The government is looking at a “similar set of measures” for the 2022 exams as those proposed for this summer’s series before formal tests were cancelled, Gavin Williamson has said.
The education secretary told the education select committee this morning that they “very much hope and intend” for exams and vocational and technical qualifications to go ahead next year.
Last December, ministers proposed that grades 2021 exams would be as generous as those in 2020, and that students would get advance notice of topics in certain subjects and be allowed to use exam aids. But the measures were ditched in January when exams were cancelled.
Simon Lebus, Ofqual’s interim chief regulator, revealed in March that government was considering adaptations “along the line that had been originally contemplated for this year”.
Simon Lebus
Today, Williamson confirmed the government was considering such measures.
Asked what plans government have in place for exams next year, he said: “We are considering what we need to do to ensure that there’s fairness and there’s the right level of support for pupils as they take these qualifications. I think that’s the right approach.
“We had quite an extensive package of measures that was intended for this years’ awarding session and supporting youngsters as they took their exams and we will look at having a similar set of measures that can be brought forward in order to be able to support pupils as they take assessments.”
Caroline Johnson MP asked: “Do you expect adjustment to be a requirement next year, or the year after, or the year after that?”
Williamson responded said he “very much expects there to be adjustments and mitigations to be put in place, because I think those youngsters that are in year 10 and year 12 will have obviously suffered disruption as a result of the pandemic, so I think that you don’t have a situation of immediately switching back to the absolute same state of situation as it was in 2019”.
‘I never want to see children not taking exams’
But the sector is still waiting for full proposals for the 2022 exam series to be published, with just weeks left until the end of the academic year.
Williamson would only say at the Festival of Education last week that plans would be published “very shortly”, and said Parliament would be informed first.
He said today: “I never want to see children not taking exams, I would probably have been so bold if I was talking to you in December last year to say absolutely children would have been sitting exams, never recognising the fact there would be a new variant but that it absolutely our aim and intention but with proper contingency plans always in place.”
At the Westminster Insight SEND conference, Sonia Blandford says the government is ignoring a worrying rise in SEND and CAHMS referrals that we are not prepared for
Strange. Challenging. Unprecedented. Just a few of the words we have all used to describe the period since COVID-19 has impacted on all of our lives.
But while it’s been difficult enough to understand from the position of a secure family home with no prior needs, there are many for whom it has been simply devastating.
In our work with education settings all over the country, we are detecting a major seismic event: a tsunami of referrals to SEND teams and CAMHS provision that will overtop the flood defences.
Let me talk you through some of the situations students we work with have found themselves in. (All names have been changed.)
Kadija is 18 and shares a bedroom with her mum, a single parent who survives by working and claiming benefits. Her older sister has had mental health and drug problems, so living at home is a trial.
We are detecting a major seismic event
Kadija was to have taken A levels. But her mocks, disrupted by family trauma, resulted in a C, E and U, against predicted grades of A*, C and C.
She is getting little additional income through occasional shifts in the pub her house, and she has little or no motivation to continue with her ambition to go to university to study medicine. Kadija is vulnerable and disadvantaged but does not fall within Educational, Health, Care Plan (EHCP) or Free School Meals support or subsidies
Then there is Tess. She is 16, with high-end physical and cognitive disabilities, and significant emotional needs. Tess is disabled and vulnerable, but she lives in a rural area and her support system – including specialist teaching and learning services – are located 90 miles away. They take over two hours to get to her.
Finally, Tom has profound and multiple learning disabilities and has been living with his single mother as the primary carer along with four other siblings. One of them has the same condition as him. His mother got diagnosed with a mental illness two years ago and since then has been out of the house, so his older brothers have been the main carers.
Kadija, Tess and Tom share a common situation, which makes them vulnerable and disadvantaged – they do not have the normal points of reference shared by so many of their peers. Their world is different, needing significant structure and support.
For all young people, it is home that provides the benchmark for their lives. The pandemic has caused us all to revalue the meaning of home and the importance of the quality of shelter, food, safety, personal growth, health, and love that it holds. We know that ‘home’ is where we develop and nurture our core strength.
So have Kadija, Tess and Tom. But for them and thousands like them, watching the news or scrolling social media, trying to seek support when the structure of their lives has disappeared has been traumatic.
Education institutions and third sector organisations have stepped in to care for vulnerable and disadvantaged young people over the past 16 months.
Teachers have provided daily one-to-one support, checked meal vouchers had arrived and that there is somewhere to sleep, clothes to wear.
In the meantime, government’s key focus has been on learning. But in truth Kadija, Tess and Tom have a long way to go before this is their priority.
Their teachers, carers and support networks face the challenge of providing new stable reference points before any form of learning can take place.
Teachers face the challenge of providing new stable reference points
Physical and emotional security, love and belonging are their priority, so our key question must be this: How will we get them the highly specialised and urgent support they need to overcome the social, emotion and mental health issues caused by lockdown?
Some of these young people would have been on a road towards more positive life outcomes, overcoming ACEs (Adverse Childhood Experiences) through the care and support of their college communities.
But many have been re-traumatised. And for them, specialist help is not a luxury, but an absolute and immediate necessity.
And supporting that ought to be the government’s priority.
Ofsted inspectors will “always” report where a school fails to comply with the Baker clause and “consider” how it affects their grade, the watchdog has clarified following mounting pressure.
Ofsted bosses have also provoked confusion by contradicting one another on whether inspection grades should be limited if a school is failing to meet its obligations under the clause.
Following the report’s publication, an Ofsted spokesperson told FE Week: “We’ll soon be updating our handbooks to clarify inspectors will always report where schools fall short of the requirements of the Baker Clause, as well as considering how it affects a school’s grade.”
Ofsted: ‘Good quality’ careers advice is ‘really important’
The Baker clause, named after its author former education secretary Kenneth Baker, was passed into law in 2018.
The watchdog’s spokesperson stated that “good quality” careers advice is “really important,” and the clause already forms part of the “personal development” grade in an Ofsted report.
Inspectors are also trained to understand the clause’s requirements and how to look for them, while most reports include a mention of careers education “even if they don’t specifically report on compliance with the clause,” the spokesperson said.
Watchdog had caused confusion over grading
This clarification came after Ofsted chief inspector Amanda Spielman told the select committee it would be “unlikely” a school could be graded ‘outstanding’ if it was found to be non-compliant with the clause.
Amanda Spielman addressing the Education Select Committee
This contradicted the watchdog’s deputy director of FE and skills Paul Joyce, who told the Association of Employment and Learning Providers national conference earlier this month compliance with the clause should not be a “determining factor” of an inspection grade.
So, if Ofsted find a school is not complying, MPs do not want it to get an inspection grade any higher than ‘requires improvement’.
Baker believes non-compliant schools should be cut off from ‘outstanding’
The inspectorate has also been coming under pressure from other government bodies which have expressed concern over schools’ low regard for the clause.
UCAS reported last month one-third of students are not told about apprenticeships, while chief executive of the Careers and Enterprise Company Oli de Botton told the AELP conference it was “true historically that there hasn’t been enough access for ITPs or enough information about apprenticeships and technical routes for young people”.
This would mean stakeholders such as parents or providers could take schools to court over non-compliance with the clause.
Speaking about what Ofsted could do about non-compliance, Baker told FE Week: “If the school is not actually implementing the clause, and if they’re likely to be ‘outstanding’, they shouldn’t be given ‘outstanding’.”
College leadership failings continue to prove costly, and the education secretary is now seeking greater powers to take more direct action through the Skills Bill. But could one solution be to limit the time bosses are at the helm? FE Weektakes a look…
Most experts in the sector say the old days of a “job for life” for principals are long gone. Now, the new measures put forward in the Skills for Jobs white paper might cause their tenure to be cut shorter – or at least make them work even harder for it. Will boards set CEOs tighter KPIs from local skills plans? Scrutinise more closely how they meet employer-led targets?
It’s not just executive roles the DfE has been thinking about. Governing boards are also in the department’s line of sight, with the white paper saying ministers will take a “clearer position on what good governance” looks like and will propose “specific requirements”.
The message is clear: the DfE is getting more involved in leadership performance, and that involvement is here to stay.
In such a challenging environment, the need for strong chief executives is perhaps greater than ever, and effective chairs of boards are equally crucial. But does length of tenure matter?
A few years ago, the corporate world was wringing its hands over a PwC study on the staying power of bosses. UK chief executives were spending only 4.8 years in the job, below the five-year global average. More recently, FTSE 100 bosses had at least clawed it back to five years (which is better than football managers).
But while burnout of chief executives is often discussed in FE, there’s another side to the same question: what about those who choose to stay for a long time?
FE Week analysed the top 20 biggest colleges to find out how long their chief executives or principals had been in post, according to their LinkedIn profiles or college websites.
The answer? Six and a half years on average.
It’s a reassuringly longer stay than FTSE 100 bosses, but not so long that anyone can accuse FE of cosy “jobs for life”.
But there is real variation in that list. The longest period is 22 years (Ian Pryce at Bedford College), followed by 20 years and 6 months (Paul Phillips at Weston College) and 18 years (Sally Dicketts, Activate Learning, who is stepping down).
Then there are those in the middling ground, such as Shelagh Legrave, set to become the next FE Commissioner, after leading Chichester College for 11 years and Corrienne Peasgood has led City College Norwich for eight years and 10 months.
My personal view is to go with the American model
Ought FE colleges to consider setting fixed terms for the CEO, after which point their performance is reviewed? Even if a CEO is doing well, should there come a cut-off point where they take their expertise elsewhere?
Tom Bewick, chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies, thinks so. In the US, he says, some community college leaders are on five-year fixed terms. “They’re pretty hard-nosed contracts, with key performance indicators around finances, student enrolment, student experience, and if you’re not meeting those targets, it’s time to move on.
Tom Bewick
“My personal view is to go with the American model, in that colleges should be able to put out a five-year fixed term with a review. What that does is set in place the expectation clearly from the start, that the CEO is there to deliver within that time, by a board that will hold them to account. Then it can always be extended.
“We need to be a bit more forgiving and a bit more grown up, that people might just need to move on from a senior post,” he adds.
The recommendation echoes the “Civil Service Reform plan” published in 2013 which announced that permanent secretaries of government departments would now be on five-year fixed contracts.
The intention was to tackle the fact permanent secretaries were not staying long enough, rather than staying too long.
But others in the sector are sympathetic to the idea of a preferred length of stay for chief executives.
Shaid Mahmood, chair of Luminate Education Group, and also chair of the Association of Colleges, explains it is “important for people to move through at a reasonable rate.
“There are always exceptions, and there are a number of CEOs who have been in post for ten years or more, who are really good CEOs, and I can absolutely understand why the chair wants them to stay. But also, I’m a big believer in people coming in, getting stuck in, moving things on, and moving on.
“I’m pretty good at moving people on, and I mean that in a really positive way. It’s about succession planning with them for what they want to do next. That brings in more blood, and I think we should be doing that with our CEOs.”
Mahmood adds: “I think about five to seven years is about right for principals, and four is too short.”
Shaid Mahmood
Like Mahmood, Sue Pember, policy director at HOLEX, thinks there is a wise length of time for a CEO to be in post, but it depends on circumstances.
“You probably want three years to get your feet under the table, three years to do it right, and three years to innovate. However, there are successful principals who have been there for 25 years.”
But fixed-term contracts are not advisable, she says. Colleges would have to offer more benefits and so there would be a “salary drift upwards”, says Pember. “It allows people to play the system. I don’t think you’d get loyalty.”
What the sector is largely agreed on, however, is the need for the chair to regularly move on – particularly to ensure that poor-performing CEOs don’t get to stick around.
FE Week was able to find information on chairs at 17 of the 20 biggest colleges, again according to LinkedIn and college websites. On average, they have been in the role for 4.5 years. It doesn’t sound excessive.
I don’t think you’d get loyalty
But according to codes of good governance, that question depends on how long chairs have been sat on the board as a member before they became chair.
The UK Corporate Governance Code clearly states that “circumstances that are likely to impair, or could appear to impair, a non-executive director’s independence include whether a director […] has served on the board for more than nine years”.
The Charity Governance Code says the same: “If a trustee has served for more than nine years, their reappointment is subject to a particularly rigorous review” that must “take account of the need for progressive refreshing of the board”.
They echo the findings of a 2017 research paper called Do Directors Have a Use-by Date?that looked at 3,000 firms over 18 years. “Our evidence suggests that board tenure is positively related to forward-looking measures of market value, with the relationship reversing after about nine years on average.”
However, the Association of College’s governance code – which is being updated – is not quite as clear. It says governors should not serve more than two terms, or a maximum of eight years, “except where subsequently undertaking a new and more senior role, for example, as chair”.
It adds only: “There are variations in the length of term for which chairs are appointed.”
Kirsti Lord, deputy chief executive at the Association of Colleges, acknowledges the AoC would like the wording to be more precise. “Our guidance is not as prescriptive as we think it could be in terms of best practice.” The reason for this, she says, is because there are examples of successful colleges where the chair has been in position for longer.
Kirsti Lord
“But what we see sometimes is that some people think if you are a board member, and you progress to be chair, you can start your time all over again. That isn’t the case. The entire total of your tenure on the board, including as chair, should still be nine years.
Peter Lauener, former ESFA boss who has been chair of NCG for three years, is in agreement. “I strongly support the guideline of nine years on the board,” he says. “There’s the advantage of new blood, and the disadvantage of going stale. It’s a good figure, which should not be exceeded.”
FE Week analysis shows a few chairs in the biggest colleges are coming up to the recommended nine-year mark. Andrew Barnes, chair of City College Norwich, Charles Buchanan, chair of EKC Group, Nick Davies, chair of HCUC Group, and Rob Lawson, chair of Sunderland College, have all been on the board for eight years or more.
The entire total of your tenure on the board, including as chair, should still be nine years
Meanwhile Clive Henderson, chair at South & City College Birmingham, has been on the board nine years, and James Pinchbeck, chair at Lincoln College Group, has been on the board for nine years and 10 months.
The longest-serving governor is Derek Randall, chair of Bridgwater & Taunton College, who according to the college’s website has held governing roles there for 20 years. College CEO Andy Berry says Randall has “been at the heart of the transformational change” at the college during his tenure, including growing it to one of the biggest and most successful.
Paul Phillips, the long-standing chief executive at Weston College, says “you want the chair changing probably every eight years or less,” adding “that’s more important, I think, than whether they’ve been governors for a while”.
Paul Phillips
People moving on also aids diversity, points out Fiona Chalk, national head of governance at the Education and Training Foundation.
Just three of the 20 current chairs are women, FE Week can reveal.
“Long-term tenure is not good for the organisation, because you tend to get complacency and group-think,” says Chalk.
The government’s proposals in the white paper might be about to seriously shake that up.
For a start, the DfE wants to “set new requirements for annual board self-assessment and regular external governance reviews”. The ETF and AoC have already run a pilot in 30 colleges to trial the external reviews, which are intended to help improve college governing boards, and the findings will be revealed soon.
Whether chairs should be paid is also under review, and a governance “framework of skills and competencies” is being developed too.
There’s not much appetite for fixed-terms for CEOs, but there is a sense of them having an ideal average tenure.
To ensure only the very best CEOs get to stay longer, the sector seems agreed it’s vitally important chairs of governors do not overstay their welcome.
MPs have called on Ofsted to cut schools off from the top two inspection grades if they fail to comply with the Baker Clause.
In a report out today, the education select committee recommends a school be limited to a grade three under such circumstances.
This comes days after Ofsted bosses caused confusion about whether Baker Clause compliance ought to be a limiting factor on which grade a school was awarded.
The committee’s report, titled ‘The forgotten: how white working-class pupils have been let down, and how to change it’, says that “for too long” schools have “failed to fully deliver” on the Baker Clause.
Baker Clause ‘must be more uniformly enforced’
Authored by former education secretary Kenneth Baker and introduced in 2018, the clause mandates schools to allow training providers access to their pupils to discuss technical education routes.
The committee, according to the report, believes the clause “must be more uniformly enforced to prevent many disadvantaged pupils, including disadvantaged white pupils, missing the opportunity to access a variety of careers”.
The Department for Education-ordered review of careers guidance in schools by Ofsted will be watched closely by MPs, who say they “look forward” to the watchdog’s recommendations on how schools could improve the advice they give pupils.
MPs also want the government to conduct a “significant” review of its funded careers agencies to identify “if they are focused on skills, building employer-school partnerships and helping those from white working class in schools in disadvantaged areas”.
Furthermore, it has also been recommended the government fast-track a plan to bind its careers advice funding to Baker Clause compliance, which was included in the government’s landmark Skills for Jobs white paper in January.
AELP wants schools limited to Ofsted grade two
Last week, Ofsted chief inspector Amanda Spielman told the committee it was “unlikely” a school could get an ‘outstanding’ grade if it were found not to have complied with the Baker Clause.
This statement clashed with that of Ofsted’s deputy director for FE Paul Joyce, who told the Association of Employment and Learning Providers national conference the week before he did not think compliance should be a “determining factor” of an inspection grade.
The committee’s report cites the AELP’s evidence to the Skills Commission of MPs and peers which stated schools ought to be limited to a grade two if they fail to comply with the clause.
Kenneth Baker
Caps on Ofsted grades may turn out to be a lesser problem for schools however, as Lord Baker announced to the House of Lords last week he was seeking to amend the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill, currently going through parliament, to make his clause a statutory duty.
Currently, ministers have to include the clause in their guidance to headteachers in order for it to be enforced; but under Lord Baker’s plans, stakeholders such as parents or training providers could take a school to court if they were non-compliant.
Baker told FE Week he was having the clause drafted, and it still needs to be voted on in parliament.
This comes after increasing discussion about schools ignoring the clause, and how it could be enforced.
In addition to making careers guidance funding contingent on compliance, the white paper also promised government would set a new minimum requirement about who is to be given access to which pupils and when, as well as take “tougher, formal action against non-compliance”.
Previously, in February 2020, then-academies minister Lord Agnew wrote to headteachers to remind them of the obligation to promote technical education under the clause.
UCAS pledged to become a “digital Baker clause”, providing information and advice to young people on their opportunities when it reported last month that one-third of students are not told about apprenticeships.
Oli de Botton, chief executive of the government’s own careers quango, The Careers and Enterprise Company, told the AELP conference earlier this month it was “true historically that there hasn’t been enough access for ITPs or enough information about apprenticeships and technical routes for young people”.
An Ofsted spokesperson said: “Good quality careers information, education, advice and guidance is really important.
“While a review of careers advice remains to be considered, the Baker Clause forms part of our ‘personal development’ grade, and all our inspectors are trained to understand the requirements and how to look for them.
“Most inspection reports include a mention of careers education in general, even if they don’t specifically report on compliance with the clause.
“We’ll soon be updating our handbooks to clarify that inspectors will always report where schools fall short of the requirements of the Baker Clause, as well as considering how it affects a school’s grade.”
The government wants to rush through its plans for a post-qualifications admissions (PQA) system for universities “without legislation”, the education secretary has said.
Gavin Williamson told the House of Commons today that “we really want to bring PQA forward as rapidly as possible”, and said he would like to do it “without legislation and in cooperation with the sector”.
But the government will still drive the reforms forward even “if we aren’t able to have that cooperation”, the education secretary said.
The Department for Education launched a consultation in January on proposals to allow students to receive offers from university based on their actual grades, rather than predictions.
The consultation set out two different proposed models, one which would see pupils apply to university after receiving their A-level results, and another where pupils would make ‘pre-qualification’ applications but would only receive offers after results are announced.
The first model would need a longer application window, created by moving A-level results day forward from mid-August to the end of July and pushing back university term start dates to “no earlier than the first week of October”.
Asked about the progress of the reforms during education questions today, Williamson said the consultation closed in May “and we’re looking at the response from that consultation very closely”.
“We really want to bring PQA forward as rapidly as possible. We would like to do that without legislation and in cooperation with the sector but if we aren’t able to have that cooperation we will drive this forward.
“All the evidence from the Sutton Trust and so many others is clear that PQA goes to help children from the most disadvantaged families more than any other. That’s why we will make it happen.”
Williamson ‘very committed’ to Catholic sixth form college academisation
The government changed the rules in 2015 to allow sixth form colleges to become academies, and in doing so avoid paying VAT.
But Catholic sixth form colleges have complained that they are still prevented from converting because their religious character would not be maintained.
Today, Williamson was asked by Tory MP Bob Blackman whether he would allow an amendment to the skills and post-16 education bill currently making its way through Parliament “to provide an opportunity for Catholic sixth form colleges to academise with the legal protections they need”.
Williamson said he was “aware of how important this is, and we look at all legislative opportunities to see as to how this can best be done and we’re very committed at the earliest opportunity to make it happen”.
“We do want to see Catholic sixth forms be in a position to be able to academise, because we’ve seen the benefits that that can bring to so many schools, and I’ll happily work with my honourable friend and others to ensure it happens at the earliest moment.”
Randomised control trials are the answer to FE’s biggest questions, writes Ben Gadsby
I have a confession: My name is Ben and I am a fan of randomised control trials (RCTs).
Take two similar groups of people, give one a skills bootcamp, one not-a-skills-bootcamp, and then compare the outcomes. It’s hardly life or death – unlike if you replace “skills bootcamp” with “vaccine” in that sentence…
Last week’s paper seemed to somewhat disagree, and now the government has U-turned. But this is not good news ̶ FE Week readers should be fans of RCTs too.
Do skills bootcamps work? This is a simple but vital question. No one knows. Skills bootcamps might be the sector’s finest invention ̶ or a bigger waste of time than trainspotting. An RCT is the most effective way to answer the question.
If you’re curious about why an RCT is the best way to answer “does it work” questions, I recommend the blogs of the late American psychologist Robert Slavin. Suffice to say if you really want to know if something works then randomness is a necessary feature, not a bug ̶ as is making sure your comparison group doesn’t end up getting the benefits (or otherwise) of what you’re testing.
But much more important than research methodology is this: if we want the FE sector to be the best that it can be, we need more research, not less. It’s good for the sector and it’s good for the people it serves.
It’s good for the sector because it’s how we address the longstanding underfunding in comparison to schools. We need to convince the government in the next spending review to invest more money in our colleges.
But the only way to do that is with evidence that the money will lead to better outcomes – better skills, better pay, less worklessness, etc. The Treasury will be willing to invest in things that change lives, not things that don’t change lives.
And these outcomes are the outcomes we all want for students too. How much money is currently wasted on projects and schemes that have zero impact on anything that matters? Probably a billion.
Not only do we not know that it’s not having an impact (because no one is investigating), but even if we did, we don’t know what we should do instead (because no one is investigating).
A comparison with schools is illuminating. Our sister charity, the Education Endowment Foundation, has conducted numerous RCTs and found that most of the initiatives they trial don’t have an impact on attainment. These are things schools should probably think more carefully about spending money on.
But the initiatives that do have an impact on attainment tend to attract money – big money. The government is currently retendering for a school breakfasts programme, because Magic Breakfast proved in an RCT that it works.
Initiatives that have an impact on attainment tend attract big money
The government is throwing money at tutoring for millions of pupils – because the Tutor Trust proved in an RCT that it works. Impetus has funded and supported both charities in recent years.
Ironically, that RCT for the Tutor Trust is actually the reason colleges have access to the 16-to-19 tuition fund at all. But not because an FE tutoring model got an RCT. The sector is fortunate to have providers building on the schools evidence base, such as Get Further, which offers an impressive tutoring programme built on similar principles to the Tutor Trust model but tailored to the needs of FE learners.
No, it is concerning that colleges didn’t get a chunk of money because they made an evidence-based case to fund provision. Instead, they only got the money because the sector would have otherwise complained. That shouldn’t be the basis on which FE gets money. It’s a patronising pat on the head: run along and stop moaning.
Incidentally, that’s the same instinct that has probably led to the U-turn. I wish the government were now making the case for RCTs in FE but instead you can almost hear the sigh from the DfE: fine, we won’t do it. Now run along and stop moaning.
FE is failing to get the investment it needs because we don’t have proven programmes to make the case.
As a sector, we should aspire to prove our worth, and demand the investment that is merited.
The key word in that sentence is prove. We need evidence.
The Church’s proposals have little to do with education and more to do with reversing its declining numbers among young people, write Chris Higgins and Keith Sharpe
How is it that the “bishop for higher and further education” can produce a report that has so little to say about the realities of education and so much to say about how the church might increase its membership?
The report rather gives the game away by acknowledging that the aim of engaging with FE colleges is to “build a younger and more diverse church” and that “colleges can, especially, be a way to engage with what is often a missing generation… There is genuine potential here to help revitalise the local church in the long term.”
It appears the Church of England views FE colleges as a potential source of new recruits, rather than the pluralistic communities of learners and educators that they are.
The lord bishop of Durham confirmed this strategy, stating in the recent Queen’s Speech debate: “We as a church recognise that we must become younger and more diverse. Engaging in further education needs to be at the core of what we do.”
He added that the church is “committed to an ongoing working partnership with the secretary of state and the government to explore these issues together”.
The report laments the fact that, unlike HE, no Christian church now operates an FE institution, and suggests the establishment of a church “FE CollegesGroup”.
Even more worryingly, this latest report follows a report published in 2020 called Faith in Higher Education – A ChurchofEngland vision, also under Bishop Dakin, which states that the church’s approach to further and higher education is theological, not educational.
That report declares that education and wisdom are achieved by “aligning all our ways – our thinking, acting, belonging – with those of God”.
Most strikingly, it adds “sustained theological attention is needed on the distinct questions of the content of any particular discipline
Most strikingly, it adds “sustained theological attention is needed on the distinct questions of the content of any particular discipline or field, the methodologies with which these are examined and interpreted, and the curriculum through which it is taught”.
In the 21st century, no educational institution should be subject to the constraints of theological doctrine.
One proposal being considered by the Church of England is that “each diocese should engage with further education and sixth-form colleges in its strategic planningand an appropriate member of the bishop’s staff should have responsibility for linking diocesan strategy with FE and sixth-form college activity”.
But fewer than one per cent of college students are members of their particular church. Meanwhile, governors of FE colleges are charged with developing an independent strategy for the benefit of all their students.
Another proposal in the report is to provide house-for-duty posts and to “reimagine chaplaincy provision”. This neglects the fact that FE colleges already have a cadre of professionally qualified and committed staff who work diligently to enhance the welfare and wellbeing of students of all backgrounds, abilities and aspirations.
Support for all students’ wellbeing is fundamental to the pluralistic life of our FE colleges and the communities they serve.
While, of course, most individual chaplains are well-intentioned, a “cuckoo-in-the-nest” chaplaincy whose first loyalty is towards a particular church would privilege a very small minority of staff and students. This would undermine every college’s purpose of building a community in which people of all faiths or none have equal opportunity.
The potential for conflict between the doctrinal beliefs of chaplains – for example, on same-sex marriage, other faiths or LGBT+ rights – and the inclusive support provided by the professional pastoral support teams in FE would also be ever present.
Support for further education from any source is, of course, to be welcomed, but the Church of England’s latest proposals have little to do with education and skills and much to do with reversing its own declining numbers amongst young people.
That’s why the specific proposals in this report must be resisted.
We need a revolution to close the potentially disastrous skills gap, writes Kirstie Donnelly
Skills gaps are nothing new. But, since March 2020, the arrival of the Covid-19 pandemic and a series of subsequent lockdowns simultaneously unlocked a wave of seismic change in the UK labour market, significantly changing the sorts of skills sought by employers.
With over 800,000 workers displaced from their jobs and 11 million people furloughed, the numbers paint a stark picture of how the pandemic impacted the jobs market.
Yet the UK’s shrinking economy is just one piece of the puzzle. Sweeping changes in the way people lived and worked have caused some industries to contract. But new and existing trends – such as digital transformation and automation – have taken off, further propelling labour market transformation.
In our new annual Skills Index report published last week, which is intended to show how skills supply and demand is evolving, we uncovered some striking findings. This includes how demand for skills shot up most notably in the health and social care and tech sectors.
For example, as businesses and individuals increasingly relied on technology for their day-to-day lives, job postings for tech and digital roles rose by 21 per cent between April 2020 to April 2021 alone.
And with remote working creating a plethora of new cyber-security risks for businesses, demand for cyber-security technicians rocketed, rising a staggering 19,222 per cent.
Meanwhile, as the pandemic put increased pressure on the health and social care sector, specific technical skills – such as nursing, mental health support and personal care support – were among those that saw the greatest increase in demand in 2020.
Our report also pointed to a growing mismatch between the skills that people possess, and the skills employers need, suggesting that businesses’ productivity is at stake.
Fifty-six per cent of organisations faced some kind of barrier to meeting their skills and talent needs, while 61 per cent of working-age adults don’t feel they are equipped with the skills they will need in the next five years.
The bottom line is that while many businesses were facing skills gaps before the pandemic, these gaps are now even wider – and are poised to be disastrous unless we urgently reconcile the disparity between skills supply and demand.
The solution? It’s no surprise that there’s no easy one.
We’ll need a revolution, and a significant shift in attitudes
We’ll need a revolution, and a significant shift in attitudes.
At an individual level, people need to be equipped to identify where they need to develop skills, and where their existing skills are transferable, so that they can seek appropriate support and opportunities – and be empowered to fund their own training if need be.
Employers must facilitate this process, by providing mechanisms for individuals to understand which skills are likely to be in demand throughout their lifetimes, and by providing employees with the training they need to stay relevant.
The reality is that many workers are now facing a five-decade-long career – so, practically, this will mean a mixture of better “all ages” careers advice, and a commitment to re-skilling and upskilling workers throughout their working lives.
Meanwhile, the government must provide a wider programme of support for people who need to retrain. The Lifetime Skills Guarantee makes headway on providing such support, allowing adults without a level 3 qualification access to a free college course.
But it is limited to lower-skilled individuals and misses others who may have lost their jobs due to the pandemic now, those who will do in the future, or those who are older.
Current government support doesn’t go far enough ̶ we need a less restrictive offer available to all those displaced so that we can retrain workforces and divert labour to where it’s needed.
This sort of countrywide culture shift won’t be easy, but if we seize the opportunity with both hands, this could be the jumpstart we need to create a long overdue lifelong skills culture that works for all.
