As a former trade union education officer, I saw the real difference this fund makes, writes Lilian Greenwood

“We must invest in skills, we must invest in further education”.

This was the prime minister’s message to the country when he launched the Lifetime Skills Guarantee on September 29.

Yet less than a month later the government wrote to the Trade Union Congress (TUC) to tell them that funding for the highly effective Union Learning Fund (ULF) would be scrapped from the end of March.

In the middle of a pandemic that is wreaking havoc in the jobs market, scrapping funding for a programme that helps people retrain and gain new skills is nonsensical.

Established under the Labour government in 1998, ULF’s aim was to work with employers, employees and learning providers to encourage greater take-up of learning in the workplace and develop the capacity of trade unions.

At the time, I was a trade union education officer for Unison in the East Midlands and saw for myself the difference the ULF made to our members, particularly those who had left school without qualifications.

People who thought learning was not for them gained the confidence to give it another try and it’s no exaggeration to say it transformed lives.

I saw hospital cleaners and council refuse collectors discover a love for learning and use that discovery to encourage their workmates too ̶ becoming Union Learning Reps and working with their employers to spread the word.

I saw workers gain promotions, go from basic skills to higher education and burst with pride as they received their certificates in front of their friends, family and colleagues.

For over 20 years the ULF has enabled millions of people to improve their skills and progress at work.

Meanwhile, a new report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Social Mobility Foundation has found that adult education is associated with higher wages and an improved chance of moving job.

Today, the fund supports around 200,000 people a year to learn and develop new skills. It is supported by over 700 employers, including such well-known brands as Tesco, Boots and British Steel.

The ULF costs the Treasury just £12 million a year and in return the fund delivers a £1.4 billion boost to the economy through increasing jobs, wages and productivity.

ULF costs the Treasury just £12 million a year

Support to retrain and gain new skills has never been more important. By the end of the year, an estimated one million young people will not be in education, employment or training. They face an uncertain jobs market and uncertain future.

The prime minister’s Lifetime Skill Guarantee does not provide any funding until April 2021, but funding for new opportunities is needed now.  

Unless the government takes urgent action to ensure people at risk of unemployment and those who have lost their jobs during the pandemic can access training, we risk leaving them without new skills, without new opportunities and without the chance to find new employment.

Against such a critical backdrop why would the government scrap a fund that its own evaluations say is effective?

Answers lie in the Department for Education’s letter to the TUC in October explaining the decision to close the fund.

It read: “We are investing much more in adult skills retraining, and doing so through a broad offer, rather than a small, dedicated fund promoted through the union network.”

Put simply, the government’s objection to this effective and cost-efficient programme is that it is managed by the unions.

I was proud to lead this week’s Union Learn debate in parliament and Labour MPs from across the country urging the government to rethink this politically motivated decision, which is not just an attack on unions, but on workers up and down the country wanting to learn new skills and support our economic recovery.

The government’s attack on the ULF shows Boris Johnson is more interested in playing politics than improving people’s life chances.

The new system has the potential to strengthen the employer voice, but needs clear communication routes, writes Lee Pryor

The announcement that Ofqual will now be overseeing a significant number of apprenticeship standards has been greatly welcomed by institutions such as ours.

This is a significant move for organisations that provide end-point assessments and will not only ensure a smoother process but a more cost-effective, simpler and efficient one.

The end-point assessment model has been one of the government’s key reforms in recent years. However, we must not lose sight of the need to retain or consider employer choice and feedback in a competitive market place.

Employers need to be involved in developing policy, as they have been at the centre of creating apprenticeship standards in recent years.

Therefore, Ofqual needs to work in partnership with them and end-point assessment organisations to ensure continuity and consistency of the new policy framework.

The wide range of bodies involved over the years has proved disadvantageous to the overall process, so I suggest that a regular review of standards and systems takes place on an ongoing basis.

The assessment process should be reviewed at least every 12 months, to ensure that it is appropriate for new and existing apprenticeship standards and that all criteria reflect what is valued by employers and respective industries.

This will go a long way in helping address any irregularities or “developmental gaps” within Ofqual’s strategy.

It is a known fact that changes to assessment plans have resource implications for end-point assessment organisations as they have to adapt assessment methodologies, tools and guides.

It is important that a pragmatic strategy is applied that takes into account the employer and apprentice needs, as well as the end-point assessment organisation’s capabilities.

If Ofqual sets a framework of quality criteria, this could ensure coherence across the wider qualification landscape.

By working with the Department for Education to engage the end-point assessment organisation market early, with forthcoming standards and assessment plans, this could ensure that the assessment market is viable.

Sir Gerry Berragan, chief executive of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, said last year “it has never been more crucial that we ensure we have the best regime possible to assess quality”.

I agree entirely with this sentiment. We were in need of a system that doesn’t impose an undue burden on end-point assessment organisations and that is easy for all parties to understand and engage with.

The new system has the potential to strengthen the employer’s voice in external quality assurance. In the current system, around 30 per cent of apprenticeship standards have an employer-led approach to external quality assurance.

Ofqual needs to work with employers to ensure they gain the understanding required, and perhaps have a member of Ofqual on the trailblazer group.

This would allow for effective monitoring of apprentice assessment organisations, through external quality assurance organisations and agreeing necessary action on specific cases.

I suggest that a regular review of standards and systems takes place

Visibility of apprentices as a whole remains a problem when planning for end-point assessment – so this is an area that needs to be focused on when working with providers.

Ofqual will need to bear this in mind in their future plans, working closely with end-point assessment organisations and employers to ensure that this transition is seamless.

The delivery of this comes at a crucial time for apprenticeships and it is understandable that the transition will require a lot of work from Ofqual, particularly after the results debacle of last summer.

Nonetheless, if we really want a more skilled and efficient workforce, and a robust assessment strategy, more support is needed from the government to streamline the infrastructure and ensure Ofqual have adequate resources to oversee this policy.

It will be great to see end-point assessment organisations and Ofqual working together to create a strategy and policy framework that supports a strong and competitive marketplace of quality providers.

The funding set-up, not the qualifications themselves, is to blame for a lack of take-up, writes Mary Osmaston

When we think of entry level, people with degrees or vocational skills probably don’t come to mind.

But there are many such learners studying from entry to level 2 purely because they don’t yet speak English well enough to achieve their goals in the UK. They are studying ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages).

And it’s not a small group, either. Last year, there were 180,000 enrolments on ESOL qualifications and many more ESOL learners on other English courses.

The Department for Education’s current consultation on level 2 and below qualifications “wants to understand how far the current ESOL qualifications meet students’ needs and if they might need to be reformed”, partly because there are “many more enrolments on entry-level ESOL qualifications compared to levels 1 or 2 ESOL”.

Reading the document, we’re concerned that there’s a lack of understanding of the huge range of backgrounds and ambitions of those learning ESOL, and how complex it is to learn a new language.

The document also betrays a lack of awareness of how the funding regime reduces choice and distorts provision.

ESOL students are a varied bunch. Some have had little education in their home country and need to spend many hours a week developing study skills and learning English.

Others are qualified professionals who need more English to progress from low-skilled work into jobs that match their skills and aspirations. One thing that unites them is that they recognise that they cannot succeed in UK society unless they improve their English – and fast.

What they want is a programme with specialist language teachers and enough class time to develop all their language skills effectively. Many also need a level 2 qualification for further study or employment but are frustrated when they are enrolled on qualifications such as Functional Skills.

These qualifications are recognised by employers but, as they are designed for fluent English speakers, they emphasise writing skills and leave too little time for essential language development.

So why are learners not choosing higher level ESOL qualifications? It’s not a problem of the qualifications, but of funding.

Functional Skills and GCSEs are fully funded whilst ESOL is only co-funded. This means many learners can’t afford the fees for ESOL. There are also financial incentives for the provider to place students on a fully funded but less appropriate course.

Functional Skills and GCSEs are fully funded whilst ESOL is only co-funded

Learners are progressing, but not always to ESOL qualifications. This has led the DfE to ask whether ESOL qualifications are really needed at those higher levels? ESOL is English, after all.

Yes, and no. Learning a new language is an entirely different – and much more difficult – task than brushing up skills in a language you already speak fluently, and we British should recognise this as we are particularly poor at language learning.

We know that learning a new language takes a long time. Research in Australia suggests that 1,765 hours of specialist ESOL are needed to reach an adequate level of English for employment ̶ 350 hours per level, from entry 1 to level 2. Some may need less time, but many will need more.

So what should the government prioritise here? Most importantly, they need to make sure that all learners can join the right course, regardless of funding constraints.

For most ESOL students that means one that is based on the ESOL Core Curriculum, leading to an ESOL qualification, as that is the best way to ensure a strong foundation in all aspects of English, building important enabling knowledge, such as grammar and vocabulary at each level.

Next, they should ensure that providers offer every level, so that learners of all ages can continue right up to level 2 in an ESOL-focused environment, and finally that ESOL qualifications are better recognised by employers.

The DfE is right to identify that there is an issue, but it seems to me that it is the funding regime that needs revision, not the qualifications.

What’s really behind the Commission on the College of the Future’s recommendation that colleges should have a ‘legal duty’ to create networks, asks Luke Rake

Like many, I have been waiting with interest for the outcome of the Independent Commission on The College of the Future. The sector has for years been lagging in funding, under-appreciated in Westminster and capable of providing a much higher profile role than the one it currently does.

This is not news, and the commission creates an opportunity for us to position ourselves prior to the FE white paper. However, it also raises huge questions about the sector’s future and its structure.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty to agree with. My work in the sector and as an independent local enterprise partnership (LEP) board member shows there are times when a lack of inter-departmental synergy in government, for example between BEIS, DEFRA, DFE and MHCLG, fails to ensure investment priorities meet the needs of communities across the country.

People travel all over the place, not according to lines on a map

The recommendation of closer working to ensure sensible and coherent strategy and the drivers of educational provision to match the needs of geographies and learners is thus a good one.

It’s also sensible to recommend greater stability of funding (although it might be better to just say “get the funding level correct”). However, this requires careful managing by ESFA and others to ensure (a) there are opportunities for growth, and (b) a three-year settlement does not allow for crises points at the end
of each period where a college requires a major negative shift in its funding position.

However, the headline already creating the most noise is the “legal duty” on colleges to create networks, which must be matched by a duty on other post-16 providers. My worry is that this grabs all the bandwidth.

Why this duty? I cannot see a sensible way to force private training providers, public sector schools and the entertainingly different “incorporated by statute but pseudo-public-sector” colleges into bodies that have legal status. We already have networks that are functional and effective, whether LEPS, local safeguarding boards, chambers of commerce, etc. So the legal duty is either not required or it’s after something else.

Control? Create large regional colleges that service whole geographies. Well, sorry, geography doesn’t work like that – people travel all over the place, not according to lines on a map.

Protectionism for colleges? PTPs are a mixed bag, but so are colleges – let the customer choose.

“Securing provision in hard-to-reach areas” – does this mean propping up poor-quality provision, or perhaps forcing those wishing to study level 3 to study miles from home? That’s not going to sell to the student in Cornwall who suddenly finds themselves forced to go 100 miles to study. They’ll just stay in school and do A-levels. Seriously, they will. Might work in a city, but let’s not forget the rural dimension here.

Larger doesn’t necessarily equate to better quality, nor does it equate to more resilient, as the massive bailouts to some very large providers show. Similarly, small does not equate to weak.

The challenges in the sector are arguably of leadership and ambition, not scale.

The principle of survival of the fittest does not say anything about size. Competition in itself is a good thing, not an evil to crush with statute. Foxes may eat rabbits, but rabbits are still here and doing very well thank you. True, they might have to run faster, as they are running for their life, not just their dinner.

However, competition has enabled both to evolve and thrive in their own niche. A well-run, locally-minded provider of any type will always work with partners. This is not vertical restraint or similar, it’s just common sense with a hefty dose of moral purpose.

So, let’s push for FE to have its place in the sun, but let’s also not kill off the small specialist, local provider in the pursuit of the Amazon model. I think people deserve more choice on their high street.

Read all sides of the argument for The Independent Commission on the College of the Future’s recommendation that colleges should be forced into local ‘networks’:

• Luke Rake has been arguing AGAINST the recommendation.
• Arguing FOR the recommendation – Stuart Rimmer, Chief executive, East Coast College: https://feweek.co.uk/?p=94255
• Association of Colleges’ view – David Hughes, Chief executive: https://feweek.co.uk/?p=94238
• FE Week editor Nick Linford’s view: https://feweek.co.uk/?p=94245

The future colleges report’s call for a network strategy is eminently sensible as a corrective to failing marketisation, writes Stuart Rimmer.

This week the College of the Future report landed, with some thoughtful description of how our sector can drive place, productivity and people. There is much merit in the report, which captures discussions between some leaders over the course of many months.

It is often easy within our sector to identify the problems and reasonably straightforward to define our “future perfect”. What rarely gains consensus is how we get there.

The key recommendations appear straightforward (even at times obvious): placing colleges front and centre of a national skills revival; calling for a skills strategy; colleges to co-create with employers and provide lifelong learning opportunities backed by funding. This is important ahead of the white paper, although it’s fair to say that with a single year spending review, public finances under pressure and DfE political stock being at a low point, it may only signify a direction, rather providing the money or legislation to make it happen.

It’s time we admitted the tensions exist and the designed formal solutions

Contention only occurs where there is no consensus and the report has managed to do this under one of the key recommended elements. It suggests that government must introduce a duty on colleges to develop network strategies across economic geographies. This in many respects represents a significant departure from current policy, with accountability now prescribed to the network level and a dual mandate for governors towards institution and system.

This has been seen by some as a grab of power from the centre, a loss of institutional independence, and confusion of corporation role. It might mean that. . . and if it does… then… Good! About bloody time!

Many regions have been plagued by poor competitor behaviours by “robber baron” principals.

Quasi-markets leave a free-for-all system of small school sixth-forms, poor IAG, local colleges running aggressive campaigns and splitting markets for curriculum leading to confusion and inefficiency. Large employers often need to talk to multiple delivery partners and so find it hard to navigate separate institutions or get consistency of delivery. Area-Based Review went some way to achieving this but did not control transition or core funding to bring college leaders to heel where required.

All the report calls for is a network strategy – groups or systems of interconnected people coming together. This is hardly radical and is eminently sensible.

Where regional colleges and higher education institutions have got together in formal partnerships or mergers they have created a “micro-planned system” and they appear to be working to the greater good, with examples in the West Midlands, Manchester, and Sheffield region, to name but a few.

In other parts of the country we have larger college groups (for example, in London region) that “design out” competition through joint planning. Governments have tried through skills advisory panels and skills capital running through local enterprise partnerships to smooth out competition and create regional planning, but many are still ineffective. The report harks back to UKCES outcome area agreements – the linking of regional curriculum deliverables to funding. It is fair that publicly funded work is designed for the public good, by the public through public structures.

There is always a tension between wearing the institutional hat and the regional network hat.

It’s time we admitted these tensions exist and the designed formal solutions. The CoF report suggests one way, not necessarily the best way, of doing this.

For two reasons it is far too early to be decrying the CoF report.

Firstly, it is only some words on a page to stimulate discussions.

It highlights a plan yet to be fully debated, not a blueprint. Secondly, the detail of how this is interpreted by government and translated into policy will take a long time and will likely change. During the interim, as college leaders we should create the space to build consensus on how we will deliver these aspirations.

We can do this regionally or nationally. We can do this by further mergers or through formal collaborations. We have choice. Colleges naturally want to collaborate and many are hugely expert in this already and may not need the funding or capital incentives to do so. But to create a world-class and complete system available to everyone in every place, more structure will likely be required.

I have on many occasions called for some form of renationalisation or “un-incorporation” of our sector, based more on a philosophical and political position to provide correction to failing marketisation and to encourage, or demand, collaboration. Regional network strategies could be a step in the right direction.

Read all sides of the argument for The Independent Commission on the College of the Future’s recommendation that colleges should be forced into local ‘networks’:

This week the Independent Commission on the College of the Future published their report for England – and despite all the events and consultations since they launched 20 months ago – one recommendation appears to have surprised every college leader I have spoken to.

The report recommended that the law should require “funding and accountability ultimately sit at the network level rather than individual college level”. And, the authors go on to say the “acid test” for their network model is that if the college did not agree to join the network and then agree to the network strategy, they would not receive grant or capital funding.

So what do college leaders think about giving up individual college accountability?

Luke Rake, principal of Kingston Maurward College thinks there is plenty to agree with in the report but says he cannot see a sensible way to force colleges into networks and that “competition in itself is a good thing, not an evil to crush with the statute”.

Stuart Rimmer, principal of East Coast College, on the other hand, says that if these networks mean a loss of institutional independence and a power grab from the centre, then that is: “Good! About bloody time!”

He goes on to say it would solve the problem in many regions which “have been plagued by poor competitor behaviours by ‘robber baron’ principals”.

I speak to college leaders every day, and it is very uncommon for them to have such different views on system change.

This led me to run a short online poll, to which 19 college principals replied.

Some agreed with the recommendation and said “colleges should be renationalised. Public asset and public goods” or that it would result in “better value for money in capital investment, and staff development and remuneration”.

Some looked for compromise – agreeing with the proposal for colleges to act together but adding “accountability needs to stay with the local, individual college”.

But many more college leaders feared “yet another layer of bureaucracy” or called it an “awful idea” or said, “might as well have the Local Education Authority back”.

Twelve of the 19 principals did not support the network recommendation.

The concern I’m most sympathetic to is that it “would effectively mean that colleges would no longer be independent institutions, and they would consequently be less responsive to local and regional needs”.

On the other hand, David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, says he does not want colleges to wait to be told what to do.

So colleges developing their networks, however messy when they can’t agree among themselves, could be a better way of taking accountability than risking the education secretary deciding they want to choose who is on the board.

And if giving up independence at an individual college level is the price for getting the Treasury to fund the sector adequately, then could it be a price worth paying?

Strategic or even commissioning roles could be given to the local enterprise partnership or chamber of commerce as part of a network.

This would not be comfortable for some college leaders, but can they all truthfully claim to have embraced employer engagement so far?

The report from the Independent Commission should be taken seriously as it is likely the authors have worked hard to align their thinking with the government.

So the plans in the forthcoming FE white paper should come as less of a surprise now.

The job of a responsible and mature sector is to thrash out and debate the details – something I look forward to doing with you over the coming weeks and months.

Read all sides of the argument for The Independent Commission on the College of the Future’s recommendation that colleges should be forced into local ‘networks’: