The Department for Education should offer colleges a more flexible deadline for completing capital projects, writes Mark Robinson, chief executive at property services and design company Scape Group

The public sector has enjoyed something of a resurgence in government attention since the arrival of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. For years, the sector has been subject to financial restrictions and ever-diminishing resources. Education has been no exception.

However, the pandemic has caused government to look to the sector as a vehicle for stimulating economic activity – particularly in construction – as the availability of private capital recedes.

For sixth forms and colleges, this is a significant win and what many may consider a timely shot in the arm as the government looks to get spades in the ground, whilst simultaneously upgrading education facilities across the country.

In August, the Department for Education set out plans to fast-track £200 million of infrastructure spend into more than 180 colleges. That funding has now begun to land in college bank accounts across the UK, firing the starter gun on a wave of new projects to help the country “build back better”.

Of those receiving funding, some will no doubt be keen to improve tired learning facilities. For others, it will be about increasing capacity at a time when the challenges of delivering a Covid-secure environment for students are becoming all too apparent.

But while such a sizeable capital injection will always be welcome, it comes caveated with its own conditions that will no doubt require FE leaders to sharpen their pencils.

There is a clear mandate from the top to get spades in the ground

Chief among these are the limitations on the type of work the funding can be used to deliver – any activity must replace or improve “failing” facilities.

Then there’s the timescale. The Department for Education is requesting that projects are completed by the end of next March. For anything beyond small-scale renovations, a six month window leaves very little room for manoeuvre.

This tight timeframe may have partly been suggested because the funding represents an early draw down on the £1.5 billion five year investment plan for further education announced by Rishi Sunak in the Spring Budget.

Given the funding is being taken from an investment pot accounted for over five years, it would seem sensible not to impose such a tight deadline in the short-term and allow some flex into the next financial year so colleges can spend it as efficiently as possible.

That being said, there is a clear mandate from the top to get spades in the ground quickly. Tight timeframes, in the eyes of the government – and, indeed, many economists – are needed to sustain momentum in the construction industry, which has shown signs of slowing in recent weeks.

If colleges are to take advantage of this windfall within the current timeframe, projects will need to be delivered with efficiency while maintaining high standards in build quality.

Direct-award construction and consultancy frameworks are not a new delivery route for educators looking to accelerate their projects, but they can go some way to take full advantage of the £200 million impetus. In essence, direct-award frameworks present a route whereby colleges can be matched with experienced construction partners.

Since the new funding began to land, we’ve noticed a spike in enquiries from colleges and sixth forms. These tend to fall into two camps.

First are those with a firm view on how to spend the money who need support accelerating the procurement process. The second group are those who need help in making sure they invest the money on the right elements of their maintenance backlog.

For example, some are considering whether to use the funding to tackle capacity issues in relation to Covid-19 or to direct it towards upgrading their energy infrastructure, in line with the wider public sector’s commitments to sustainability.

Undoubtedly, we face a difficult winter ahead balancing the needs of public health and the economy. Further education will play a key role in each.

The sector must have the flexibility and necessary support to finish much-needed capital projects within a reasonable framework.

Schools and colleges can be confident that Ofqual and exam boards have the tools to make summer 2021 exams fair, writes Dame Glenys Stacey

Teachers, school and college leaders are working in truly exceptional circumstances with students both in college and at home, and to get them ready for GCSE, AS and A-level exams next summer. I know just how unrelenting and demanding this has been since the start of the pandemic — and still is. 

The uncertainties we face are unprecedented, so I hope it will be helpful if I state some certainties, from the regulator’s perspective. 

First, and as we have said publicly, we got it wrong in the summer. Like other regulators across the UK, and with the best of intentions, we worked with school and college leaders, the government and others to build a substitute for exams in the midst of this pandemic. Together we misjudged things.

It is simply not acceptable for a student to be deprived of the chance to show what they can do, and to be given instead the grades that the system thinks they warrant. We are sorry. 

If anything, this summer has shown the importance, the centrality, of exams. We saw that despite every effort and good intention, other forms of assessment are likely to be more inequitable. 

We know from research, for example, that non-exam assessment can be subject to bias, with the result that bright disadvantaged students, or students with special educational needs, suffer the most. 

This has been a particular worry this summer and we appreciate that asking teachers to take responsibility for determining results for their students puts them in an invidious position. We are certain that examinations should run next year, and we are working with the government and exam boards on that basis. 

Exams are important, not just to allow every student to show knowledge and understanding of the curriculum, but to give a fair representation of the extent of that knowledge and understanding.

The exceptional pressure on students and teachers this year has been alleviated to some extent and in some subjects by changes to the curriculum already announced. We appreciate, nevertheless, that whatever the assessment regime in place next summer, assessment choices cannot make up for lost teaching and learning. That would be akin to holding a thermometer responsible for fluctuations in temperature. 

But we can take these truly exceptional circumstances into account at a national level, in the awarding process that is part and parcel of an examination series. We took a similar approach to account for dips in learning in the early years of new GCSEs. We and exam boards have the tools, and the experience. 

Contingency arrangements will be required, of course, to cover all eventualities at an individual, local or national level. We are discussing potential options with the Department for Education and exam boards, and I look forward to talking options through with school and college leaders before decisions are made. 

This is an exceptional time. It does not look as though we will be free from the pandemic any time soon. More than anything, we all want to make sure our young people get the best chance they can to show what they know, and what they can do, in the fairest way possible. 

Teachers no doubt want certainty so that they can get on with teaching knowing what to expect. Government policy is that GCSE, AS and A-levels should be assessed predominantly by examination, as now. The regulator is of the same view. 

We are working hard to make sure we take into account the effects of the pandemic, to make the best contingency arrangements we can, and to make sure the results are fair and command public confidence in this exceptional time. 

If the prime minister is serious about skills, he needs to take these agreed actions from our latest roundtable, writes David Phoenix

The prime minister’s speech on further and higher education this week and the forthcoming FE white paper present a huge opportunity to grow post-16 technical education.

But growing technical education requires local and national change.

In 2019 we launched LSBU Group which is made up of two secondary schools, one FE college and one HE provider, London South Bank University (LSBU). We work closely together to deliver high-quality technical education across the group.

Our partnership offers students easier opportunities to transfer between technical, vocational and academic pathways; and we actively encourage them to take advantage of the wide range of courses run throughout the group.

On June 22, LSBU hosted a policy roundtable, chaired by former education secretary Damian Hinds, to discuss how we can strengthen post-16 technical education. We were joined by Department for Education colleagues, two universities, two FE trade bodies, six education think-tanks’ representatives, four awarding bodies, two business groups and a training-provider body.

There was wide-ranging consensus on what is needed to grow technical education.

First, we must focus the English post-16 technical system on the needs of the UK economy and students, rather than cutting and pasting a system from Germany or elsewhere. 

Second, greater collaboration rather than competition is needed between post-16 education providers. In particular, the roundtable called for the reform of the deeply siloed UK education system.

This particularly affects the 60 per cent of learners who do not follow the one clearly mapped pathway – GCSEs to A-Levels to university. The funding can discourage schools from allowing pupils to transfer to other perhaps more skills-oriented provision (for example, from an academy to a UTC) and schools hold on to their “most able” pupils in sixth form, pushing them towards pre-defined routes (e.g. bachelor degrees at university). Provision needs to be much more closely knitted together, working for the benefit of students, not institutions.

Third, we must resolve the often “disputed territory” between colleges and universities over levels 4 and 5 courses. Many FE colleges have small levels 4 and 5 cohorts and face financial challenges that affect course content, quality and learner progression. Some universities fail to differentiate between standalone levels 4 and 5 and degree programmes.

We must resolve the often ‘disputed territory’ between colleges and universities over levels 4 and 5 

To resolve this we need more collaboration between FE and HE institutions.

The complex quality assurance regimes at levels 4 and 5 also need simplifying. For example, a level 4 Higher National Certificate taught at universities is quality assured by the Office for Students and the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, whereas a Higher National Certificate taught at a college is quality assured by Ofqual and Ofsted. The additional cost and complexity makes this a difficult set-up for universities and colleges.

The fifth point is to make it easier for students to move between standalone level 4, level 5 and degree level. If a college delivers level 4 courses without clear local pathways to level 5 and 6, this can prevent students from progressing.

Our LSBU Group approach would not suit every institution, but it has clear benefits for learners and may provide a model for other institutions.

But we can’t do it all locally. The government must make maintenance loans available for all level 4 learners so all those studying high-quality courses at this level can receive support for living costs – not just those on a degree, but those doing a higher apprenticeship, level 4 diploma or level 4 NVQ too.

Our final, and seventh, point is there must be a government register of designated level 4 and 5 provider institutions, enabling them to apply for additional funding. This would strengthen technical education by increasing resources needed to deliver highquality personalised learning.

On Tuesday, Boris Johnson said FE colleges will “access funding on the same terms as our most famous universities”, but we need clear details on this to be published.

Billions of pounds and millions of jobs depend on growing post-16 technical education. The FE white paper is the perfect place to start.