Latest news from FE Week | FE Week

What you need to know from the government’s response to the level 3 qualification review

The government has published its long-awaited response to the consultation for the level 3 qualifications review.

The Department for Education set out plans yesterday to streamline the qualifications offer by funnelling students onto an ‘academic’ or ‘technical’ route.

It followed a two-stage review, launched in 2019 to consider future funding for tech levels, technical certificates and applied general courses such as BTECs.

The government’s plans involve defunding most of them, to focus progression routes on A-levels, T Levels and apprenticeships.

A flurry of documents, including guidance, impact assessments and the government’s response to the second stage’s consultation were released today.

FE Week has picked out the key things you need to know…

1. Which qualifications will be reviewed when

The ‘approvals process for academic and technical qualifications’ document released today reveals digital qualifications will be the first to be reviewed and approved to be taught from 2023.

The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education will approve other technical qualification categories, to be taught from 2024, if the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill passes Parliament.

IfATE will be publishing criteria for approving qualifications in each category next year.

The Education and Skills Funding Agency and qualifications regulator Ofqual will be reviewing the necessity and quality of academic qualifications.

The government’s consultation response explains technical qualifications which could overlap with T Levels will be assessed for funding according to whether they support entry to employment in specific occupations; if its outcomes are similar to those of T Levels; and if the qualification aims to support entry to the same occupations as a T Level.

Further guidance and approval criteria will be published in 2022.

Small alternative academic qualifications, equivalent to one A-level or smaller, will be approved for funding if they are studied alongside A-levels, even if they overlap with them or T Levels.

However, the DfE has said in a policy statement for the review this does not mean a “blanket approval” for qualifications in areas of applied general qualifications.

It will set a “high bar” for demonstrating their value, and will demand evidence of “successful outcomes for students taking those subjects and links to further study in important HE subjects”. Such a high bar that the government predicts…

2. BTECs will become ‘rare’

The government announced that other level 3 qualifications like BTECs could still access public funding if they “give employers the skills they need or lead to good higher education courses and demonstrate why there is a real need for them to be funded”.

However, the policy statement reads: “Study programmes made up of alternative academic qualifications such as applied general qualifications will be rare.

“In the new landscape, large academic qualifications that overlap in content with T Levels, which might include AGQs such as Pearson BTEC and OCR Cambridge Technical qualifications, will no longer receive public funding,” it adds.

Instead, most students on the academic pathway who are progressing to HE without any A-levels will be “those taking large alternative programmes such as in the performing arts”.

The DfE estimates it will be defunding 43 per cent of non A-level level 3 qualifications by 2025, accounting 15 per cent (276,000) of level 3 enrolments.

3. Tough funding future for awarding bodies

An impact assessment report for the proposals sets out how ten awarding organisations out of more than 130 could lose at least a fifth of their publicly funded 16-to-19 enrolments at level 3 and below.

The assessment states three of them have over 500 16-to-19 enrolments at these levels funded by the Education and Skills Funding Agency.

And up to seven awarding organisations’ publicly funded 16-to-19 enrolments could drop by 80 per cent or more.

The revised assessment finds no change for funded adult enrolments from its predecessor: up to five awarding bodies could lose at least 80 per cent of their funded adult enrolments under the changes.

The combined impact of 16-to-19 and adult enrolments means an estimated four awarding bodies could lose at least 80 per cent of their funded enrolments.

The DfE said it is taking a phased approach to these plans to mitigate against resourcing issues for awarding bodies.

4. Impact on disadvantaged ‘justified’ by overall student benefit

The consultation response and impact assessment for the plans note how students from SEND, Asian ethnic, and disadvantaged backgrounds, as well as males “are disproportionately likely to be affected by the changes”.

They “may no longer be able to progress to level 3,” the impact assessment posits.

The assessment explains these students are disproportionately represented on these courses, something the Association of Colleges and Ofqual have raised.

Yet the DfE argues this will be a minority and the proposals will be “justified by the overall benefits to students”.

The department said it is trying to improve transition provision for students who take three years to complete their level 3 and are bringing forward proposals to improve outcomes at level 2.

5. Nearly everyone disagrees with slashing courses which overlap T Levels

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

Respondents “typically raised concerns around the accessibility of T Levels, as opposed to the approach to overlap, citing that T Levels may reduce flexibility and choice for students.”

Many called for the retention of applied general qualifications, as they believed the “breadth and stretch of T Levels would not be appropriate for all students and levels of achievement”.

6. Widespread concern about narrowing options

Respondents expressed concern en masse about narrowing options for students finishing their GCSEs.

It was cited as a reason for 56 per cent disagreeing with proposals to approve qualifications for funding if they provide occupational competence against employer-led standards not covered by T Levels or if they develop specialist skills.

Respondents were also cautious about narrowing options for alternative programmes of study and of pathways into HE, in response to plans to fund a small number of qualifications supporting progression to specialist HE courses as A-level alternatives.

ESFA U-turns and allows AEB clawback business cases

The Education and Skills Funding Agency has announced colleges will be allowed to submit business cases to avoid adult education funding being clawed back.

An update published this afternoon said the agency is developing a process for grant-funded providers to plead as to why they should be given leniency for missing their allocation by more than 10 per cent in 2020/21.

The ESFA had ruled out such a process when they announced the controversial threshold in March.

Grant-funded providers will be allowed to apply for a business case where “local circumstances made it impossible for the provider to deliver at or close to the 90 per cent level and recovery of funds based on the 90 per cent threshold would lead to the provider’s costs of AEB delivery not being covered,” today’s update reads.

Or, if “applying the full amount of AEB clawback would cause significant financial difficulties for the provider”.

ESFA chief executive Eileen Milner said they had “recognised that there is a risk that some colleges will face financial difficulty so we will continue to monitor them, offer early support, and intervene when necessary.

“As part of the support offer, after extensive talks and listening to the sector, we are developing a process to consider business cases through which providers apply for support.

“The process will consider whether local circumstances made it impossible for the provider to deliver at or close to the 90 per cent level and whether recovery of funds based on the 90 per cent threshold would lead to the provider’s costs of AEB delivery not being covered. It will then determine how much (if any) help should be provided.”

AEB reconciliation arrangements will return to the normal clawback threshold of 97 per cent in 2020-21, she added.

Colleges have been up in arms about the threshold being set at 90 per cent in a year when they have still suffered from the knock-on effects of Covid-19.

Leicester College told FE Week in March it was forecast to spend 53 per cent of its £11 million allocation for 2020/21, so would have to hand back 37 per cent up to the threshold.

When business cases were ruled out, Leicester’s principal and former Skills Funding Agency executive director Verity Hancock said she did not “understand the basis for a decision that refuses to recognise the very exceptional position that Leicester College is in, given that it was the worst affected city in the country from continuous lockdowns, and has the largest AEB offer in the country”.

Adult education network HOLEX’s policy director Sue Pember, who previously worked on the DfE’s post-19 education policy as a civil servant, said about today’s announcement: “Although we would have liked the DfE to have accepted that grant providers needed assurance about their funding last year, we welcome this clarity and decision to accept a business cases.

“We hope the process is not over complex and doesn’t put further administrative burden on providers who are now working hard to get learners through assessments and progress on to further learning.”

The Association of Colleges’ deputy chief executive Julian Gravatt said they were “pleased” colleges will be able to submit business cases, as: “The hardline 10 per cent tolerance was never going to be fair in a year disrupted by the pandemic from the outset and now more than ever, colleges need to stabilise their finances.

“The timing will be tight, with colleges given just a few weeks to return financial information, but ESFA’s flexibility is better late than never.”

Shadow further education and skills minister Toby Perkins said the decision had come “so late colleges may well have already made redundancies based on the financial crisis they expected”.

It is expected the process will be set out in early September 2021.

Milner also said the government will still fund delivery up to 103 per cent of providers’ nationally-funded AEB grant allocation.

They have also increased the threshold from 110 per cent to 130 per cent for 16-18 and 19-24 traineeships in 2020-21.

Level 3 qualifications review: Reprieve for some BTECs

BTECs will survive the government’s bonfire of level 3 qualifications if they can demonstrate there is a “real need” for them, it has been announced.

The Department for Education has today confirmed a new streamlined system for students finishing their GCSEs will be phased in between 2023 and 2025.

This will involve stripping public funding from “poor quality” qualifications which duplicate other courses and overlap with T Levels or A-levels, with education secretary Gavin Williamson warning: “As we recover from the pandemic, there can be no room in our education system for second rate qualifications.”

But the Association of Colleges has warned “hastily scrapping hundreds of level 3 qualifications, starting in 2023, risks leaving some of the most disadvantaged young people without routes into meaningful work”.

The Sixth Form Colleges Association has also warned the proposals have the potential to be “hugely damaging” to the life chances of young people because it is “clear that the government intends to sweep away the vast majority of applied general qualifications like BTECs”.

Pearson, the awarding body of BTECs, said it is “good” to see that some of its feedback to the review has been taken into consideration in the government’s decision, and they will now take time to fully understand the implications.

This new streamlined system will make apprenticeships, A-levels and new T Levels the main progression options after GCSEs, the DfE stated.

However, other level 3 applied general qualifications in areas like creative and performing arts will continue to be on offer, so long as awarding bodies can prove those qualifications “give employers the skills they need or lead to good higher education courses and demonstrate why there is a real need for them to be funded”.

The department has yet to say the process for deciding which qualifications will be retained.

The government also promised today more level 3 qualifications will be made available to adults, including T Levels, from 2023. This was originally mooted last year.

Level 3 courses have ‘important role’

Today’s announcement comes after the highly contentious, two-stage level 3 and below qualifications review, originally launched in March 2019 to consider the thousands of tech levels, technical certificates and applied generals, including Pearson’s popular BTEC courses.

A consultation, attached to the review, had sought views on only providing public funding to qualifications which meet quality, purpose, necessity, and progression criteria.

Stakeholders were also asked about defunding qualifications which overlapped with T Levels or A-levels.

The Education and Skills Funding Agency announced in 2019 a “moratorium” on approving funding for new qualifications at level 3 from last September.

Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education chief executive Jennifer Coupland has emphasised level 3 qualifications’ “important role for people at the start of their careers and those looking to build new skills.

“This review will help us to do even more to help people gain the knowledge and skills they need for prosperous and successful careers in their chosen industry,” she said today.

DfE warned defunding qualifications could hurt disadvantaged

However, sector bodies and even qualifications watchdog Ofqual have warned the DfE defunding existing level 3 qualifications could more heavily impact disadvantaged learners.

Responding to today’s announcement, the Association of Colleges argued disadvantaged students will be “disproportionately affected” by the changes.

That is because the qualifications likely to be withdrawn are taken by higher proportions of black and minority ethnic students, those with lower prior attainment, SEND students, and those eligible for free school meals.

Ofqual, in its response to the review in January, made many of the same points, and that some learners, including those with SEND, “may find T Levels less well-suited, too big or not sufficiently flexible for their individual study needs”.

Eleven education representative bodies issued a joint statement last month saying defunding applied general qualifications will hamper students’ progress to employment or further study.

Bill Watkin, chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, said today that closing down the route of BTECs means that “thousands of students will be left without a viable pathway after they have finished their GCSEs – that’s bad for young people, bad for social mobility and bad for the economy”.

AoC chief executive David Hughes has urged the DfE to “take a moment” and create a new roll-out plan which ensures T Levels’ success “while not inadvertently disadvantaging thousands of already disadvantaged students with their quest for speed”.

Federation of Awarding Bodies chief executive Tom Bewick called it “disappointing” the government was supporting some regulated qualifications “instead of supporting course diversity and real careers choices for young people post-16”.

“The notion in a British economy, with over 75,000 different job roles currently available, that the number of qualifications made available can be reduced to a mere handful is fanciful. If policymakers listened to parents, learners and college community leaders, as much as to employers, they would know that.

“Frankly, learners deserve better.”

Current set of qualifications ‘confusing’

Yet some employers are impatient for the proposed changes to be rolled out.

Rolls-Royce Civil Aerospace Division’s chief of industrialisation Ruth Ginever today said: “The current proliferation of different qualifications and lack of standardised content is confusing to both employers, seeking to recruit and to young people, and their parents, looking to make decisions on qualifications to study.”

She called the lack of standardisation “disruptive,” and said it led to extra costs bringing an apprentice into the business, as “often funding for extra academic support for learners has to be found to cover gaps emanating from non-standard level 3 qualifications”.

Cindy Rampersaud, senior vice president for BTEC and apprenticeships at Pearson, said: “While we welcome the government’s aim to raise standards in further education, we have always warned that policy makers should not lose sight of what is working well already – namely existing high-quality qualifications that are respected by employers, universities and students alike, be they BTECs or other vocational qualifications.

“It is good to see that some of this feedback, from us and a wealth of other respondents to the consultation, has been taken into consideration. We will take the time now to review the government’s response to the consultation in full and understand the implications for BTEC students and colleges.”

NHS trust’s apprenticeship contract terminated after Ofsted finds ‘inappropriate behaviour’

An NHS trust has had its apprenticeship contract terminated after Ofsted found serious safety concerns.

Nearly 700 apprentices are currently being moved to alternative providers to complete their training after the East Of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust was slammed by the inspectorate.

In a safeguarding monitoring report, published today, inspectors said a “significant minority” of apprentices experience “inappropriate behaviour” which has led to some staff being sacked.

Managers were criticised for not encouraging apprentices to discuss “low level concerns” that arise, for failing for investigate training centre reports that claim there are no safeguarding concerns, and for being “too slow” to make changes to improve apprentices’ safety.

Ofsted does not detail the specific “inappropriate behaviour” experienced by apprentices.

At the time of the visit a total of 661 apprentices were studying on level 3 and level 4 standards-based apprenticeships at the ambulance service.

The Education and Skills Funding Agency stepped in after Ofsted’s visit to terminate the trust’s apprenticeship contract.

Tom Davis, interim chief executive of East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust, said: “We’re working closely with partners to make sure the transition to a new learning provider is as seamless as possible for our apprenticeship students and are determined to make improvements so that these learners feel well supported while they continue their clinical placements with us.”

He added that the trust has now put “further changes” in place to “strengthen our safeguarding training and student support”, and will be undertaking a “detailed review of our education and training provision so that we can improve student experience now and in the future”.

‘Managers have an overly optimistic view of the issues that still exist’

Ofsted’s report said leaders and managers do not ask apprentices specific questions about colleagues’ behaviour in the workplace.

“Leaders rely too much on service-wide surveys to gain relevant information. As a result, managers have an overly optimistic view of the issues that still exist in the service,” it added.

“Managers fail to investigate centre reports that state that there are no safeguarding concerns. Managers are too accepting of these returns, given the history of issues within the service.”

The report continued: “They do not act quickly enough to ensure that staff update their safeguarding knowledge in a timely way. Leaders do not identify which apprentices still need to complete safeguarding training.”

Inspectors did praise leaders for “clearly promoting the high professional standards they expect staff to adhere to”.

Leaders also “fully support managers to establish the culture change needed within the service” and they take “swift action when concerns are raised about a staff member” which includes “removing staff from their post”.

Additionally, leaders have instigated a “broad range of targeted services to support apprentices’ psychological and social well-being”, which includes “a ‘Freedom to Speak Up’ Guardian”.

The trust has also “significantly” increased the number of staff in the safeguarding team.

6 key proposals from the DfE’s short consultation on FE exams

The Department for Education and Ofqual have launched a consultation on proposals for vocational and general assessments and exams in 2021/22.

The proposals include an end to teacher-assessed grades, measures for streamlining assessments and exams, and mitigations for students sitting GCSE English and maths exams.

Education secretary Gavin Williamson said while exams “will always be the fairest way to assess students,” he wants assessment arrangements to “take into account the disruption young people have faced over the past 18 months”.

Students, employers, parents and carers, teachers and trainers, college and school leaders and other stakeholders have been invited to respond to the online consultation.

They will be able to respond for the next two weeks, until 26 July. This is so changes can be announced before the start of the next academic year.

1. Exams and assessments ‘will go ahead’

The Department for Education has stated its intention that exams and assessments for VTQs and other general assessments will go ahead next academic year.

However, the consultation documents do admit students have experienced “significant disruption” and will need “continued support in the face of any further disruption”.

2. No more teacher-assessed grades

Due to the government’s commitment to exams going ahead next year, Ofqual is looking to make it so awarding organisations will only be allowed to issue results based on exams and assessments.

“Results cannot be based on teacher-assessed grades,” the guidance clearly states.

A number of VTQ and general qualifications had been allowed to issue results based on evidence, such as TAGs, from sources other than exam and assessment results this year.

3. Assessments can be ‘streamlined’

Ofqual and the DfE will allow assessments to be adapted, through reducing duplication of testing for a particular skill or knowledge set or by amalgamating two assessments into one.

However, awarding bodies have been warned if assessments are streamlined, the number of guided learning hours should “remain broadly unaltered for each qualification”.

The extra time gained from streamlining should be used for education recovery and learning, the guidance reads.

If an awarding body believes the number of taught hours, either face-to-face or online, would “lessen significantly” under their proposed adaptations, they will be expected to alert the DfE.

A qualification’s entire content should still be taught where feasible and any reduction in the internal assessments of the qualification should be kept to a minimum.

4. Internal assessments can be rolled over

Awarding bodies will be allowed to roll over internal assessments into 2021/22, for students who were working towards them in 2020/21.

That is if they were “unable to complete them due to public health restrictions”.

This allowance will only apply where the task was to be used solely for 2020/21.

Students starting internal assessments in 2021/22 will not be covered by this flexibility.

5. GCSE maths students could be allowed cheat sheets

For general qualifications, the DfE and Ofqual are looking to give colleges some choice about the topics or content their students will be assessed on, in subjects including GCSE English literature.

GCSE maths students could also be given formula sheets in exams.

6. DfE keeping watch on public health situation

The consultation admits there is “continued uncertainty” about whether further disruption will hit education in 2021/22.

“We believe it will be possible for students to take exams safely, but we need to have plans in place for the unlikely event that is not possible”.

The document notes there is a “small risk” further disruption will be so extensive that even with remote education and the adaptions being proposed, “going ahead with exams would not be the fairest approach for students”.

The regulator and the DfE have promised to cooperate on contingency plans for if assessments and exams cannot be held locally or nationally, or if students are unable to sit them owing to illness or self-isolation.

Also, the consultation does keep the door open for teacher-assessed grades to return in the future.

While all qualifications will be moved to category A of Ofqual’s VTQ Contingency Regulatory Framework under these proposals, meaning they will be prohibited from using alternative evidence to issue results, the watchdog will retain category B of the framework, under which awarding bodies are allowed to use alternative evidence like TAGs.

The ESFA should hire risk managers to root out problems in training providers

Making providers get insurance will solve neither incompetence nor fraud, writes John Hyde

“Taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut” was how Lord Aberdare, speaking at the second reading of the Skills Bill, described the decision to require independent training providers to buy insurance and pay to join a new register.

He warned such moves could destabilise ITPs at a time when the economy desperately needs more skilled staff as we move out of lockdown and as the effects of Brexit on the labour market are felt.

ITPs deliver three-quarters of all apprenticeship, traineeship and adult education budget programmes.

How many ITPs have failed in the last decade, to warrant introducing these draconian conditions?

‘More cost effective solutions?’

Why has the Department for Education and ESFA decided insurance cover and new registration conditions will solve this problem?

Exactly what must be insured has yet to be defined by ESFA. Most ITPs already hold public liability insurance as a requirement to contract for NHS apprenticeships.

But it appears DfE also wants insurance against failure. Of course, insurance underwriters will insure any risk, but at a price ̶ as DfE officials will soon discover.

As this insurance cover will be mandatory, it will become a cost of delivery and so will ultimately paid by the taxpayer.

Debating the Skills Bill, politicians will have to decide if this is an effective use of taxpayers’ money or whether more cost-effective solutions exist.

‘More frequent inspections’

Are there systemic failures in the DfE and ESFA control systems that need resolving, for instance?

There are just two reasons for ITPs’ failures: incompetence and fraud.

Incompetence ranges from misunderstanding the detail and nuances of the programmes delivered, poor or insufficient allocation of resources, inept management, untrained delivery staff and insufficient financial resources.

For new entrants, these problems should be identified at the register of apprenticeship training providers (RoATP), and afterwards, at the initial Ofsted inspection visit.

More frequent inspections would identify problems before greater numbers of learners are affected. Serious breaches result in providers having to cease trading.

For grant-funded organisations, intervention by the FE Commissioner precedes the institution being closed or merged.

‘Commissioner for ITPs?’

To provide “a single unified system of protection for learners” as described by Baroness Wolf, should a Commissioner for ITPs be introduced?

The commissioner could have powers to suggest or demand mergers between ITPs or between ITPs and grant-funded FE colleges; and, on a cost-effective basis, could have access to funds to finance these mergers.

Now on to fraud. With ITPs this includes claiming funding for “ghost” or ineligible learners, deliberate cheating in examinations and assessments, bribery of employers and inappropriate use of government funding.

The ESFA has live data of all provider and learner activity. Simple algorithms would show up anomalies of some providers against the norm to highlight potential fraud.

Could the ESFA follow the Ministry of Defence’s example where on larger defence contracts, a civil servant is seconded to sit on the board of the company awarded the contract?

Similar arrangements could be introduced for ITPs receiving ESFA funds in excess of £10 million. This would give government line of sight of the provider’s financial position, policy decisions, implementation of delivery and overall competence.

It would also give the civil service, collectively, a much clearer understanding of the day-to-day running, decision-making and interpretation of ESFA rules.

‘Risk of destablisation’

Dealing with provider failure needs rethinking, but insurance claims are unlikely to solve it.

Incompetent provider failure might be insurable for a substantial fee, but fraud would invalidate any insurance premium. Funds would need to be available to support learners transferring from a failed provider.

I fail to see how enhanced liability insurance and more stringent entry registrations will have any impact on provider failures, or add more protection to learners. Meanwhile, it risks destabilising the entire ITP sector.

The ESFA should try employing risk management professionals to discover the real issues within ITPs and implement processes to mitigate these.

Colleges have a huge impact on the pipeline of talent towards ‘blue technologies’

Some of the most innovative marine technology businesses in the world call the UK home, writes Cerian Ayres

This summer, all eyes turned to Carbis Bay in Cornwall as world leaders met for the G7 summit to address some of the great challenges of our time – climate change, world health, Britain’s exit from the European Union, and the post-Covid era.

Blue technologies refers to technologies used in marine environments. Sometimes also called the “blue economy”, it can encompass renewable energy and digital technologies based around the maritime sector, industries and ecosystem.

In the UK we have world-leading industry sectors with global reputations for developing high-quality products and innovative design solutions. Those reputations are built on people and their training and skills, supported and enabled by the further education sector.

It was therefore fitting that the G7 summit was hosted in a county with 400 miles of coastline, where no one is more than 20 miles from the sea and where the maritime sector sustains 800 businesses and 15,000 jobs.

Worth more than one billion pounds, blue technologies play a vital part in the economic development of Cornwall and the wellbeing of its coastal communities. The Cornwall Marine Network in particular plays an important role in community cohesion.

Some of the most innovative marine technology businesses in the world call Cornwall home. These include ‘workfloats’, which are floating platforms and boats used to harness wind energy that realise the potential of wave power for direct energy production and the production of hydrogen for fuel cells.

Another example is the use of sustainable materials in super yacht manufacture at Mylor Yacht Harbour, which is now one of UK’s busiest boat yards.

Thanks to cutting-edge technology, high-quality design and manufacturing, and innovation, those businesses are thriving, making the most of the natural opportunities for global maritime business and exporting around the world.

The sector has been built by past generations, but it will be driven forward by today’s learners and their knowledge, skills and competencies as they progress to higher levels or technical study and employment.

Many of these businesses have collaborated with schools and colleges in order to secure the technical talent pipeline to meet their industries’ future skills needs.

In this talent pipeline, the impact of the teacher or trainer in ensuring positive outcomes for their learners cannot be overstated. That is why the recruitment of teachers and trainers and investment in their professional development is so important.

It is why we are delivering support such as our T Level Professional Development and Apprenticeship Workforce Development programmes.

The former, introduced in 2019, prepares colleagues for T Level delivery. It offers subject specialist support that addresses blue and green technologies for the engineering and manufacturing route.

It also features opportunities for teachers and trainers to gain insight and experience of the technologies used in industry through work placements, shadowing and employer workshops. These help create a clear line-of-sight to work and the relationships that foster learning opportunities, industry and work experience openings for learners.

We also have teacher resource improvement projects which are fostering the creation of new teaching materials for classroom and workplace teaching and training.

The Apprenticeship Workforce Development offer, launched last year, offers a similarly broad range of opportunities, from courses on technical teaching pedagogy to professional practice updating, to curriculum design and planning.

Both programmes facilitate learning from blue and green technologies not just from Cornwall of course, but from across the country – for instance, from the Humber region, home to the UK’s largest offshore wind farm.

This bringing together of education and industry improves the quality of technical teaching, develops learners’ skills, knowledge and behaviours, and inspires their career choices.

The turning of the spotlight on Cornwall reminds us that we are ready to build brighter futures and harness the sustainable technologies that will underpin them.

Our sector has a vital role to play.

Many teachers are unaware of assistive technology for disabled students

Staff lack proper training, and information about assistive technology is hard to navigate, writes Geena Vabulas

In an age when digital is no longer optional for finding work, it is crucial that students with special educational needs leave school with the skills and kit necessary for full digital access.

This isn’t just about writing a CV. Digital access is needed to search for jobs, fill out applications, complete virtual interviews and access training and employment support opportunities.

The reality is that tech skills are more in demand than ever and most jobs, including those not in the technology sector, require a “basic” level of digital knowledge.

However, research from Policy Connect and the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Assistive Technology shows that disabled students are leaving education without the digital skills needed to succeed in the workplace.

In particular, they lack knowledge of work-based assistive technology funding and support. They also often don’t have the confidence needed to navigate these issues when starting a new job.

Through our research, we have heard many difficult stories from people unable to apply for work or forced to leave careers as a result of gaps in provision.

But there is hope as we have also heard heartening success stories. These include the dyslexic counsellor who was able to shift her practice online throughout the Covid-19 pandemic.

First, though, what is assistive technology?

Assistive technology (AT) is any digital technology designed to remove a barrier for a disabled person – such as screen readers for people with vision impairments.

But assistive technology is not just for computer- or desk-based jobs. Some examples of mobile AT include scanning pens, which help with reading text on paper, and Brain in Hand, an app to support autistic people throughout their day.

The reason it’s so important now is because Covid-19 has accelerated digitisation across the fields of education, training and apprenticeships, as well as in disability employment support. The massive shift to remote working represents amazing opportunities for disabled people’s inclusion in the workforce.

This includes people with travel limitations, for example, or who struggle with sensory input in work environments and who may particularly benefit from working from home.

However, greater unemployment across the country means competition for jobs will naturally be higher. So urgent action is required to ensure the future world of work is accessible to all.

Yet our research has found that education providers do not know enough about AT, the funding available for it, or inclusive digital practices. Teachers and specialist staff often do not have any training in AT and don’t know how best to support their students.

For instance, many educators are unaware that “Access to Work” funding can be used to support disabled students on work placements. This is a publicly funded employment support programme that aims to help people with disabilities start or stay in work.

Sources of information are disparate and hard to navigate

Meanwhile, careers services and disability services are often not joined up and employment advice for students can miss out on crucial information regarding access to digital.

And although there are many sources of information out there, these are disparate and hard to navigate. Importantly, there is a lack of clear guidance and direction from the government.

It’s important to remember that disabled staff themselves could benefit from inclusive digital practices.

Many assistive technologies come at no additional cost and are present in commonly used software, such as the immersive reader function built into Microsoft Word, or voice typing in Google Docs.

Raising awareness of these problems and solutions can benefit everyone, not just students with SEND. It’s against this background that the report makes recommendations to government, education providers and employers.

The UK, already a world-leader in the development of AT, must harness the power of these tools and inclusive practices.

If our government and society can get digital inclusion right, these new technologies can hugely help “level the playing field” for disabled people and open the world of work up to them.

Introducing… Shane Chowen

Shane Chowen, currently an area director at AoC, will become FE Week’s new editor in August. He talks to Jess Staufenberg about his vision for the paper

Shane Chowen, incoming editor of FE Week, remembers the “activation moment” which switched him on to issues in the sector. He’d had some practice speaking up for his peers as a class representative at the tender age of eight – “by year 4, I was ready to lead”, he chuckles – and by 16 was at City College Plymouth. His A-level biology teacher had left and the class was enduring supply teacher after supply teacher, so Chowen headed down to the HR office.

“She said, ‘it’s really hard to recruit teachers in colleges, the pay isn’t as good as schools. We’re trying our best, Shane, but we just can’t get anyone.’”

That HR vice principal was a “certain Sam Parrett”, grins Chowen, referring to one of the sector’s now best-known leaders and chief executive of London South East Colleges. “That was an activation moment for me.” Spurred on, he wrote a motion for the National Union of Students in 2008, pointing out school staff should not be paid more than college lecturers. The NUS noticed him, and the rest is history. He grins again. “Sam Parrett has a lot to answer for.”

By 2011, FE Week had caught up with Chowen in an interview as vice president for FE at the NUS, not long after he’d run for the presidency as the first-ever candidate from an FE background. Bravado didn’t come naturally – one stressful Sky TV appearance sent him “into cold sweats for years afterwards” – and he was on the back foot convincing thousands of university students why an FE student should represent them. He lost that campaign, but didn’t forget the issue at Plymouth College that had so frustrated him.

Campaigning against education cuts as vice president (FE) of NUS in 2010

The same year, Chowen became a policy officer at the Institute for Learning, a professional body for FE practitioners (now replaced by the Education and Training Foundation). With his team he convinced the new government to put qualified teacher status (QTS) and qualified teacher in learning and skills (QTLS) on a par. “You could teach in a college with QTS but you couldn’t teach in a school with QTLS. We changed that! That was really exciting.”

By now just 24, Chowen was already scrutinising the FE sector more closely than most people ever get to: from both the viewpoint of students, and of practitioners. This included practitioners and learners outside the usual college settings, such as prisons. “That was a whole new world for me, working closely with prison education providers and training providers. The government had realised it was costing something like £200,000 a year to keep young offenders but the reoffending rate was really high. I’m very interested in that.”

The IfL were advocating for a “good-quality education pathway” by “putting the teachers’ perspectives front and centre of those debates”. Chowen leans in with enthusiasm. “That’s the thing, it’s such a diverse profession. It’s not just prison education, but teachers of ESOL (English for speakers of other languages), adult education, in special educational needs and disabilities too.”

Shane’s mum and nan visiting London from Plymouth, around 2012

Here we come to one of Chowen’s top priorities for FE Week under his editorship. Himself a former columnist for the paper, he wants to bring unexpected voices on to its pages. “The FE sector has a bit of a habit of talking to itself, and one of the things I want to do is bring new voices into the debate.

The FE sector has a bit of a habit of talking to itself

“It’s not their fault, but it’s often the same names,” he adds, eyes twinkling. “Throughout my career I’ve met so many people with ideas and perspectives, who are just as charismatic, funny and intelligent as the go-to people. It’s important to show that diversity. It’s important for readers to see FE Week as an avenue for influence.”

Given Chowen has so often worked on campaigns, will he be a campaigning editor? I ask. And given the bruising Sky experience, how does he feel about the occasional anger directed at journalists?

“When you’re the editor of a national newspaper covering a sector, you can’t please everyone, and it’s not my job to please everyone. News doesn’t work like that,” he says. “At its best FE Week has done some excellent national campaign-type activities, particularly around student rights and adult learner loans. I think you have to pick your battles carefully, but when the time comes, I fully anticipate using the full force of FE Week and its readership to cause trouble.”

As a toddler, foreshadowing a career at the headwinds of further education news…

While one senses Chowen can’t wait to apply this principle to the government, he’s also conscious of not “causing trouble” for providers without fully understanding their context – perhaps a result of his two latest roles.

After IfL, he joined the Learning and Work Institute (then called the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education) as head of policy and public affairs, where he got a further insight into the complexity of the FE system.

“I had to learn about a whole new set of providers – particularly how the Department for Work and Pensions and the employment system need to work much better with the Department for Education and FE system.”

The challenge facing providers in navigating that system was further brought home during his almost four-year role as the Association of College’s area director for the East and West Midlands, where he has worked with 50 college leaders.

“It opened my eyes to all the factors you have to weigh up when running education institutions,” he explains. “When I was at the NUS, I would be outraged at things. But the AoC experience has proven to me, a lot of people would do those more radical things if they could. The number of things you have to weigh up…” he shakes his head. “The picture is always more complicated than you think.”

The picture is always more complicated than you think

For that reason, Chowen doubts he’ll bring back FE Week’s ‘Ofsted Watch’ when inspections return. “A drop from grade 3 to 4 tells you they’re having problems, but not much more. Is it a problem affecting just them? Or is it a problem in the system? Let’s see what’s beneath the numbers.”

He then comes out with a rather moving pronouncement. “I view the office of the college principal as like a civic figure. You’re in a community leadership position ̶ it’s on a par with being a local MP or leader of a council, in my eyes.” Of course, this means when it goes wrong, it goes very wrong. “These are incredibly powerful figures locally.”

In Parliament Square with campaigners at 2018’s Love Our Colleges demonstration

I ponder out loud that journalists often have a morbid fear of appearing compromised or ‘bought’, and so can veer towards reporting the bad rather than the positively impactful. Chowen reflects on this.

“One of the things that’s kept me in FE is when I’ve been moved by a story. A teacher who’s gone above and beyond, or a provider or senior leader who’s taken a bold decision. Working in FE is hard, it’s difficult. Let’s make people feel something.” He laughs. “I guess my fluff threshold is lower than you’re used to.”

He has a point, though: I note the editor of the only publication greater in the land than FE Week – Ian Hislop at Private Eye – has always said a winning combination is “news and jokes”. Is there something in that?

“Interesting. I’ve been thinking about the website being a place you would spend more time on, so you click on one story, and then something else catches your eye. So I’ve been thinking about what’s acceptable in terms of fun stuff. There’s stuff like the wider student experience, that doesn’t happen anywhere else.”

Caught in the snow in New York City with his partner of nine years, Scott Forbes

Another voice Chowen is keen to include in the pages is employers, in part to counteract the way the government talks about them, he says.

“I’m quite interested in how we can broaden the readership into employers more. Let’s find out what is and isn’t working from an employer angle.” One issue he has is how “employers and the sector are often portrayed as being at each other’s throats.”

Gillian Keegan, skills minister, “is the worst for this,” he continues, raising his eyebrows. “She will say, ‘employers tell me this, therefore providers must do that’. You can’t homogenise the employer voice like that. It should be a criminal offence,” he hoots.

“There’s more to be done demonstrating when employers and colleges are on the same path, not just different paths.” It will be interesting, he adds, to see whether employers feel properly represented in Local Skills Improvement Plans, and how that affects the government’s skills agenda. Both Keegan and Gavin Williamson need to listen much more closely, he says.

Chowen does not just dish out criticism, but has shown he acts when he can’t support a decision. He was one of two governors who resigned from Capital City College Group last month over expenditure on a course with no teachers and a “sink or swim” student admissions model. At the time, Chowen said the plan wouldn’t “have an impact on the communities I believe the college should be focusing on”.

He may be brave enough to talk about fun and fluff in news, but colleges should be under no illusions he doesn’t think deeply about poor decisions.

“It will take a while for people to see what I’m trying to do with FE Week and create opportunities for them – we can do that steadily,” he concludes. “I want a two-way dialogue with the sector.”