Latest news from FE Week

Ministers scrap plans for post-qualification admissions

Plans to radically overhaul university admissions to offer students places based on their actual exam results have been shelved.

The government had consulted on a move to post-qualification admissions, which would have seen students receive university offers once they had obtained their final grades.

Former education secretary Gavin Williamson said at the time that he wanted to “remove the unfairness” from the current system, in which pupils apply and are offered places based on predicted grades.

But universities minister Michelle Donelan confirmed today that the reforms have officially been shelved.

“While we are considering and implementing a range of reforms, after careful analysis of responses to the separate consultation on post-qualification admissions, we have decided not to proceed with this at this time.”

The government consulted on two potential models.

One would have involved both applications and offers being made after students receive their exam results, with results day moved to July and the higher education term moved to October.

The other would have involved applications being made before results, but offers made after results day.

The proposals prompted a mixed response. Research by the Sutton Trust in 2020 found that 66 per cent of students felt a post-qualification approach would be fairer than predicted grades.

A review by Universities UK backed a move to post-qualification admissions, but shot down a suggestion that the start of term for universities be moved to January to facilitate a later admissions process.

Ofqual, the exams regulator, also warned that exam results could be delayed and students miss out on places if the government relied on slashing marking time to deliver its overhaul.

It said the reforms would rely on results for A-levels and other level 3 qualifications being released up to three weeks sooner than usual.

The DfE said responses to its consultation indicated the reform “would be a significant undertaking for both the HE and the school and college systems”.

“Many respondents” had pointed out the need for the sector to “focus on educational recovery and exam recovery as a priority, rather than wholesale system reform”.

Two thirds of consultation respondents were in favour of a change to PQA in principle, but 60 per cent of respondents felt the models proposed “would be either worse than, or no better than, current arrangements”.

“Whilst there is some support for post-qualification admissions, this is not strong enough to indicate that this is the right time for such a major upheaval, the DfE concluded.

The department said it would “continue to work with UCAS and sector bodies to improve transparency, reduce the use of unconditional offers, and reform the personal statement to improve fairness for applicants of all backgrounds”.

The government is due to shortly publish its response to the Augar review of post-18 education.

Among the proposals is the introduction of a minimum grade thresholds which could see students denied finance if they fail their English and maths GCSEs.

‘Get on with it’ – government unveils lifelong learning plans

Ministers will today finally unveil plans to reform post-18 higher education and lifelong learning funding – three years after the May 2019 Augar Review called for a “more balanced” funding approach between government, students and taxpayers.

The flagship lifelong loan entitlement (LLE), first trailed by the prime minister in a speech at Exeter College in September 2020, will finally be subject to a public consultation.

The consultation, expected today, will outline what the government believes to be a “seismic shift in the way post-18 education is funded and accessed” including a “streamlined” funding system for modular courses at levels 4 to 6.

Through the entitlement, students will have access to loan funding worth up to the equivalent of four years of undergraduate study – £37,000 by today’s fee level.

The new entitlement isn’t earmarked to be available to students until at least 2025. In the meantime providers, including colleges, universities and private ‘alternative providers’, as well as students, are being asked to give their views on how the new system of funding HE level credits and modules should work.

The consultation, announced today as part of the government’s long-awaited response to Philip Augar’s 2019 review of post-18 education funding, will seek views on radically expanding enrolments on higher technical courses at levels 4 and 5.

In particular, the Department for Education has said they are interested in “the barriers faced by providers in offering and promoting level 4 and 5 courses and the role of fee and funding systems in affecting provider and learner behaviour”.

Pre-briefed proposals that are part of the government’s higher education funding reforms include introducing new eligibility criteria for access to student finance support for tuition fees and maintenance loans. These proposals have been met with widespread criticism from FE and HE sector leaders who have argued that arbitrary GCSE and/or A-level entry criteria to access HE student finance could provide an unfair passport to higher education for better off students.

For more traditional university-level HE routes, the government is confirming their plans to freeze the annual tuition fee cap at £9,250 for enrolments up to and including 2024/25.

For new students, the student loan repayment threshold will be reduced from £27,295 to £25,000 from 2023/24 and they will have longer, 40 years, to pay their loans back. In addition, the variable interest rate on student loans will be reduced to RPI +/- 0% for student starting obtaining student loans from 2023/24.

This comes as a key plank of the government’s ambition to reduce the amount of student debt that is ultimately written off by the taxpayer.

Education Secretary Nadhim Zahawi said: “Our country’s world leading universities and colleges are key to levelling up opportunity by opening up access to a range of lifelong flexible post-18 options to help people train, retrain and upskill.

“This package of reforms will ensure students are being offered a range of different pathways, whether that is higher or further education, that lead to opportunities with the best outcomes – and put an end once for all to high interest rates on their student loans.”

A second consultation, also launched today, will seek views on new government controls on the types of courses HE aspiring students have access to. This includes proposals to limit access to student finance to students that have achieved at least grade 4s at GCSE English and maths or at least to Es at A level.

‘Process with caution’

David Robinson, Director, Post 16 and Skills of the Education Policy Institute (EPI) said: “We think that the government should proceed with caution in relation to the proposed reforms to higher education funding and access. Proposals to introduce minimum entry requirements for students must be carefully considered by the government, along with an assessment of the impact on disadvantaged and under-represented groups.

“At present, students who do not achieve a grade 4 in English and Maths at GCSE may have limited options in accessing Level 3 courses, including T Levels. This, in turn, means it is harder for them to secure two Es at A Level (or equivalent). It is therefore important that the government considers whether contextual factors, such as student background or learning loss, should be taken into account when applying for student loans.”

David Hughes, Chief Executive, Association of Colleges said: ”Until now, the HE system has been designed to favour full-time, mainly young bachelor degree students. A key test of these proposals therefore is how far they enhance opportunities for adults and support college HE to grow whilst protecting what universities do so well.

“This consultation has been a very long time coming and implementation is some time off. We would like to see the promise of the lifelong learning entitlement to be delivered as soon as possible. Government needs to stop talking about a lifelong learning entitlement and get on and deliver it.”

‘Ladder-up not levelling-up’: DfE urged to rethink student loan grade threshold plan

Plans to deny student loans to learners who fail their English and maths GCSEs risk “removing the ladder” for disadvantaged students hoping to study higher education, ministers have been warned.

One legal expert has even said the proposals are “potentially discriminatory” because of the impact they could have on students with special educational needs and disabilities.

The Department for Education will launch a consultation tomorrow on new minimum eligibility thresholds to “ensure students aren’t being pushed into higher education before they are ready”.

It will ask for views on making access to student finance dependent on having either two Es at A-level or at least a grade 4 in English and maths GCSE.

But Geoff Barton, from the Association of School and College Leaders, said those “with the aspiration and commitment to access higher education should be helped to achieve that ambition”.

“To do the opposite smacks of a lack of ambition on the part of the government. It seems more like a case of removing the ladder up rather than levelling up.”

David Hughes, the chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said there are more than 150 colleges offering employment-focused higher education to adults who would not be able to access it elsewhere – adding that he is “very worried” the proposed minimum entry requirements “will hit them the hardest”.

“Adults often enter college HE without a suite of GCSEs or A-levels and go onto good outcomes, including good jobs and promotions; excluding them through a minimum entry requirement would be perverse,” he said.

In 2019, the last year formal exams took place, 44.7 per cent of disadvantaged students achieved at least a grade 4 in English and maths at GCSE, compared to 71.8 per cent of other pupils.

That same year, 26.7 per cent of pupils with SEND achieved the benchmark, compared to 71 per cent of those without.

Changes ‘potentially discriminatory’

Sarah Woosey, an education lawyer at Simpson Millar, said the proposed changes were “potentially discriminatory”, and pointed to the government’s need to comply with the public sector equality duty.

“Although it is probably sensible to ensure that students are only funded to study courses which they are able to succeed at, this decision should be determined by the entrance criteria for the individual universities, which also must comply with the Equality Act.

“To say that a university would be happy to offer a place to applicant on the basis of their admissions criteria but then for that student to be unable to access funding to do this because of their disability has got to be wrong.”

The Education Policy Institute warned that students from low-income families, black students and those from parts of the north and West Midlands could be most affected by the changes.

David Robinson, director of post-16 and skills, said the proposals “appear to be regressive and further thought must be given to ensuring that students from disadvantaged backgrounds are not adversely impacted”.

He said pupils who did not pass English and maths GCSEs already faced potentially limited options at level 3, making it harder for them to secure two Es at A-level.

“It is therefore important that the government considers whether contextual factors, such as student background or learning loss, should be taken into account when applying for student loans.”

Almost 19,000 students could be affected

Experts have predicted that thousands of pupils could be affected by the change.

Data from the University and College Admissions Service (UCAS) shows 91.6 per cent of 18-year-olds accepted onto university courses in 2020 met the grade 4 in English and maths requirement.

Mary Curnock-Cook, UCAS’s former chief executive, said a minimum GCSE requirement in 2020 would have meant around 18,800 students being excluded, and around £520 million of fee income lost by universities.

She said this would be a “pretty catastrophic reduction, unprecedented since the fee changes in 2012”.

The impact of the two Es at A-level requirement is less easy to work out. UCAS analysis shows 4,769 people fell below a D-E-E threshold in 2018, while 2,819 fell below three Es.

The consultation will be launched as part of the government’s response to the 2019 Augar review of post-18 education. The review did model a potential minimum entry threshold, but based on A-level achievement rather than GCSE.

The report found it was “feasible” to contextualise an entry threshold based on socio-economic background, which could “address the problems of low returns for graduates in a socially progressive way”.

Augar found threshold would be ‘significant intervention’

But it warned such a threshold would be a “significant intervention into what has been designed as a competitive autonomous market”.

It might also be objected “that the contextualisation process breaks the clear link between attainment and entry established by a minimum entry threshold”.

For example, two students at the same school with the same grades holding the same offer from the same university could have “different outcomes”.

“In so doing, it could be presented as an example of social engineering – and breach of concepts of fairness – that do not fit comfortably within a meritocratic education system.”

Poorer pupils ‘most likely’ to suffer

Bill Watkin, chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, warned plans for a threshold were a “blunt tool” driven by “financial considerations” which would “set back social mobility and hamper widening participation in higher education”.

But according to Times Higher Education, universities minister Michelle Donelan stressed today that minimum eligibility thresholds were “not a defined, definite direction of travel” for the government.

“It isn’t necessarily the case we will even be doing a minimum entry requirement, or going down that English and maths route. That is just one of the options.”

Donelan also claimed that just 4,800 students who went to university last year did not have grade 4 English and maths GCSEs.

A DfE spokesperson said the government needed to “ensure that we are creating opportunities that will not only open doors but will develop the talent our country needs to prosper now and in the future”.

“Higher education is an investment and we need to ensure that graduates are being rewarded for the money, time and effort they put into their studies with an educational experience and jobs that match their skills and help contribute to the economy”.

AELP chair stands down after 18 years

Martin Dunford has stepped down as the chair of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers’ board after 18 years, with the organisation calling his departure the “end of an era”.

He will be replaced by Nichola Hay who is chief operating officer of Estio Training and who also serves as chair of AELP London.

Dunford was a founding member of AELP, and under his leadership the organisation has grown to the point where it has around 800 members.

Alex Khan, chief executive of Lifetime Training, was also elected as the new vice chair of AELP’s board.

The announcement came as AELP published a new report that explores how independent training providers can “deliver the workforce of the future”, which was launched at an event in parliament yesterday.

“I have been proud to chair the board for the last 18 years, having been involved in the organisation since its inception,” said Dunford.

“Over those years, I have watched AELP grow significantly. We have moved mountains in that time.

“When we started out, we never imagined that we would see a day when we would have ministerial position dedicated to skills and apprenticeships.”

Dunford said that over the years AELP has never lost sight of their core values which are to support learners, providers, and employers and to make a “real impact through skills”.

“As I step down and hand over the reins to a new chair, I am pleased to see that, despite challenges, AELP’s future is brighter than ever. I have every confidence that the leadership team and board is ready to tackle the challenges our sector faces,” he added.

Dunford began his career in international sales, marketing, product, and business development, during which time he qualified for an MBA.

Prior to becoming chief executive of Skills Training UK, he was chief executive of the Training and Business Group (TBG).

He has served as an expert advisor on a number of government advisory panels and boards around further education and skills policy, including ten years on the Apprenticeship Ambassador Network.

Martin Dunford will be replaced by Nichola Hay

Jane Hickie, AELP’s chief executive, thanked Dunford for his “relentless commitment” to AELP.

“A founding member of AELP nearly two decades ago, Martin had a vision to create a membership organisation which would support and represent ITPs with government to ensure that they had a voice and position in the FE Sector,” she said.

“During his time as chair, he has supported four chief executives and led the board with a pure ambition which has resulted in not only AELP being the ‘go to’ organisation for ITPs but also for government ministers.”

During an event at parliament held on Tuesday morning, AELP announced the publication of new research into how independent training providers can support the development of the UK’s workforce.

The research calls for equitable treatment of ITPs in policy, regulation and funding and for the government to move away from “institution-led bias”.

It sets out seven recommendations that call for the system to “allow ITPs to do more of what they do best”.

“The fact is that ITPs have always been overlooked. But it’s also important that we don’t see this as one long whinge. That we don’t talk about it as a report about how hard done by ITPs are,” Paul Warner, the author of the report, told FE Week.

“All that we are asking for is that ITPs have a certain set of skills, strengths and expertise and that needs to be recognised and used,” he added.

You can read FE Week’s full interview with Dunford in this week’s edition, out Friday.

Skills bill clears the commons

Ministers have seen off a final attempt by MPs to amend the skills and post-16 education bill, which is now clear to become law.

In a three-hour debate last night, the bill passed its remaining “report” and “third reading” stages.

It was the final opportunity available to backbench and opposition MPs to try and amend the bill before it receives royal assent and enters the statute book. Thirty-five amendments were submitted in total however only three were pushed to a vote and were all defeated.

The government succeeded in passing the legislation they wanted, having had several popular changes made by the House of Lords stripped from the bill back in November.

Much of the bill provides the government with powers to put in place its policy objectives set out in last year’s “skills for jobs” white paper. For example it gives powers to the secretary of state to designate the employer representative bodies that will develop local skills improvement plans.

Amendments that would add new sections to the bill around green skills, delaying BTEC defunding, retraining oil and gas workers in renewables and improving adult literacy were not supported by the government.

Attempts were made in last night’s debate to give local authorities, LEPs and mayoral combined authorities the power to consent to an employer representative body being formed in their local area. An amendment tabled by Labour’s shadow skills minister Toby Perkins to this effect was defeated.

Backbench conservative MP Peter Aldous, who is also chair of the all party parliamentary group for further education, received cross-party support 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 enough and challenging MPs to provide examples of courses that claimants can’t do because of the rules.

Harlow MP and education select committee chair Robert Halfon moved three amendments in last night’s debate, however didn’t move them to a vote. This is a common tactic by MPs from a governing party to have issues raised to receive verbal assurances from ministers.

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.

During last night’s debate, he said the baker 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.

A government-backed amendment that gives the Office for Students powers to publish regulatory reports and decisions and protection from defamation claims was passed. This was, in the end, the only main alteration made to the bill in last night’s debate.

Weekly Covid testing for most students and staff ditched from today

The government will remove its advice for staff and students in “most education and childcare settings” to test twice a week for Covid from today, Boris Johnson has announced.

The prime minister told the House of Commons it was time to move from “government restrictions to personal responsibility”, announcing that the legal requirement to self-isolate following a positive test will end this Thursday.

Those testing positive will still be advised to stay at home if they test positive until April 1, and after that to exercise “personal responsibility”.

And from today, the government is “removing the guidance for staff and students in most education and childcare settings to undertake twice weekly asymptomatic testing”, Johnson said.

This will apply to all settings except special schools and special further education settings, where staff and students will continue to be advised to test weekly.

From April 1, the government will also end “free symptomatic and asymptomatic testing for the general public”, though those in the oldest age groups and the most vulnerable will still get free symptomatic tests.

Johnson also announced today that almost all remaining legal provisions in the 2020 Coronavirus Act will expire on March 24, with only four remaining in place for six months.

The FE Week Podcast: The great pay divide

Are staff struggling to make ends meet? Are they on unstable contracts?

In the first of a new investigative series, journalist Jess Staufenberg takes a closer look at the state of pay in further education – where staff get on average £9,000 less than their colleagues in schools.

Frontline lecturers, HR managers, principals, the sector’s union and membership association all join Jess to discuss this red-hot topic…as living costs keep climbing.

Join us next month for the episode two – you can subscribe across all platforms.

Make colleges ‘jointly responsible’ for local skills improvement plans, principals tell Zahawi

Colleges should be made “jointly responsible” for the development of local skills improvement plans (LSIPs), principals involved in piloting the new policy have told the education secretary.

Twelve leaders have written to Nadhim Zahawi calling for their role in devising the plans to be “strengthened” and put on an equal footing as employer representative bodies.

LSIPs, which are being developed as part of the government’s skills bill, will aim to make colleges align the courses they offer to local employers’ needs.

Under the proposed legislation, only employer representative bodies such as chambers of commerce can “lead” on the plans, but they should be created in collaboration with colleges and training providers.

Several Lords called for the role of FE providers in the development of the plans to be boosted during the Lords’ stages of the bill. Now, Conservative MP Peter Aldous, has tabled an amendment calling for providers to have joint responsibility for the plans on a statutory footing.

This would build on the government’s own recently approved amendment, that ensures elected mayors have to be involved in agreeing the LSIP approach.

Colleges want the added responsibility to ensure they are not simply recipients of the plans and that they have equal say in the local strategies being deployed.

The principals involved in piloting LSIPs set out two other areas they believe the skills bill can be strengthened in their letter to Zahawi.

“The development of a national post-16 education and skills strategy, that is developed and held across government – and to which LSIPs would make reference, applying these priorities to their local context” is one.

The other is to “retain the skills development fund alongside LSIPs into one overarching model – strengthening the strategic capacity and responsibility of FE providers to work as partners with employers and other key stakeholders”.

Their letter, which you can read in full here, comes ahead of Monday’s report stage of the skills bill.

Two significant skills bill amendments need to be backed by government

Skills, skills, skills is the right focus – and with two modest additions, we can achieve much more, writes David Hughes

There can hardly be a better time for the government to be pushing a skills bill through parliament, with employers in every sector across the whole country reporting difficulties in recruiting skilled people. We have the tightest labour market for a very long time, with the lowest recorded ratio of unemployed people to job vacancies. It stands at 1.1 people to every vacancy now, having been as high as five people after the 2008 credit crunch.

Skills is also a fundamental part of the levelling up agenda, with the recent white paper showing that many people are trapped in a cycle of low-skilled, often precarious work, with limited opportunity for progression. There are wider long-term challenges as well – from digitisation and AI, to climate change to an ageing population – that will compound these challenges, and introduce new skills needs right across the labour market. A report from the CBI last year, ‘learning for life: funding world class adult education’ found that as many as nine in ten people will need to reskill by 2030 as a result of these challenges – that means a skills revolution in lifelong learning, and one that needs to happen quickly.

Unfortunately, against that backdrop, participation in adult education in England has fallen, in line with reduced funding, from 4.4 million in 2003/04 to 1.5 million in 2019/20, with those more disadvantaged least likely to take part. This is of course why the government is right to be focussing so centrally on “skills, skills, skills” – and it’s something that is to be wholeheartedly commended.

The post-16 education and skills bill returns to the House of Commons this coming Monday for report stage following a passage of lively debates in both houses. Overall, there is a lot to support, but like most bills, amendments are needed to improve the impact it will have. At this stage there are two significant amendments, both tabled by Tory MPs, which make a lot of sense, but bafflingly seem to be opposed by the government. The first comes from Robert Halfon MP on advice to children about their options, the second from Peter Aldous MP on reviewing whether rules about universal credit get in the way of people getting the skills they need to find jobs.

Robert Halfon’s amendment modestly asks that every child is able to hear about all of the options open to them post-16. That includes the new flagship T Levels, apprenticeships, A-levels and other technical and vocational qualifications. It’s not a lot to ask, that children get to interact three times with the colleges and training providers offering the range of options open to them. Why would anyone want to deny that happening? It would mean more children and young people might follow the path that best suits them, rather than denying them an understanding of those option.

Peter Aldous’s amendment asks for a review of the universal credit rules to ensure they are not a barrier to people getting the skills they need to find work. With such a tight labour market, the big target for DWP should be to support and train people who are long term sick and long term unemployed. Their needs will often be for new or refreshed skills, building their confidence to get back into work. A review would be able to build on the important progress that has been made through skills bootcamps, and the announcement of new pathfinders in the levelling up white paper.

These are two simple and modest amendments, that would build on the ambitions of the skills bill and could have real impact. I hope that MPs from all sides of the house will be supporting both. And I fail to see any reason that they won’t be supported by government too, and embedded into the reforms. I certainly hope they are, and I know that all of us working in education and training and who support these ambitions, will be watching closely.

Skills and access to lifelong learning has rightly been recognised as a vital way to level-up the country, and to meet the challenges of the future.