Gavin Williamson’s speech on lifting FE’s ‘potential’ through the white paper: The full text

The education secretary has promised that the imminent FE white paper will bring an “end to getting a qualification for its own sake” and ensure that training reflects the “changing needs” of employers.

Gavin Williamson said further education will “no longer be hiding its vast potential under a bushel” following the reforms, while making a keynote address at Association of College’s FE summit this afternoon.

He added that the white paper, due for publication before the end of 2020, is a “vital opportunity for us all to collaborate further, so that FE delivers for all those it serves, its students, its local employers and for its communities”.

Here is his speech in full:

 

“Good afternoon. Thank you David for that kind introduction and for inviting me to this Summit. Although Covid has taken a wrecking ball to so many planned events this year, it’s great that we are all able to be here in spite of it.

In fact, these virtual conferences and meetings have been among the unexpected success stories of a very difficult year.

Minister Keegan was only telling me the other day that she continues to be astonished by the innovation you are showing on a daily basis to blend both online and face-to-face tuition and to keep students learning.   

There’s been a tremendous response on the part of the entire sector and I want to congratulate you and thank you for everything you’ve done, and what you continue to do, to make sure young people get the best opportunities to build and shape their futures.

It shouldn’t surprise anyone, and it certainly doesn’t surprise me, that you have been so resourceful in finding a way through the many challenges that Covid has presented.

This is what you in the FE community do so well… adapting what you do to meet local social and economic needs…

We will be hearing more about how important colleges are to their local communities later this afternoon, when the Commission on the College of the Future launches its report for England. Before we do, I would like to talk about our ambitious plans for the sector.

As I’m sure many of you are aware, reforming our further education sector has been a particular passion of mine. Ever since I was appointed Education Secretary, I have been determined to raise its status and earlier in the summer I set out a broad vision for bringing Further Education in from the cold. It was a fairly long speech but don’t worry, I’m not going to talk for quite so long today.

In that speech I explained how we intend to end the outdated perception that anyone who goes down the further education route has somehow come up short.

I’m not alone in this crusade. It is a mission that is shared by the Prime Minister. As you know, he launched his game-changing Lifetime Skills Guarantee in September, and I will look at how that is going to help reset the post-16 landscape in just a minute.

Young people really need to know there is more than one route to success. They must be given a real choice. At the moment too many of them feel that the only worthwhile choice is studying for a degree.  

I want further education and higher education to be thought of as two sides of the same coin, both as highly regarded and as well-resourced as the other.

But I know I’m preaching to the converted here. Of course you’re the last people I need to convince that this sector has so much more to offer.  

A word you often hear in relation to education is ‘potential’. We’ve all got it, although some may have more of it than others. But potential is not just a human asset, it’s a social one, it’s an economic one and it’s certainly a business one. Potential is what can turn base metal into gold.

What we have with further education is a classic example of a sector that is failing to reach its potential.

I am as determined as you are to reverse that. To make sure it realises its true potential that it has to offer the whole country.

We have already taken steps to strengthen further and technical education… We are rolling out T Levels; we have transformed apprenticeships by working directly with businesses; we have made a massive investment in our FE colleges and are investing £290 million for our flagship Institutes of Technology…

We have announced £1.5 billion package over five years in capital spending to refurbish further education colleges. This level of investment will enable colleges to give their facilities a much-needed makeover.

In the last spending review I secured an extra £400m for 16-19 further education to make sure people don’t have to move for high quality education and that employers will have skilled people right on their doorsteps.

Our network of Institutes of Technology will lead the way on delivering higher technical skills in science, technology, engineering and maths – skills that will give this country a competitive edge not just in the industries of today, but, more importantly, those of tomorrow.

These are radical, long-term changes and they are going to transform the life chances for every young person and adult in the country.

This is not merely a response to the pandemic, this is a continuation of our whole-hearted commitment to level up every inch of the country.

This country is bursting with potential… this is how we are going to unlock it.

As the Prime Minister announced, from next April we will introduce a new funding promise as part of our Lifetime Skills Guarantee. We will now fund technical courses for adults as a equivalent to A level, and which will teach skills that are highly in demand.

They’ll give anyone who left school without an A-Level or equivalent, the qualifications they need, when they need them. They will help people to change jobs and to find work in some of the exciting new sectors that this country is developing.

The guarantee will give every student a flexible, lifelong loan which entitles them to four years of post-18 education. The measures will embed greater flexibility in the technical education and skills system to support not just young people but adults who need to retrain and upskill at any point in their working lives.

The Prime Minister spelt out how we are going to build a skills economy, one that that’s going to drive productivity and help us recover from the pandemic. He outlined plans to bring closer alignment between further and higher education to end the outdated distinction that one is better than the other. 

These are the foundations on which we are going to build a new higher technical education offer.  

So how are we going to start to make these plans a reality?

I’m so pleased to say that the Independent Commission on the College of the Future has echoed many of these ambitions and I was very interested to read its report on the United Kingdom and will be equally interested to study its report on England in more depth.  My Department really values the discussions we have had over the past year with the Commissioners.

With its focus on people, productivity and place, the Commission has set out how it sees colleges delivering lifelong learning and the kind of support that learners, employers and communities will need to survive  but also, and more importantly, thrive in the future.

It’s worth reminding ourselves that according to the CBI, this is a future in which nine in 10 people are going to need new skills by 2030…That’s only a short time away and we have to act, and we have to act quickly.

Everyone is going to need access to part-time, adult and technical education as the economy and jobs change.  Training isn’t something that you do once and then forget about. Training is something that everyone is going to need to do at various points in their lives, to upskill or acquire new skills. 

The colleges of the future will have an absolutely key role in making sure we can do this by working with employers to ensure that education and training reflect changing needs, and to help drive business – help them change and help them innovate.

As a signal of our commitment to FE we will very shortly be delivering a White Paper which will build on our vision of a world class skills system in England.

This will be centred on high-quality courses which are based on employer-led standards. There has been far too much training for jobs that don’t exist, so we will bring an end to getting a qualification for its own sake.

In its place there will be a wholesale re-balancing of academic and technical education. There will be a stronger alignment with what our country and the economy needs.

We will look to colleges to play a leading role in developing skills in their areas, in responding to local economic need and acting as centres for business development.

I would like to say at this point how much I value, really value, the discussions we have already had and how much I am looking forward to working closely with you to see all our aspirations for FE come to fruition. The White Paper is a vital opportunity for us all to collaborate further, so that FE delivers for all those it serves, its students, its local employers and for its communities.

I spoke earlier of potential and its power to transform lives. I can promise that FE will no longer be hiding its vast potential under a bushel…

Instead we will see it for it is: a pathway to a career that brings job satisfaction and fulfilment; a skills revolution that will enable businesses to thrive and finally, as we emerge from this awful pandemic, a clear route to a dynamic and prosperous new future.

We do not have a second to waste this potential any longer and I am determined that we will not do so.

And together, by working with you, we will deliver this revolution in further education that we all so want, we all so desire, and we have all so long waited for.

Thank you.”

 

 

 

 

 

College commission calls on DfE to force principals into multi-academy trust style accountability structures

New legislation should force all colleges to be part of “networks” that could follow similar accountability structures as multi-academy trusts, a commission of leading FE figures has said.

Authors of the Independent Commission on the College of the Future report for England say the imminent FE white paper and subsequent legislation should define the principles of a college network that would “have ‘teeth’ – ensuring that funding and accountability ultimately sits at the network level rather than individual college level”.

The networks would develop their own strategies to meet each area’s skills priorities based on the needs of employers, elected mayors and local government.

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said colleges were keen on the proposal and the commission had reached “a consensus with employers, government, students and colleges about the system needed to get the most out of colleges over the coming years”.

A three-wave approach to introducing the networks would start with existing college groups, then those who volunteer and the final wave might need a chair to be appointed to mandate membership, with the “process to be completed by 2023/24”.

During the waves the Department for Education would need to develop and agree “a map of appropriate geographies across England” for the networks.

The report makes it clear that membership would be compulsory as “alignment between network and institutional strategies is not a matter of voluntarism” and goes on to propose that colleges should only be given funding if there is “alignment of network and institutional strategies.”

The chair of a network could act as single point contact with the DfE and funding bodies – similar to regional schools commissioners, which act on behalf of the secretary of state for education to manage academies.

The networks would have “significant implications” for governance, according to the report. It says the model must give governors an “explicit duty” to go beyond individual colleges to ensure that each institutional strategy is “aligned with an overarching strategy for the network of colleges within their relevant economic geography”.

Today’s report, titled The English College of the Future, states: “A networked approach is critical to colleges delivering in a coherent and connected manner on their core public purpose, particularly if they work with other partners.

“They can maximise value from public funds, can ensure that specialist provision is protected and can provide clear choices for employers and learners.”

The commission is not a legal entity in its own right and was set up by the Association of Colleges, which has provided staff, facilities and the use of infrastructure, including IT servers.

The call for college networks follows a recommendation put forward by the think tank EDSK in September, which said local FE directors should be established and handed powers to decide which courses are run by colleges in their area.

The Independent Commission on the College of the Future’s report says that given the “need for a much more connected and holistic education and skills system”, ultimately the legal duty on colleges to develop networks “must be matched by a duty on all other post-16 education providers to ensure that provision complements the existing offer across an appropriate economic geography”.

Among the commission’s other recommendations is a call for a cross-departmental ministerial taskforce to oversee a new UK government ten-year strategy for education and skills.

There should also be the establishment of a “single post-16 education oversight and funding body” – which would seemingly involve merging the Education and Skills Funding Agency and the Office for Students.

The commission warns that colleges currently operate in a “quasi-market” and are “forced to compete with each other and with schools, universities and independent training providers – driving inefficiency and at times insufficiency of provision across a locality”.

Considering this, the report says the goal of the cross-departmental ministerial taskforce and single oversight and funding body should be to tackle the “nugatory” competition between colleges, schools, universities and independent training providers.

Responding to the report, Association of Employment and Learning Providers managing director Jane Hickie said a “great deal” of collaboration already goes on at local level and what the FE and skills system must be about is “employer and learner choice” so the “statute book has no place in trying to restrict that choice”.

Education secretary Gavin Williamson would not comment on the report’s individual recommendations but said the DfE’s “ambitious” FE White Paper, set for publication before the end of 2020, will put employers “at the heart of our plans and work closely with colleges to drive forward the long term change we need to unleash potential everywhere and that will support our economy to recover and grow”.

 

London college agrees merger after being put at ‘significant risk’

A London college which was put at “significant risk” by failures in financial management and control is seeking to join a successfully-merged neighbour.

Richmond-upon-Thames College (RuTC) has announced, as a result of an FE Commissioner-led structure and prospects appraisal, that it plans to merge with Harrow College and Uxbridge College (HCUC) by August 2021.

It comes after a torrid time for RuTC, with the resignation of multiple senior leaders, a critical FE Commissioner intervention report, the college dropping out of delivering T Level qualifications, and the government warning its future sustainability was at risk.

RuTC interim principal Elaine McMahon has said the merger would see the colleges “share and promote best practice teaching and learning to ensure consistent quality throughout every aspect of the three colleges”.

Richmond’s chair Ian Valvona added that this proposed merger is a “watershed moment” in the college’s 80-year history.

HCUC group principal Darrell DeSouza said he was “delighted” with the plan, adding: “I certainly believe that such a merger would open up collaborative opportunities and a broader vision, and strengthen sustainable provision to learners and employers alike within the west London and surrounding areas.”

HCUC, which leads on the flagship West London Institute of Technology, was formed by a merger of Harrow and Uxbridge colleges in 2017, and an Ofsted monitoring visit published in July 2019 found it was making ‘significant progress’ in two out of five areas, and ‘reasonable progress’ in the rest. Uxbridge College was rated ‘outstanding’ by the watchdog at its most recent full inspection – in 2008, while Harrow was judged ‘requires improvement’ in 2016.

The first public sign of trouble at RuTC was when principal Robin Ghurbhurun resigned in July last year “for personal reasons,” and was replaced on an interim basis the following October with accountant and experienced college leader Diane Dimond, who has subsequently been replaced by McMahon.

The college also pulled out of delivering wave two of T Levels in January, to prioritise the development of an £80 million campus at Twickenham, which partially opened in March.

The announcement about T Levels came on the same day the Education and Skills Funding Agency published a financial health notice to improve for RuTC, which highlighted “declining financial health,” a forecast of a “significant” financial deficit for 2018/19, and “weaknesses in leadership and management”.

A report from FE Commissioner Richard Atkins on his intervention in the college in October 2019 was published last March, and found college staff had been in “crisis mode” for much of 2019.

Also, there had been a “very turbulent” period where not just the principal, but also the vice principal for finance and enterprise, the clerk and the deputy principal had left.

But, the report noted, leadership had been “significantly, albeit temporarily, stabilised” with the appointment of experienced interim postholders.

The college ended up generating a £6.2 million deficit in 2018/19.

In a letter attached to the report, apprenticeships and skills minister Gillian Keegan wrote: “Significant failures in the college’s financial management and control have resulted in the college operating under serious financial pressure. 

“In the context of the increasing financial commitments required by the ongoing campus redevelopment project, I am greatly concerned that this presents significant risks to the college’s working capital and its future sustainability.” 

Following the commissioner’s intervention, the structure and prospect appraisal was launched.

Government set to create ‘college business centres’

New college “business centres” will be launched by the government in an effort to hand employers greater influence over skills training, FE Week can reveal.

The centres were first proposed by the Association of Colleges in the membership body’s submission to the upcoming Spending Review where they called for a £40 million pilot of such “hubs”, and have since gathered support from Conservative MP Peter Aldous.

The policy comes amid government efforts to move employers to a more central position in directing what further education and skills provision is offered by their local colleges.

The Department for Education has now given the green light to the centres but remained tight-lipped about details such as how much the centres will cost, how they will work and when and where they will launch.

But in a document for new high-level roles in the DfE, seen by FE Week, the department says they will be “developing policies to give employers greater influence over skills provision, including development and launch of a new college business centres initiative in the autumn”.

A number of national newspapers have reported over the weekend the government is looking to make announcements on new education and skills initiatives over the next week ahead of the chancellor’s spending review on 25 November. 

In its submission to the spending review, the AoC called for a pilot of “college business centres” in a small number of areas this academic year. 

These “employer hubs”, the submission published in September reads, would help “overcome the commercial barriers to small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) engaging with education”. 

The AoC says the core aims of the centres should be to: “Enhance the capabilities of FE colleges to deliver knowledge-based collaboration with SMEs; generate and disseminate new information about the practical benefits to business; and contribute to stimulating demand to engage in innovation activity.”

There is a “significant opportunity” for new business centres to capitalise on existing links between FE colleges and SMEs to “deliver economic impact quickly”, as the association says the average college already works with around 600 businesses. 

Subsequently, last month, at his parliamentary debate on colleges and skills to mark the annual Love Our Colleges Week, Peter Aldous, a member of the all-party parliamentary group on further education and lifelong learning, said the centres “should be established,” and the departments for education, and business, energy and industrial strategy should “work together to set up specific centres that support employers with expert advice”. 

Speaking for the government at the debate, skills minister Gillian Keegan called the business centres an “interesting idea,” adding there will be “much discussion between colleges, the Association of Colleges, business groups, and the government” in the lead up to the FE white paper set for publication before the end of 2020.

Exemplifying how the government wants provision to parallel employer needs, Keegan told an FE Week roundtable in October that the first, full level 3 qualifications being funded for all adults under the prime minister’s Lifetime Skills Guarantee from April would have to have the respect of business and address a wide range of labour shortages. 

FE Week also understands that the much-anticipated FE white paper could hand local chambers of commerce key powers over funding and priorities for skills provision in their area, in an attempt to replicate the German apprenticeship system much admired by ministers. 

The DfE has also already launched a Skills and Productivity Board, which they say will provide expert advice on how to make sure courses and qualifications are aligned to skills employers need. 

A DfE spokesperson said about the business centres: “We are considering  a range of initiatives designed to put employers at the heart of our ambitious FE reform plans. We will provide more details in due course.”

The government must consult on a very detailed plan for the national skills fund

There are now more questions than answers about the national skills fund, writes Simon Parkinson

The WEA gave a cautious welcome to the news that the national retraining scheme would be integrated into the new “national skills fund”

As many of you will remember, the national retraining scheme pilot was announced to much fanfare in the 2017 budget with the backing of £100 million, of which the Get Help to Retrain website was one product.

Then in early April, the Department for Education cancelled all national retraining scheme tender activities for all products, and about a month ago the skills minister, Gillian Keegan, announced the scheme was to be “integrated” into the national skills fund, with “learnings” from the retraining scheme carried forward.

It seemed to make sense – why have two streams when there could be one?

There is certainly scope for simplifying education funding. As a national organisation delivering courses locally, the WEA receives funding from a bewildering array of streams, both central and devolved.

That creates administrative costs for us. More importantly, it sometimes leads to students in one part of the country being able to access a very different range of courses to those elsewhere – as determined by the funding available.

But the lack of detail on what the national skills fund would include has now begun to raise more questions than answers. There is a lack of clarity on how the funding from the national retraining scheme “pot” will be incorporated into the new fund. We found out some of the cash would be returned to the Treasury, although we still don’t know how much exactly.

Worse still, the national skills fund became the rationale for the closure of the Union Learning Fund. This was set up in 1998, was worth around £11 million a year, and was supporting around 250,000 workers a year to access learning.

When the need for retraining and reskilling is paramount, this feels like a big mistake. It is difficult to see how a new programme could match the well-established confidence that workplace learners have in Unionlearn.

Worse still, the national skills fund became the rationale for the closure of the Union Learning Fund

In parliament, Gavin Williamson also made clear that the national skills fund would be just that – entirely national.

So where does this leave the mayoral combined authorities that still hold the purse strings on much of the adult education budget? How will the national skills fund complement the investment flowing through the regions?

Perhaps we are being impatient. Around the corner are a spending review, FE white paper and (one assumes) some consultation on the direction of the national skills fund.

The nation is about to enter one of the toughest economic periods in history, with some predicting unemployment rates at similar levels to the 1980s.

The prime minister has made some stirring announcements about the importance of adult learning. Now is the time to add detail to those statements by releasing a plan – for consultation – on the national skills fund.

We appreciate that the government must move quickly in order to bring the new level 3 entitlement in by April as promised.

Welcome though that is, it’s clear that investment in the non-accredited courses and lower level qualifications is also very much needed.

These courses and qualifications often act as necessary stepping-stones towards level 3 qualifications. Not everyone is ready to go straight into a qualification, especially if they have had a negative experience in education previously, or they’ve been out of it for many years.

We also believe that there should be maximum flexibility in the courses available. Essential skills such as critical thinking, communication skills and resilience can all be gained through many different forms of education, not only the narrowly technical and vocational routes.

We at WEA would also point to the importance of adult learning in workplaces and community venues, as well as colleges.

The national skills fund ought to be pragmatic in the short term, but with a clear direction of travel. It can’t be a hasty sticking plaster.

We should name, but not shame, the colleges that are getting bailouts

The sector is shooting itself in the foot if we don’t argue that colleges getting financial help should be transparently listed, writes Stuart Rimmer

Should the names of colleges getting bailouts be made public? Well, the simple answer to that simple question is – yes! Of course they should.

Towards the end of last month, details of the revised college oversight policy were amended. We were told colleges that apply for government bailouts will now not automatically fall into formal intervention, although it is unclear why. 

That, of course, means their names won’t be published online. Here’s why that’s a bad idea… 

1.   Values 

This is the most compelling reason to publish college names. Simply put, public funds should be a matter of public record. Earlier in the year FE Week calculated that £725.8 million has been spent on bailouts and restructuring funding, based on National Audit Office figures. This is not just loose change down the back of the sofa. We cannot just ignore it because it may cause embarrassment.

2.   Funding 

The size of bailouts is not always reflective of poor management, as some would try to make us believe. Actually, it often points to chronic underfunding of our sector.

Colleges under intervention rose by two-thirds in 2018-19. Meg Hillier, chair of the influential commons public accounts committee, recently said this situation “paints a stark picture of the college sector’s plight”.  

The scale of intervention and bailouts needs to be known in order to form part of the evidence base for colleges to argue for greater funding. 

3.   Institutional equity

At East Coast College I led one of the first deals in 2017, through the ESFA’s fledgling Transaction Unit, latterly the Provider Market Oversight (PMO), which leads on college financial health in high-risk and complex cases. While I’m not allowed under disclosure to talk directly about it, I can say that we got a weak deal in comparison to many “fresh start” colleges that followed, as the system became more sophisticated, knowledgeable and generous.  

If deals for bailout funding are now permitted behind closed doors – with colleges and agencies hiding behind the nonsense “commercial sensitivity” argument – then the system is not transparent about whether it is treating everyone who passes through it fairly. More importantly, the situation leaves the power dynamic resting unhelpfully with the centre. 

4.   Institutions, not individuals 

One of the big problems with the dialogue around bailout is that individuals often get stigmatised. This must stop. We need to shift the narrative towards “how can we help a college in need?”. As of February 2020, the government was intervening in 48 per cent of all open colleges – with more than one-tenth in formal intervention. This is clearly not an individual personality issue. 

5.   Flattered accounts

Bailouts flatter financial performance reporting. It is a huge injection of cash that can reduce debt gearing, increase cash holding and improve performance ratios, such as earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA). Not being transparent about them can stifle the public’s understanding of how a college is really performing. 

6.   Details, details, details

More contentiously, I think that not only should the bailout figure be made public but also how it is spent. Currently this relies on freedom of information requests and journalistic wrangling.  

We should know: is the bailout used to reduce debt and create long-term sustainability and drive rapid improvement of student experience? Or is it spent to excess on consultant fees servicing the various machineries of intervention?

The vast majority of colleges spend bailouts wisely. Good consultants no doubt can add huge value, but the rise of ameliorating banks and reporting back to the centre means too many pound notes flutter away from the sector. We should at least start to be honest about this.   

Less backstairs intrigue should make the jobs of the ESFA, Project Management Office and FE Commissioner office easier too.  So win, win, win, win. 

Apprenticeship providers are short-changing themselves on reasonable adjustments

Providers are stuck in a vicious cycle of ignorance and avoidance that frustrates both learners and Ofsted, writes Chris Quickfall

If apprenticeship providers were offered a way to reduce dropout rates, improve the learner experience, satisfy Ofsted and were paid to do so, it would be reasonable to assume that most would jump at the chance. 

What, after all, is not to like? 

Yet when it comes to making and claiming for reasonable adjustments (RAs) to support apprentices with learning needs, there are those providers that still fail to do so. 

The question is, why?

For some providers it’s a case of “once bitten, twice shy”. 

There’s a wariness about making claims for learning support funding that require more evidence, partly because of the perceived admin burden. But it can also be because they’ve had trouble in the past justifying additional payments to auditors. So they are disinclined to put themselves through it again. 

That’s despite the fact that by not providing the support learners need, providers run the much greater risk of being criticised by Ofsted.

At first glance, too, the challenge can seem daunting. Each apprentice is in a different working environment and programmes are strictly controlled in terms of content, timescales and employer involvement. 

Creating individual plans and making the necessary learner adjustments isn’t straightforward without the right experts behind them, and the onus is on the training provider to explain to the employer how they would work. 

Most employers, in my experience, are positive and responsive – but the provider must still manage the process, and that can be off-putting for some.

Many providers are also under the impression that any learning difficulties will be spotted because they already conduct assessments for English and maths. 

Unfortunately, this is a pretty imprecise metric. 

There is a common assumption, for instance, that if an apprentice is bright they won’t have any learning difficulties. That’s simply not true. I’d argue the smarter a learner, the less chance an educator has of spotting any need without a cognitive assessment.

Finally, self-identification can itself obscure the problem rather than illuminate it. 

Yes, one in ten apprentices self-identify with a learning difficulty or disability. But research by Cognassist last month suggests that this is the tip of the iceberg – over one-third of apprentices have a learning difficulty that could require additional support. 

All of which suggests that the issue of unidentified learning difficulties and disabilities is much greater than generally thought.

It suggests the issue of unidentified learning difficulties and disabilities is much greater than generally thought

It then becomes a vicious cycle. Providers aren’t fully aware of how great the problem is, they lack a full understanding of what adjustments can be made, the learner experience suffers, Ofsted isn’t happy, dropout rates rise and employer satisfaction falls. 

And all this happens as providers are missing out on an estimated
£22 million in extra learning support funds.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Our work with Bradford College demonstrates that achievement rates can improve by at least ten per cent with a more robust cognitive assessment process embedded in the learner journey. 

If providers develop a better understanding of the adjustments that can be made and make them, then programmes will be much more tailored to individuals’ needs, achievement rates will go up, dropout rates will fall and funding will increase. And that’s even before any additional learning support payments.

There’s one last, key area that many providers are missing out on when it comes to providing appropriate support, and that’s reasonable adjustments at the end-point assessment (EPA). 

The EPA is a vital part of the learner journey and therefore it’s crucial that any reasonable adjustment needed by the learner is implemented.

All of this requires providers to adopt more flexible and robust assessments and to raise the level of awareness of learning difficulties among trainers and management. 

Only then will they have the confidence to make the adjustments needed and deliver more flexible programmes. 

But as things stand, those providers lacking such a strategy are not only failing to address the needs of their learners, they are also short-changing themselves.

“The Reasonable Adjustments Series” is a season of digital conversations which will break down reasonable adjustments, explain why they matter and the impact they have on learners.  To register for a free seat please visit https://cognassist.me/RAP

Lifetime skills guarantee: Fresh setback to list of free level 3 quals

The list of level 3 qualifications being fully funded for all adults under the Lifetime Skills Guarantee could take until the end of the year to be published, despite the government originally promising it for October.

Prime minster Boris Johnson announced at Exeter College in September the government would extend its current offering of a first, full level 3 qualification for learners up to the age of 23, to adults of any age, from April 2021.

The Department for Education said, following Johnson’s speech, they would set out details of the courses “next month [October]”.

Come October, and skills minister Gillian Keegan told an FE Week roundtable they were working to “give you some more information in the next couple of months, and hopefully by November”.

She told the grouping of awarding organisations and sector representative bodies the qualifications have to be high quality, have the respect of business and address a “wide range” of labour shortages.

The government is having to select the level 3 qualifications from the over 4,300 that are currently on the ESFA’s online “list of qualifications approved for funding”.

Now, the department has told FE Week: “We are working to provide more information by the end of the year.”

Federation of Awarding Bodies chief executive Tom Bewick said awarding organisations have yet to be  consulted about the details of the level 3 qualifications being funded under the Lifetime Skills Guarantee.

He urged the Department for Education to “get on with it, as the sooner we have transparency, the sooner we can get stability”.

Further glitches in T Level rollout

An update to the official list of T Level providers this week reveals several colleges cancelled courses scheduled for September 2020.

Three of the flagship post-16 technical education qualifications – in digital, construction and education and childcare – got off the ground two months ago and are being offered at 44 schools, college and training providers across England.

But the College of Richard Collyer, in West Sussex, has decided to cancel delivery of the digital pathway in 2020/21, while another, Shipley College, will no longer offer the education and childcare subject this year.

Shipley has also pulled out of delivering the T Level transition programme – which is being taken by young people who are not yet ready to start a full level 3 T Level – as has Peter Symonds College in Winchester.

A number of other schools and colleges have cancelled or delayed T Level delivery over the past year following disruptions caused by Covid-19 and a lack of industry placement opportunities.

A total of 50 providers were supposed to teach the first T Levels from September 2020, but this was whittled down to 44 by the time the academic year began.

FE Week carried out an early survey of recruitment levels in September and found that colleges and schools had missed two-thirds of their enrolment targets, with digital proving to be the toughest subject to sell to students.

However, full enrolment numbers will not be known for some time.

A Department for Education spokesperson said that while Covid-19 had an “impact on planning” for a “small number of providers”, they have had a “hugely positive start to T Level delivery and we are seeing some excellent examples of practice”.

Peter Symonds College said the transition programme “did not have sufficient student interest this year, unfortunately”, but the college remains committed to offering the course and is “confident” that it will run in the next academic year.

A spokesperson added that the college has “successfully recruited students” to the education and childcare T Level this academic year, and that learners are “thoroughly enjoying the new course and have settled in well to their studies”.

Shipley and the College of Richard Collyer did not provide comment at the time of going to press.

But the DfE told FE Week that in Shipley’s case, the college decided that, given local lockdown constraints, they would delay offering the education and childcare T Level and the transition programme until 2021.

With regard to the College of Richard Collyer, the DfE said they have decided that, given the impact of Covid-19 on recruitment, they will not offer the digital T Level until 2021.

T Levels, are being rolled out gradually over the coming years. A further seven will be available in September 2021 with the remaining 14 courses starting in either 2022 or 2023.