting deal can surpass 20 per cent.

The ESFA did launch a consultation on subcontracting reforms last year, and is taking other steps to crackdown on the practice. The new rules aim to force “significant” reductions to subcontracting e by 2022/23.

Hickie said: “Hopefully under the wider subcontracting reforms, we will also see the end of discredited practices such as year-end tactical subcontracting. However the FE and accountability system consultation raises more questions about where we go next and today’s shabby development hardly fills us with confidence that the right solutions will be adopted.”

Here is how the IfATE would deliver on the Skills Bill

The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education has developed an ‘Employer Centred, Future Facing’ strategy to go with the Skills Bill, writes Jennifer Coupland

The Skills and Post-16 Education Bill is a fantastic endorsement of the employer-led approach to identifying what training is needed to plug the nation’s skills gaps.

Employers know what works, and putting them at the very heart of developing apprenticeships has made a big difference to the end product that eventually helps set learners on a path to successful careers.

The Bill would enable the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to put employers at the centre of a unified skills system that works better for everyone, setting standards for all technical qualifications as well as apprenticeships.

As the Bill is making its way through Parliament, we are thinking about how the Institute should deliver on the proposals.

‘Three key themes to our strategy’

In particular, we are looking at how we gather and act on insights and intelligence from the thousands of large and small employers who voluntarily guide our work.

We know employer time is precious, so it’s vitally important that we make the best possible use of it.

We are also focused on how to make sure that opportunities for progression, right across technical education from entry up to postgraduate level, are made clearer than ever before through our occupational maps.

Finally, we are looking at how we will go about securing continuous improvement, constantly striving to refine how we work with everyone who cares about skills development and welcoming all ideas for how to do this.

These three key themes form the basis of our “Employer Centred – Future Facing” strategy for the next three years.

Subject to the passage of the Bill, the Institute would be responsible for approving most post-16 technical qualifications, creating a unique opportunity to unify the skills landscape.

A guiding principle would be whether employers feel these are relevant and needed.

For example, we would want to be confident that our approval of a classic car repair qualification would serve the sector’s needs and make a candidate more attractive for long-term employment.

‘Action will be taken where qualifications no longer benefit’

The Bill also proposes that we should conduct regular reviews of approved technical qualifications, which is something we already do for apprenticeships.

This could mean working with an awarding organisation to improve the qualification or, in other circumstances, withdrawing approval.

We would only take action if it was clear that qualifications no longer benefitted employers and learners.

Another aim is to prevent unwanted proliferation which brings confusion and complexity to the landscape.

The Bill proposes a new power for us to pause approval of certain qualifications. This is known as a moratorium and could be applied at a particular level, sector or type of qualification.

‘Ofqual and the IfATE will complement each other’

Finally, the Bill anticipates cementing the close working relationship we enjoy with Ofqual.

Ofqual has done a huge amount of great work with us to date, on everything from external quality assurance for apprenticeships, to T Levels, and for the rollout of higher technical qualifications.

Ofqual and the Institute have unique strengths, the combination of Ofqual’s regulation of qualifications and the Institute’s employer-facing expertise is entirely complementary and should benefit the sector for many years to come.

These are exciting times and we have come a long way since the Institute launched in 2017 – initially just to embed the employer voice across apprenticeships.

It is great news that this Bill will build on our successful experiences so far and we are incredibly grateful to our growing army of supportive employers for making this possible.

The dedication and expertise of further and higher education providers, awarding organisations, and learner representatives will also remain vitally important to us in the months and years ahead.

We look forward to harnessing all this goodwill to ensure our country gets the world-class training it needs – so we can keep pace with digital innovation, adapt to Brexit, and support economic recovery from Covid-19 in a positive and environmentally sustainable way.

Hospitality and catering courses added to level 3 lifetime skills guarantee offer

The government has added hospitality and catering courses to its new level 3 adult offer after controversially excluding the industry when the policy was first announced.

Almost 400 level 3 qualifications covering sectors including engineering, construction, public services and IT have been fully funded for all adults without a full qualification at level 3 – equivalent to two full A-levels – since April 2021 under the £95 million National Skills Fund scheme.

Industries such as hospitality, tourism and the media were left off the original list because they were deemed to be a low priority with low wages.

But following heavy lobbying from the likes of the Food and Drink Federation, the list has today been updated with 12 courses in the hospitality and catering industry.

level 3 — READ MORE: Level 3 ‘lifetime skills guarantee’ qualification list excludes major economic sectors

Nine of the courses are offered by awarding body City and Guilds, two are from VTCT and one is from Pearson.

In total there are 42 additions to the list today, adding courses to existing sectors in the list such as agriculture, building and construction, digital, health and social care, and food and drink manufacturing.

Mayoral combined authorities and awarding organisations have been allowed to submit bids for qualifications to be added to the list since it launched. The Department for Education accepts applications every other month.

The new level 3 offer builds on a similar policy that has been in place since 2013. It allows adults up to the age of 23 to be fully funded for their first full-level 3 qualification from the adult education budget. Those aged 24 and over have since had to take out an advanced learner loan to pay for the course.

Williamson slammed for ‘ignoring’ concerns about scrapping BTECs

Twelve education bodies have today slammed the education secretary for “ignoring” their concerns and ploughing ahead with plans to scrap the majority of BTECs.

In a letter to Gavin Williamson, sector leaders reiterate that disadvantaged students have the “most to lose” and that it is “impossible to square the government’s stated ambition to ‘level up’ opportunity” with the proposals.

The twelve organisations are part of the #ProtectStudentChoice campaign, which has now launched a petition to reverse the plans.

A notable absence from today’s letter and the campaign is the Association of Colleges. When approached for comment, the AoC said it does “share the overarching concern that students must not be left behind in a rush to introduce T Levels” but refused to say why it has chosen to not back the campaign.

Under the proposals, the Department for Education will introduce a twin-track system of A-levels and T Levels, where most young people pursue one of these qualifications at the age of 16. “Poor quality” qualifications which duplicate or overlap with T Levels or A-levels will have their funding removed from 2023.

This will impact a range of applied general qualifications, but BTECs, offered by awarding body Pearson, are the most popular.

The education bodies’ letter claims that it is “clear” from the government’s response to the level 3 review that Williamson’s department “has ignored the concerns expressed by us (and most other respondents) about the proposal to remove funding for the vast majority of applied general qualifications such as BTECs”.

Almost 1,350 people responded to the consultation and the vast majority – 86 per cent – disagreed with the DfE’s plan to strip funding from qualifications which overlap with T Levels and A-levels.

‘We urge you to rethink plans to remove funding for BTECs’

The letter points out that the DfE is choosing to move forward with the reforms despite the department’s own impact assessment report admitting that students from SEND, Asian ethnic, and disadvantaged backgrounds, as well as males “are disproportionately likely to be affected by the changes” because a high proportion of these learners choose to study BTECs.

While a delay to the introduction of the government’s proposals would be “welcome”, the letter goes on to say that this “would not change the fact they have the potential to do huge damage to social mobility and are completely out of step with the views expressed by our members”.

BTECs — READ MORE: What you need to know from the government’s response to the level 3 qualification review

The letter concludes by urging the government “to rethink plans to remove funding for the vast majority of applied general qualifications and instead provide assurances that they have an important role to play alongside the equally valuable A levels and T Levels in the future qualifications landscape”.

In response, a DfE spokesperson said: “Great qualifications are essential to helping everyone, regardless of their age or background, to reach their career goals and get good jobs.

“Our reforms will simplify and streamline the current system, ensuring that all qualifications are fit for purpose, are high-quality and lead to good outcomes.

“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, leave education with the skills employers need.”

After being asked why his association has not signed up to the #ProtectStudentChoice campaign, AoC chief executive David Hughes said: “We continue to work with DfE officials and have discussions with ministers about this and will press them to only de-fund qualifications once it is clear that they are not needed to meet the needs of all students and employers.

“In some areas it is clear that current applied generals and Tech Levels will need to be funded alongside T Levels, but it is likely that some will be superseded by the new T Levels once they have become established.

“The key test is whether they meet the needs of the whole cohort of learners ready to learn at level 3, and whether they support the breadth of progression in both learning and work those learners aspire to.”

The twelve organisations that have signed the letter are:

Association of School and College Leaders

Collab Group

Edge Foundation

Grammar School Heads Association

NASUWT: The Teachers Union

National Education Union

NEON: The National Education Opportunities Network

National Union of Students

SSAT: the schools students and teachers network

Sixth Form Colleges Association

UNISON

University Alliance

Union calls for formal review after OCR confirms 42% exam fees rebate

Exam board OCR has confirmed it will give schools and colleges a rebate of 42 per cent of fees for GCSEs and A-levels.

The announcement is likely to put more pressure on AQA – the country’s largest exam board – to up its rebate. The board will only return 26 per cent of entry fees, after saving £45 million.

The Association of School and College Leaders has now written to Ofqual asking for a “formal review” on the different level of discounts.

“We feel that it is important to look critically at how rebates have been calculated and the reasons for large differences. This is crucial in retaining the confidence of school and college leaders,” ASCL’s policy director Julie McCulloch said.

In a statement, OCR said it is “important to return as much as possible to schools and colleges given the huge amount of extra work that teachers and leaders have done this year.

“To recognise this we have decided to increase what we will pay back to schools and colleges beyond this year’s savings alone.”

OCR said savings this year amount to £15.5 million, but they will return £18.4 million to the sector. This will be 42 per cent of fees for general qualifications and 20 per cent for the main vocational qualifications.

Explaining the rebate, OCR said it had made some “significant” cost savings, such as not having to print and post exam papers and hiring the usual number of examiners.

But they also faced “exceptional costs” such as additional online training and support to exam officers and teachers, development of new IT to submit grades, “construction” of optional assessment materials and quality assurance checks.

OCR say they have increased their rebate to take into account the Department for Education funding for appeals and autumn exams. The boards have frozen fees for autumn.

It leaves just Pearson left to announce its rebate. WJEC Eduqas said last month it would discount exam entry fees by 42 per cent this summer.

However the Welsh government topped up the discount to 50 per cent, something ASCL has now asked education secretary Gavin Williamson to consider.

“It would recognise the enormous amount of work involved in assessing students this summer and help address the fact that school and college finances have taken a huge hit because of costs associated with the pandemic,” McCulloch added.

An ASCL survey found two third of headteachers believed schools and colleges should get at least 75 per cent back.

Last year, Pearson, OCR and AQA all gave about a quarter of fees back to schools and colleges. They faced criticism in January when FE Week’s sister publication FE Week revealed they had all increased entry fees.

Colleges invited to use cost-cutting consultants

Colleges will be given access to the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s army of cost-cutting advisers from September.

The ESFA today announced a new suite of measures that it says will be a more “proactive” approach to help colleges “realise and re-invest savings and to spot early warning indicators of financial issues”.

It involves a pilot of a new “curriculum efficiency and financial sustainability” programme which aims to assist colleges in finding ways to make savings, a move which FE Week revealed was on the cards in November 2020.

The scheme builds on the School Resource Management Adviser programme introduced by then-academies minister Lord Agnew (pictured) in 2018.

An evaluation of the trial, which involved up to 250 money-saving advisers, did find that it helped over 70 multi-academy trusts either save or generate new income of over £35 million.

But the programme did cause controversy after FE Week’s sister publication FE Week discovered that schools were being advised to replace experienced teachers with support staff on term-time contracts and urged to limit lunch portions for pupils.

Today’s announcement of a cost-cutting programme for colleges is light on detail so it is not clear at this stage whether it will be free, voluntary, or open to all colleges.

The ESFA also announced today that it will remove the ‘early intervention’ category and “some of the restrictions around support that currently entails”.

Instead, the agency will run a pilot where any college will be able to request expert help and support from the FE Commissioner through a diagnostic assessment – a process that was previously only open to colleges where a new principal had been appointed. These assessments result in unpublished reports, and aim to help colleges identify potential financial issues before they occur.

There will also be “increased support” available from the National Leaders of Further Education and of Governance programmes, and through access to Local Provision Reviews.

The new suite of measures follow Dame Mary Ney’s independent review of college financial oversight, which concluded there needs to be a shift to “nurturing and supporting” all colleges on an individual basis to spot early signs of weakness.

It also comes two weeks after the ESFA launched a consultation on proposals to simplify funding and accountability arrangements in FE.

Kirsty Evans, ESFA director of further education, said: “To ensure we can continue to build back better and recover, colleges will be critical to upskilling the future workforce, so it feels timely to introduce a more supportive and preventative, rather than reactive, approach to intervention, as recommended in Dame Mary Ney’s review.

“Through a new curriculum efficiency and financial sustainability pilot we are keen to learn from the sector where efficiencies can be made, and we want to share good practice, ideas and lessons we are learning from the sector to help prevent colleges going into financial decline.”

The ESFA claimed that its reforms should shorten the length of time a college spends in intervention.

Students are worried employers will see TAGs as ‘fake grades’, says Ofqual advisers

Students are worried employers will see their teacher assessed GCSEs as “fake grades”, Ofqual has said, as the regulator tries to quell fears about upcoming results days.

Child psychology and education experts have been speaking to students preparing to receive grades next month about their concerns.

The experts include Kevin Woods, educational and child psychologist professor and Dr Tee McCaldin, an educational leadership and management expert, both at the University of Manchester.

Writing a blog for Ofqual, they said with exams cancelled and students instead being awarded quality assured teacher assessed grades this year, students “had worries around grades being seen differently by others in the future”.

“They were concerned that universities would be less likely to accept them, or that employers see them as ‘fake grades’,” they said.

In response, the experts claim “everyone is in the same situation” and that all organisations that deal with exam results – such as colleges, universities and employers – are aware of the system this year, so students will not be treated “differently because of how they were awarded”.

Concern about GCSE teacher bias

Some students thought their teacher might not know them well enough to give them a grade, that they “might even mix them up with someone else in the class” or teachers may be biased towards different pupils.

The experts said that checks will ensure grades are “accurate for students and consistent across schools” as there has been time to plan this year and “learn from how things were done last year”.

The blog also offers strategies for students to cope with worry about grades, such as breathing techniques, and says “not getting the results you hope for it never ‘the end of the world’.”

GCSE and A-level grades are in the process of being finalised ahead of results days in the week of August 9.

Schools minister Nick Gibb said on Thursday that 99.9 per cent of all TAGs had been submitted. As of last Wednesday, 99.5 per cent of centres submitted evidence to back up grades as requested by exam boards, with 90 per cent submitted within the 48 hours.

The schools minister said where evidence “has raised questions”, centres received a virtual visit and “on some occasions have been asked to review grades”.

Gibb insisted they are “meaningful qualifications” that will “help young people go onto the next stage of their lives”.

‘Record’ number of students expected to start university

UCAS has said it is predicting that a rise in university applications and offers would lead to a “record number” of students starting university or college in the autumn.

For 18 year olds in the United Kingdom, there was a 10 per cent increase in applicants and a 12 per cent increase in applications from last year. This resulted in a 10 per cent increase in offers from universities and colleges.

UCAS chief executive Clare Marchant said universities are “ready to welcome more students” and “have worked hard to be flexible”.

DfE considers college vaccine passports

FE students could need to be fully vaccinated to attend education and training in the coming year under plans being considered by the Department for Education.

The Times today reported that the prime minister Boris Johnson had suggested that learners in higher and further education setting should face compulsory vaccination, subject to some medical exemptions.

Asked to comment on the proposed policy by FE Week, the DfE did not rule it out.

A spokesperson said: “Vaccinations are important in helping to keep higher education settings safe for when students return in the autumn term and we strongly encourage all students to take up the offer of both vaccine doses.

“Universities and FE colleges are encouraged to promote the offer of both doses of the vaccine and should continue to conduct risk assessments for their particular circumstances, as well as implementing sensible and proportionate control measures.

“If we consider that further measures are needed for these settings, we will set these out in the usual way.”

Covid-19 vaccination is now being offered to everyone aged 18 and over, as well as to all 17 year olds who are within three months of turning 18.

‘Making vaccinations compulsory as a condition to access education is wrong’

University and College Union general secretary Jo Grady warned that making vaccinations compulsory as a condition to access education is “wrong” and would be “hugely discriminatory”.

She said: “Lurching from complacency to compulsion is typical of a government that has flip flopped its way through this pandemic.

“Students should be prioritised for vaccinations, to ensure as many as possible have the opportunity to be vaccinated by September, but making vaccinations compulsory as a condition to access their education is wrong and would be hugely discriminatory against those who are unable to be vaccinated, and international students.

“Sadly, this looks and smells like a prime minister trying to pin the blame on students for not yet taking up a vaccine they haven’t been prioritised to receive.”

The Times’ report claimed that the newspaper has been told that the DfE has reservations about the legality and practicability of the plans.

Government figures show that fewer than 60 per cent of 18 to 25s have had a first vaccination.