One bill was never going to solve our skills challenge

A long-term cultural shift is needed – so after the bill, we need a ten-year plan, writes Stephen Evans

The skills bill is nearing the end of its journey through parliament and will soon become law. Where does this leave us?

The purpose of the bill is to make legal changes to enact parts of the recent skills white paper. Other parts that don’t need legal changes are awaiting the government’s responses to consultations.

This week the Commons considered 35 potential amendments.

While none passed, they helped to raise important issues.

For example, we probably don’t need an act of parliament to be able to retrain people into green jobs, but the proposed amendment perhaps helped to shine a greater light on the issue.

I was also pleased Margaret Greenwood, MP for Wirral West, raised essential skills – nine million adults have low literacy or numeracy in England, yet 63 per cent fewer adults are improving these essential skills compared to a decade ago.

Education select committee chair Robert Halfon continues to be a one-person skills revolution, securing action on apprenticeships for prisoners and rightly proposing strengthening the Baker Clause.

In other words, some of the issues raised in amendments are now more likely to get action as a result. That’s a good thing.

For me, the best part of the final bill is the new lifelong loan entitlement. This gives adults access to loans for higher education, alongside the recently introduced lifetime skills guarantee (although the latter is not guaranteed in law) focused on access to level 3.

Neither are perfect. I’d like the loan entitlement to start sooner, and I’d like the skills guarantee to be wider so it helps with retraining and learning at all levels.

But they’re good steps forward and something to build on.

The bit I’m least convinced by are the new local skills improvement plans (LSIPs). The bill is allowing the government to designate employer groups to draw up skills plans that providers must pay regard to.

This isn’t the first attempt to do this – we’ve seen a whirligig of initiatives over the past 30 years. We tend to go in various cycles of more market-based approaches, and then focusing on greater employer involvement in planning the skills system and qualifications, and then thinking about compelling employers to train, and then repeating. Employers have probably been in more driving seats than Lewis Hamilton.

Will LSIPs stand the test of time? We definitely need a strategic view of skills needs, but it’s not clear to me how the latest approach learns from previous attempts ̶ from the Manpower Services Commission under the Heath government in 1973 to skills advisory panels, which are ongoing.

And, of course, learning is about more than skills and jobs. I worry we’re too focused on employer involvement in planning the publicly funded skills system, but paying too little attention to learning as a whole.

We also need to focus more on how skills are used and employers’ own investment in training. And it feels like there is too little join-up with “levelling-up” plans, including greater devolution and role for local government and the government’s Plan for Jobs, which aims to get more people into work.

This links to my final point. Expectations were perhaps too high among some for this bill. Improvements in skills require a change in culture and long-term investment.

Expectations were perhaps too high for this bill

Laws can help or hinder, but no single act of parliament was ever going to “solve” our skills challenge.

The bill doesn’t do anything to change the apprenticeship system, where numbers are down on pre-levy levels, with falls particularly acute for young people.

It’s good that public investment is rising again, but the bill doesn’t fill the £750 million gap in adult skills funding that will remain in 2025, compared to 2010 levels – or reverse the decline in employer investment in training over the last decade.

However it wasn’t going to “solve” those issues anyway.

That’s why I think we need a ten-year lifelong learning strategy, developed in partnership and backed by long-term investment. The skills bill takes some steps forwards. We now need a giant leap.

Rationing access to student loans will hit FE colleges harder than universities

Students without minimum grades also have a limited choice of other routes, write Andy Westwood and Ben Verinder

Yesterday we got the government’s long-awaited response to the Augar Review, nearly four years after the review was published.  

Beforehand, ministers had briefed the introduction of proposed “minimum entry requirements” for access to student loans. 

These would be either a grade 4 in GCSE English and maths, or two Es at A-level ̶ and the possible return of “student number controls” for “low-value” courses.  

Immediate changes are also being made to the student finance system, with longer repayment periods (40 years), a fixed lower repayment threshold (£25,000) and frozen fee levels at £9,250 until 2025. 

(High inflation means this is a year-on-year, real-terms reduction in fees.) 

While making these decisions, successive Conservative ministers have promised to expand alternatives to university. These include more higher level and degree apprenticeships, and new technical qualifications at level 4 and 5.  

So what will the government offer those without the minimum grades? And what impact will these changes have on degrees and levels 4 and 5 in FE? 

It is clear that the rhetoric does not yet match reality. If you’re leaving school or college aged 18-19 and want a degree or higher-level apprenticeship at level 4, there aren’t very many on offer. 

According to the House of Commons Library, there were just 2,800 higher-level starts for 18-year-olds in 2020, down from 3,400 the previous year. Even if we include the starts among 19-to-24-year-olds, this only increases by a further 13,400.  

That’s very small, given that in the summer of 2021 there were 682,010 applicants for HE places in the current academic year.  

And numbers of level 4 and 5 courses continue to be in freefall, dropping by 32 per cent between 2015/16 and 2019/20 – from 165,865 to 113,380. That’s according to new research from market research organisations Chalkstream and RCU for the Collab Group of colleges. 

Only 23 per cent are under 21 years old, with two-thirds 25 or over. 

So whatever the ambitions, there’s not currently much choice for 18-to-19-year-olds as they leave school or college. Augar’s “missing middle” remains a very real problem.  

Augar’s ‘missing middle’ remains a very real problem

Obviously the government hopes this will change by putting financial support for full- and part-time students “on a par with degrees”, together with “upfront investment for providers up to 2025, to support the rollout of HTQs”. 

But if current numbers are anything to go by, this is going to require serious policy attention to be meaningful and if college-based HE is to be preserved.  

Rationing access to student loans will hit FE colleges harder than universities. According to DfE research, 11 per cent of level 4 and 5 learners had qualifications below level 2.  

And if new loan changes apply to levels 4 and 5 then our research suggests that for level 3 college students, financial considerations are the most significant barrier to progression. 

So these are significant issues to think through as DfE consults on these proposals.  

Minimum entry requirements and increased costs for institutions will threaten level 6 provision in colleges.

In turn, this impacts on their capacity to deliver levels 4 and 5 (they are often taught in similar subject areas and by the same staff).  

Furthermore, the proposed squeeze on university income poses significant risk to validating and franchising agreements – including for levels 4 and 5 – upon which the vast majority of HE in FE depends. 

That’s a real problem, and it’s not clear that ministers have joined up these dots.  

There are other political challenges. HE in FE students are more likely to live in low-participation “cold spots”, and attend institutions in towns and cities where economic performance and living standards are lowest.  

Earlier this month, the “levelling up” white paper promised ten-year missions to raise skills, strengthen institutions and boost human capital in these places. 

Less than a month later, and these promises may already be at risk.

DfE being sued for millions by training provider

A training provider that successfully defended a legal case brought against it by the government last year is now suing the Department of Education for millions of pounds in damages. 

In the previous court battle the DfE tried and failed to recover almost £200,000 of tuition fees from CCP Graduate School Limited, a provider of further education teacher training courses. 

Now, in a separate case, CCP is suing the department claiming that it unlawfully held back fees from the provider which it claims ultimately led to a loss of business – an alleged breach of contract for which CCP is seeking damages. 

“The provider was unable to continue with the successful business that was built over 20 years,” a solicitor from Saracens Solicitors, who are fighting the case on behalf of CCP, told FE Week. 

They said that staff of over 15 years were put on part-time and then made redundant. 

“Many went through depression due to not being able to continue with the organisation. The company felt it was being targeted.” 

The previous case 

Back in September 2021 the DfE tried to recover £196,862.50 of tuition fees paid to CCP, in respect of 93 students enrolled on DTLLS courses – a now defunct teacher training qualification for teaching in further education. 

In 2014 the DTLLS qualification was phased out, being replaced by the Diploma in Education and Training (“DET”). 

CCP had enrolled a number of students on its DTLLS courses in the academic year 2013/14 but registered them with the relevant awarding body, Pearson, for a DET qualification. 

The DfE claimed that as CCP was never approved for designation as a provider of DET courses, it was not entitled to be paid tuition fees in respect of students who, although taught on a DTLLS course, were registered by CCP for a DET qualification. 

However, a judge dismissed the DfE’s claim on the grounds that the students were entitled to receive funding support for the course until the course was completed or until they withdrew from the course. 

Saracens Solicitors told FE Week that the consequences of the last judgement are that other providers of this course “may want to consider whether they are in a similar position and ought to consider obtaining legal advice with a view of launching their own legal challenge against the department”. 

The solicitor said they could not comment on whether they knew of other providers in CCP’s position, and added that it would be premature to say if this would lead to a “floodgate of claims”. 

The new case brought against the DfE

Back in 2011, CCP first entered into an agreement with the DfE to teach students the DTLLS course. 

As part of this agreement, the DfE agreed to pay students’ tuition fees owed to CCP via the Student Loans Company. However, CCP claims the DfE breached this agreement by failing to pay tuition fees owed to them between August 2013 and December 2014. 

While CCP remains an active company, the business claims that the withholding of fees led to CCP becoming “moribund”. 

CCP said it has not been able to function as a training provider, and that whether it is able to be a full provider again will depend on resolution of the case. 

According to CCP, the DfE had made various enquiries with CCP, but the provider claimed no justifiable reasons have been given for holding back the money. 

The company said the initial reason was that a whistleblower had reported fraudulent behaviour by students who had registered on the SLC portal for courses run by CCP.

Because of these allegations two investigations were carried out, first by SLC and then by the Government Internal Audit Agency (GIAA). 

However, the provider said these investigations did not find any fraud or malpractice on the part of CCP. 

CCP claims that by November 2016 it had answered all legitimate concerns the DfE had and so they were obliged to make full payment of the outstanding fees – something CCP says the DfE ultimately did not do. 

The DfE told FE Week that it could not comment on legal proceedings ongoing or otherwise. 

As well as offering higher education courses (including the DTLLS) CCP previously offered 16-to-19 study programmes. 

Following an Ofsted inspection published in August 2016 into its 16-to-19 provision, CCP received an overall rating of ‘inadequate’. 

CCP told FE Week that the Ofsted inspection resulted in the termination of its government contracts for 16-to-19 study programmes. 

However, it said this was a very small contract compared to its higher education contract, and that it was only going to concentrate on higher education where they had a substantial number of students. 

The company claimed that the termination of the 16-to-19 contract did not have an impact on CCP as a business and did not contribute to it becoming moribund. 

CCP added that it had a successful QAA achievement and therefore the Ofsted rating was not relevant for their higher education funding.

Provider pulls out of £3m devolved contract due to low student uptake

A training provider is cancelling a near-£3 million adult education budget contract with a devolved authority and closing five centres due to a lack of student demand.

Go Train Ltd has put 32 staff at risk of redundancy after taking the decision to withdraw their West Midlands Combined Authority contract mid-way through the academic year.

The provider will, however, continue with its £3 million national AEB allocation held with the Education and Skills Funding Agency and expand its delivery of the government’s Restart jobs scheme as a subcontractor – which is its traditional delivery model.

Marco Ferrara, chief executive of Go Train, told FE Week the West Midlands took a “disproportionate” hit during the pandemic when it came to adult enrolments.

His provider has struggled to fulfil its annual maximum contract value with the combined authority every year since the WMCA took control of the £128 million AEB for its areas in August 2019 – leaving it “unviable” to continue with.

“We’re predominantly a face-to-face provider, but the pandemic has significantly impacted our turn-up rates from job centre referrals,” he explained.

“Covid has complicated people’s personal circumstances, such as childcare and work-sharing arrangements. Our potential learners, despite all the willingness in the world, just haven’t been able to commit to signing up. Over its lifetime, the WMCA contract just hasn’t worked for us.”

Ferrara wouldn’t share Go Train’s target or actual student recruitment numbers but said his provider was failing to hit targets by double-digit figures. He added that Go Train has spent half of its current 2021/22 contract in the West Midlands and they will complete the training for existing adult learners in the area before the remaining contract is handed over.

A WMCA spokesperson said: “We can confirm that Go Train have informed us they wish to withdraw from their AEB contract. We will work with the company to minimise disruption to their learners.”

Go Train has offered adult learning programmes as a sub-contractor since 1992 and currently offers sub-contracted provision for seven providers and colleges.

It only started to deliver directly funded AEB provision with the ESFA in 2017 and then the WMCA in 2019 to adults studying qualifications in areas such as employability, enterprise and retail.

Ofsted visited Go Train for the first time in 2019 and judged the provider to be making ‘reasonable progress’ in all three areas of an early monitoring visit.

Ferrara said Go Train will now invest in other areas of its business, such as Restart, and has even begun advertising for 13 new jobs.

The skills bill could have been so much better

Both Labour and Conservative voices have been ignored by the government, writes Toby Perkins

After the government blocked no fewer than 32 amendments to the skills bill, education secretary Nadhim Zahawi said it “will leave this place in a much improved state”.

I have to disagree. It was weakened, and the skills bill could have been so much better.

People are used to politicians disagreeing on party lines, but in recent debates in parliament, respected Conservative voices lined up to criticise the government’s approach to the bill.

That included former Tory education secretaries Ken Clarke and Ken Baker – the latter going as far as to call the bill “an act of educational vandalism”.

Sadly, the government was having none of their wise counsel: on Monday every Lords amendment was taken out and every Commons amendment blocked.

Legislation to improve skills education is always welcome. But for Labour, there are four key issues, which the skills bill fails to address or risks making worse.

Too many children do not have access to professional careers guidance and work experience.

Too few apprenticeships are available, because the apprenticeship levy isn’t working as it needs to, with too many small businesses not participating, and fewer level 2 and 3 apprenticeships.

There’s too little ambition on local skills, with local skills improvement plans (LSIPs) envisaged as an outsourcing of administration rather than boosting the skills that different communities need to prosper.

And the transition towards the new T Levels has sadly become a case study in how a laudable policy aim can be put at risk by incompetent execution and poor planning.

It matters that we get these things right, for our young people and for our country.

The pace of change is accelerating, and opportunities for young people and adults to train and retrain have never been so important, so that opportunity is shared across every corner of our country, and everyone can enjoy security and prosperity at work.

We want young people to leave education both ready for work and ready for life, with the digital skills they need, the careers advice they deserve, and work experience for everyone.

Giving children – particularly those from more deprived communities – a chance to experience the world of work and a sense of potential careers isn’t just about their horizons after education, but often about giving a purpose to their studying too.

For too long, careers guidance and work experience has been seen as additional to a school’s contribution to a child’s development.

Labour believes that good-quality, face-to-face careers guidance and meaningful work experience is vital part of every young person’s education and development. 

That’s why Keir Starmer committed last year that the next Labour government will offer all children face-to-face careers guidance and a minimum of two weeks meaningful work experience.

On apprenticeships, the bill basically left the current system untouched. That’s a serious mistake. Too many small businesses that don’t pay the levy have now also moved away from offering apprenticeships. 

The bill basically left the broken apprenticeship system untouched

Reforming this broken system and addressing the drop in apprenticeship starts should have been at the heart of the legislation, not out of scope.

At a local level, what skills reform this government has achieved since 2010 has been about putting employers in charge.

The government rejected an amendment that would have created a more collaborative approach and ensured that LSIPs heard from private and public sector employers, FE colleges, independent providers, local devolved decision-makers and local enterprise partnerships.

And while T Levels are a welcome innovation, they have yet to complete their pilot phase and the government has simply not managed the transition as well as is needed. 

There has been widespread alarm from all corners ̶ from employers, unions, and colleges alike ̶at the government’s plans to scrap so many level 3 qualifications in advance of the new qualification being established and recognised.

Labour welcomes T Levels, but this haste risks wrecking the journey.

The next Labour government will build a better and more coherent system. But the bill the House of Commons has just voted through represents many missed opportunities. 

Britain deserves better.

Zahawi makes plea to peers to leave the skills bill alone

The education secretary Nadhim Zahawi has warned members of the House of Lords against changing the skills and post-16 education bill again.

The bill passed its report and third reading stages in the House of Commons on Monday, clearing the way for it to become law.

Before that can happen, though, a process informally known as “ping pong” takes place, in which the bill goes back to the Lords to consider the changes made in the Commons, and then back to the Commons to consider changes made by the Lords.

In a letter sent to members of the House of Lords on Wednesday, Zahawi said he is “extremely proud of the bill” and makes a plea to peers not to make any more changes.

“We have made a significant number of improvements to the bill, and to policy more generally, in response to important issues raised by your Lordships. Our focus now must be for the bill to pass through parliament and to start implementing these important measures,” Zahawi writes.

Because the Conservative Party does not have a majority in the House of Lords, it’s much easier to find a majority to amend legislation. This is why, earlier in the parliamentary process, Lords were able to make a host of changes to the skills bill, only for them all to be removed by MPs further down the line.

Lords amendments included delaying the government’s plans to defund some level 3 qualifications, changing universal credit conditionality rules, bolstering careers guidance rules and bringing in rules on who should be involved in local skills improvement plans (LSIPs) – but these were all stripped out by MPs.

Ping pong

Several members of the House of Lords spoke to FE Week this week to indicate that they are actively considering using the “ping pong” process to bring back some of those changes.

For example, the government rejected changes that would require FE providers, local authorities and combined authorities to be involved in the development of LSIPs.

In his letter to peers, Zahawi writes: “I will commit my officials to engage with stakeholders, including the Local Government Association, the Greater London Authority, mayoral combined authorities and the Association of Colleges, and ensure that I am satisfied their views have been fully considered in the development of [LSIP] statutory guidance.”

Responding to a Lords amendment that would prevent universal credit claimants losing benefits by taking part in education and training, Zahawi says this would “create significant financial cost by widening eligibility for universal credit. The Commons has voted to remove this clause, and it would be inappropriate for the House of Lords to introduce a measure which impacts on public spending.”

Back to the Commons

Backbench Conservative MP Peter Aldous, who is also chair of the all-party parliamentary group for further education, received cross-party support in Monday’s debate for his amendment which would require the secretary of state to review universal credit conditionality rules which he says are a “barrier” to unemployed and low-earning people accessing further education.

Skills minister Alex Burghart rejected Aldous’s plea, stating that existing flexibilities were sufficient and challenging MPs to provide examples of courses that claimants cannot access because of the rules.

Harlow MP and education select committee chair Robert Halfon tabled three amendments; however, he didn’t move them to a vote. This is a common tactic by backbench MPs from a governing party – to have issues raised in order to receive verbal assurances from ministers without upsetting party whips.

Halfon’s amendments included adding provisions for prisoner apprenticeships to the bill, which are now being developed.

In a passionate speech about careers guidance, Halfon tabled a popular amendment to enhance the Baker Clause – a law requiring schools to provide advice and guidance on the full range of FE and apprenticeships options.

He said the clause “has not been implemented properly” and that it “grieves” him that schools are not providing good advice about apprenticeships.

Responding, skills minister Alex Burghart said that he “expects schools to take note” of the new unit for future skills, which he says will provide schools with the data that shows the positive outcomes of apprenticeships and technical education.

“I am trusting the government to move some way on his,” Halfon said.

Should the Lords proceed to change the bill again, it’s extremely likely that the government will once again use its majority to remove any more changes.

Unfair: Large apprenticeship providers ‘disproportionately penalised’ by new ESFA rule

Large apprenticeship providers have hit out at a “nonsensical” funding rule that proposes to punish their firms if they have more than 100 withdrawals or delayed completions.

A new apprenticeship accountability framework, mooted in last year’s skills for jobs white paper, was published for 2021/22 and sets out the quality indicators that providers will be measured against when it comes to intervention, from April.

Controversially, it states that providers will be placed in a ‘needs improvement’ category and become subject to “enhanced monitoring” when the number of apprentices in a cohort are past their planned end-dates, on breaks in learning or have withdrawn is more than 15 per cent or “greater than 100”.

A clarification version of the framework released last month showed that enhanced monitoring could include management conversations with government officials, the development of “improvement plans” and potential referrals to Ofsted.

Providers have accused the ESFA of launching an attack on large apprenticeship firms as they will be “disproportionately penalised” under the “greater than 100” threshold.

“There are many holes in the framework and lots of unknowns but the initial comms seems nonsensical and will more than likely put the majority of apprenticeship providers into ‘need improvement’ category,” said Brenda McLeish, chief executive of the Learning Curve Group.

She gave the example of a provider with 2,500 apprentices that could have a withdrawal rate of only four per cent yet still be subject to enhanced monitoring.

Nichola Hay, chief operating officer of Estio Training, said the policy has “good intentions” but its implementation is “wrong”.

“It is not a fair rule,” she told FE Week. “From sector to sector there are different impacts for breaks in learning, for example, especially following the pandemic.”

Sector leaders estimate that around half of the almost 1,500 apprenticeship providers in England are medium to large in size and typically have more than 100 withdrawals each year.

Sharron Robbie, managing director of the Devon and Cornwall Provider Network, questioned where the government’s resource would come from to adequately monitor all those providers in scope.

Sharron Robbie

She added that while she is supportive of ESFA action to tackle poor-quality apprenticeships, using a “blunt figure” of greater than 100 for all providers was “disproportionate”.

The accountability framework states that from April 2022, the ESFA will use the indicators and thresholds as the starting point for informing where there may be areas of concern.

The ESFA told FE Week that the agency does recognise the greater than 100 threshold will “capture” larger providers.

In defence of the rule, the agency said that while 100 apprentices may for some providers still represent a small percentage, in volume terms this is “still potentially high numbers of apprentices where we would want to seek further information and assurance”.

For those providers showing a significant or highest risk of poor-quality apprenticeship delivery the agency will consider whether suspending apprentice recruitment until improvements are seen.

The accountability framework added that each intervention will be “based on evidence and appropriate to the level of risk to the quality of apprenticeship delivery”.

Jane Hickie, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said her members are “extremely concerned” by the proposals. “We strongly support ensuring that more learners complete their apprenticeship, but as the agency well knows, there are often factors for non-completion that are out of the provider’s control, particularly in certain sectors,” she added.

Providers can email feedback on the proposals to provider.strategy@education.gov.uk until March 1.

MP support for skills bill amendments is encouraging

Not accepting two amendments is a missed opportunity by the government, but there is cause for hope, writes Peter Aldous

Readers will be all too aware of the significance of the Skills & Post-16 Education Bill and the wider skills reform agenda, and the impact it will have on colleges across the country.

It’s a bill I very much welcome – especially the focus it places on the central role that colleges have in improving economic growth and in creating opportunities that will redress long-standing regional inequalities.

But, while it points in the right direction, there are areas where it needs to be improved if it is going to meet its ambitions. That is why I tabled two amendments ahead of the report stage and third reading debates in the House of Commons on Monday.

One amendment would have required the government to conduct a review of barriers that universal credit claimants face in accessing education and training.

The other would have seen colleges formally recognised as co-constructors of local skills improvement plans (LSIPs).

In relation to the first amendment, I believe that modest changes to the way the current welfare system operates would help remove rigid and complex rules around studying and claiming universal credit at the same time.

My amendment called for a review on the conditionality rules that prevent too many people from being able to get the skills they need to gain more meaningful and sustainable employment.

I’ve discussed this in some detail with Alex Burghart, the skills minister and Mims Davies, the employment minister.

During the debate, minster Burghart was keen to set out the various government initiatives in this space and why he believes a review isn’t necessary.

The government is not yet convinced, so I did not feel it worthwhile to push this to a vote – but I was very encouraged by the number of MPs, both fellow Conservative backbenchers and those across the house, who spoke fervently in support.

My modest request for a review would provide a deeper understanding of why the system is not working, and a deeper understanding of lessons from the important recent developments government has led, including skills bootcamps and the recently announced pathfinder pilots set out in the levelling-up white paper. I’ll continue to work across the house and with the sector on this issue.

My second amendment aimed to ensure that there is a genuine partnership between employers and colleges when it comes to writing LSIPs.

Colleges have a unique insight into their local areas and are central to delivering on plans – and they have a key role to play in interpreting the diverse and at times contradictory demands of employers. It’s important then that they share responsibility for developing and delivering on local plans, and that this role is set out on the face of the bill.

College leaders in the LSIP trailblazer pilot areas recently set out strongly how they can be strengthened, and their support for my amendment. This would build on the government’s previous concession that mayoral combined authorities should have a formal role in this process.

Government, however, does not believe that this needs to be extended in the bill, arguing instead that this will be an important element of the statutory guidance.

The government can – and should – send a clear message to colleges that they are valued partners in this process, and will never be passive recipients of plans written up by others.

The government should send a clear message to colleges that they are valued partners

Ultimately, the government chose not to accept any of the amendments I and others tabled, which I do fear is a missed opportunity.

However, I am not disheartened. What I heard on Monday was colleagues across the house speaking passionately about the role of colleges in meeting the many challenges our country faces.

And I heard a government that accepts that more needs to be done, even if they are reluctant to make legislative commitments at this stage.

I’m sure peers will again press the government on these important issues. I’m hopeful that government will listen and we conclude the legislative process with a bill that truly delivers for people, communities and employers.

Ofqual proposes stricter controls on BTECs that survive qualifications cull

Regulators have unveiled plans for more “rigorous” controls over the BTECs and other post-16 qualifications which survive a planned bonfire of level 3 courses.

A 65-page Ofqual consultation published on Thursday details proposals to raise standards, but leaves the sector in limbo as it awaits news of which qualifications face the chop.

Courses which overlap with “flagship” A-levels and T Levels are set to lose funding from 2024, with education secretary Nadhim Zahawi arguing last year strong education systems abroad have hundreds not thousands of qualifications.

The cull has sparked a significant backlash, with more than 110 MPs and three ex-education secretaries slamming the plans. A petition has 108,352 signatures.

A newly published letter from Zahawi to Ofqual’s chief regulator Dr Jo Saxton also provides few clues about the scale of the cull.

But it says the “once-in-a-generation” overhaul from 2024 must ensure all post-16 provision is “fit for purpose”, asking Ofqual to balance stronger regulation with minimising “disruption and uncertainty” for schools and colleges.

‘Simplified’ system

Ofqual’s consultation reiterates past DfE pledges to create a “simplified system”, with A-levels and T Levels the “main academic and technical qualification offers” respectively.

But A Levels will sit alongside two “alternative academic” options – courses complementing students’ A-level and higher education choices, or courses with significant practical or performance-based knowledge unavailable through A-levels.

Meanwhile T Levels will sit alongside two “alternative technical” qualification types – those offering job skills in occupations not covered by T Levels, and those providing expertise which goes “beyond” standard occupational skills typically offered by T Levels.

The government also accepts a continued place for four more kinds of adult-focused qualification, and two other academic routes – courses like the International Baccalaureate, and small complementary options like Extended Project qualifications.

Grading overhaul

Ofqual is considering a “single grading scale” for alternative academic and technical qualifications, such as A* to E.

This would ensure “greater commonality”, but it acknowledged any scale may not be appropriate for all courses.

BTECs currently have their own grading system of pass, merit and distinction. Whereas WJEC qualifications, for example, offered across UK use an A* to E grading system.

Alternative options put forward by Ofqual include a fixed number of possible grading scales or grades, or letting providers use whichever scales they wish. The risk is a “proliferation” in scales.

The consultation asks if it should prioritise simplicity for users, flexibility for awarding organisations or comparison over time – potentially by keeping existing scales.

Performance tables

Zahawi’s letter had said most publicly funded qualifications should “meet the requirements to count in performance tables”.

Ofqual’s proposed “purpose” requirements for alternative academic courses include providing a “basis for schools and colleges to be held accountable” for performance”. 

Courses must be “sufficiently robust” to appear in performance tables.

Stricter assessment rules

Awarding organisations may be ordered to impose strict rules on non-exam assessments, specifying work and content required and how assessors differentiate students’ attainment levels.

Centres’ ability to make “changes” to non-exam assessment may also be curbed.

At least 40 per cent of alternative academic qualifications would be assessed via exams, on up to two set dates a year. The percentage is unchanged for applied general qualifications such as BTECs, but higher than the current 30 per cent rule for Tech Level courses.

Ofqual acknowledged exam requirements could “adversely impact” students with disabilities or conditions like anxiety, and two set assessment dates could coincide with religious events or activities. But it said some students would be disadvantaged “whatever time an examination is offered”.

Courses rebranded

A rebrand appears likely. Ofqual uses the novel terms “alternative technical” and “alternative academic”, but says the DfE will “confirm in due course what these qualifications will be known as”. 

It does not propose a single term – like A-levels – but seeks views on what “expectations for the use of specific terms or titling conventions” it should introduce. 

It acknowledges the risk this suggests more “similarity” between qualifications than there is, however.

Stricter Ofqual controls

Courses will only receive public funding if they meet government “expectations”.

Ofqual plans “strengthened controls” to drive up standards. Courses would be regulated more like GCSEs, with awarding organisations ordered to write and follow an “assessment strategy”.

Zahawi’s letter said providers should be clearer whether courses prepare students for work or further study. Ofqual said assessment strategies must include such “specific purposes”, and highlight how providers’ qualifications are designed, delivered and awarded.

This will help Ofqual “hold them to account”. It also wants powers to force awarding organisations to follow its requirements when it reviews their qualifications.

Ofqual will also set general standards on how alternative academic qualifications must be designed, though such “purpose” requirements are not proposed for alternative technical courses. Reforms will give students confidence in qualifications’ “rigour and currency”.