The show must go on: online resources to support delivery during lockdown 2.0

With Boris Johnson announcing a second national lockdown on Saturday, we continue to face much uncertainty and disruption to our delivery of education and it is hard to imagine there will be mush change this academic year – a reality Michael Gove reflected over the weekend.

Although schools, colleges, providers, and universities will remain open, everyone will be facing significant ongoing challenges

There will likely be limited face-to-face contact times and reduced class sizes, as fears grow over outbreaks and spread of infection.

For those offering remote learning to students at home, the focus will be how to keep them engaged, and questions over just how effectively you can teach them new content and provide a semblance of a routine in education and training for these students.

But the show must go on and we must continue to adapt to the changing circumstances.

 Most of us are looking for online and blended alternatives to help deliver key areas of our curriculum and are considering how to best transition from classroom-based delivery to online learning.

Whilst we continue to strive for quality delivery and maintain momentum, it is crucial that we consider what good online and blended learning looks like as we shift to digital learning.

It is crucial that we don’t employ the same ‘knee-jerk’ reaction this time round.  

The lessons learnt?

 When the first lockdown was imposed in March, hundreds of colleges and training providers had to quickly find alternative ways to deliver classroom experiences online.

Everyone agrees we will move into a world of “new normal” and education online will not just be a short-term reaction to the pandemic, but as a long-term solution and real opportunity.

Online learning should be a classroom not a library. Relying on Zoom and YouTube, and creating a dump of existing PDFs and PowerPoints, isn’t the best way to engage and inspire learners. We can’t just replicate face to face on a computer and a “lift and shift” approach (as I am sure we have all realised over the last 6 months).  It just doesn’t work.

Nor will these methods prove successful in delivering the rigour expected by Ofsted to effectively progress learners through to their final qualifications.

  • A report by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) found head teachers believe a third of pupils were not engaged with set work during the first lockdown
  • A survey by the National Union of Students found over a quarter of students (27%) struggled to engage with the online learning provided during the first lockdown with many finding online teaching ‘boring’ and the course content being ‘mediocre’

While many learners thrive learning online, for others it is a real challenge, and it requires a range of new resources and tools to keep them engaged and support their progression.

It takes real investment and skill to create effective e-learning content for your students and trainees, and without it there is a risk of poor student engagement, retention, and achievement.

Support for your organisation – online resources, distance learning qualifications, learning technology and subcontracting

The Skills Network (TSN) can help you embed high-quality online learning into your curriculum.

We have been creating high quality systems and online content for distance and blended learning for 11 years, helping organisations to transform their delivery models.

If you would benefit from the any of the below resources or services, we would love to have a conversation with you:

  • Accredited online resources to support apprenticeship, traineeship, study programme AEB, ESF or Commercial delivery
  • Free access to an award-winning LMS and course authoring tool, EQUAL, with the ability to create your own online or blended learning content at no cost (videos, quizzes, and interactive features)
  • Distance learning subcontracting for AEB and ESF Delivery
  • Access to over 40 Ofqual accredited distance learning qualifications.

We can support you to deliver online learning content and qualifications in subjects across personal development, employability, business, finance, health and social care, early years, digital skills, wellbeing, and mental health.

To find out more information, please click here.

Ofqual’s independence questioned as regulator ‘buried its head in the sand’ during exams fiasco

The education select committee has accused Ofqual of “burying its head in the sand” by ignoring repeated warnings in the run-up to this year’s disastrous exams, claiming the regulator instead chose to follow orders from ministers and “hoped for the best”.

As well as questioning the independence of the regulator,  committee chair Robert Halfon also took aim at the influence ministers may have had over decisions and the Department for Education’s failure so far to produce requested papers detailing the decision-making behind scrapping exams.

A letter to education secretary Gavin Williamson also states exams must go ahead in 2021 and “robust contingency planning must be in place as soon as possible to ensure this can happen”.

Halfon said the “fallout and unfairness” from the cancellation of exams will “have an ongoing impact on the lives of thousands of families”.

“But such harm could have been avoided had Ofqual not buried its head in the sand and ignored repeated warnings, including from our Committee, about the flaws in the system for awarding grades.”

He writes that although Ofqual were “clearly aware” that its controversial algorithm would cause problems for high achieving pupils in historically low attaining schools it “believed the number would be statistically small and could be addressed through an appeals process”.

It also recognised the approach would benefit smaller schools, such as private schools, and place pupils at large schools and colleges at a disadvantage.

Halfon said it was “revealing” that Ofqual ploughed ahead instead of raising issues at the time.

The letter states: “We regret that Ofqual decided not to raise wider concerns about the fairness of the model they were being asked to implement.

“They had every opportunity to do so when they came before us in June. Instead, they simply followed the ministerial direction and hoped for the best.”

Halfon explains the “whole episode calls into question Ofqual’s independence” from government.

While ministers are able to issue directions to Ofqual – the regulator is not required to follow these directions.

The committee concluded it was unacceptable that the regulator had taken up a “half-way house position where lines of accountability for standards are blurred”.

It was also revealed that the committee is of the opinion that if running a full schedule of exams this year was not possible there should be at least be exams in ‘core subjects’.

“There must be exams in at least English, maths and the science subjects, so that students are tested in these core curriculum subjects”, Halfon wrote.

This suggestion echoes comments made yesterday by Ofsted’s chief inspector Amanda Spielman when speaking in front of the education committee.

Spielman, who is chairing Ofqual’s new “recovery committee”, said holding exams only in core subjects was “the kind of option under consideration” for next year.

However she caveated this suggestion and said “every option creates some unfairness”.

GCSE and A-level exams are currently scheduled to go ahead as normal next summer with the addition of a three-week delay to help pupils make up for any time lost learning due to coronavirus.

Halfon also noted that the select committee had not yet been provided with the “relevant information and papers” by the Department for Education relating to the decision to cancel exams in 2020.

Despite ministers assuring the papers would be provided in early September they have “not materialised”.

He said he expected the papers by Monday, November 23, so that the committee “may complete our investigation”.

Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: “It is completely unacceptable that the government has apparently thus far failed to supply relevant papers and the minutes of meetings requested by the committee.

“We seem to be no nearer understanding what steps ministers took to ask the right questions at the right times to assure themselves on behalf of the public that the system for awarding grades would work and wouldn’t fall apart in the way that it did.”

Colleges fear enrolment surge could see 20,000 sixth formers go ‘unfunded’

Around 20,000 “unfunded” 16 to 18-year-old students are studying in colleges this year following a surge in enrolments due to Covid-19, according to the Association of Colleges.

The membership body said that the number – caused by the Education and Skills Funding Agency basing college funding on lagged learner numbers – equates to around £120 million.

It comes a week after the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned that because of FE’s lagged funding system, exceptional rises in student numbers could generate a real-terms fall in funding per student this year despite FE’s £400 million boost for 2020/21.

An AoC members’ survey released today found that nearly two-thirds (62 per cent) of colleges have seen an increase in 16 to 18 enrolments while costs have soared to makes campuses Covid-secure.

The association estimates that most (£225 million) this year’s £400 million funding boost has been absorbed by the additional costs that include personal protective equipment, cleaning, technology, transport, and extra staff.

To make up for the unfunded learners and Covid-19 costs, the AoC has called on the government to reallocate unused apprenticeship funding to colleges.

The AoC says that apprenticeship starts have fallen 60 per cent in comparison to the levels seen during 2019 and for 16 to 18-year-olds, the drop is even greater, at 79 per cent.

The association claims that with many workplaces shut or unable to take on apprentices, the reduced numbers are likely to remain in 2021 and 2022.

However, the AoC could not say how much it expects the apprenticeships budget to be underspent by, nor how they knew that there would be an underspend considering the carry over funding that has been building since the launch of the levy in 2017.

The government is also making a big push to increase apprenticeship starts post-pandemic, including new employer cash incentives that can see businesses receive £3,000 for taking on an apprentices aged 16 to 18 from August 2020 until 31 January 2021.

The DfE was approached for comment but did not say at the time of going to press whether it projects an apprenticeship underspend itself.

But, as FE Week revealed in July, £330 million of the 2019-20 apprenticeships budget was unspent and handed back to the Treasury.

In 2017-18 – the first year of the levy – around £300 million was surrendered. The DfE previously said it did not surrender an apprenticeships underspend in 2018-19.

Making the case for reallocating unused apprenticeship funding to colleges, AoC chief executive David Hughes said: “Sadly, many young people have not been able to secure the apprenticeship they want, so have turned to their local college to provide the training and education they know will help them when the jobs market picks up.

“Colleges have welcomed them, designed study programmes to meet their specific needs and want to help them get ready for the future. Unfortunately, though, the funding system which works well in a stable world, is not designed for such big in-year growth. In many cases it means that colleges are supporting hundreds of unfunded learners at a time when Covid has already increased their costs and put pressure on their budgets.”

He continued: “At no extra cost to Treasury, a redirection of unusable apprenticeship funds to colleges could help these young people pave a way to a promising future. We want this to be for the next two years, giving time for the labour market to pick up again and businesses to recover from the downturn. By which point thousands of young people will be work-ready and have the skills employers will need to get back on their feet.”

While the ESFA’s 16 to 19 funding system does have mechanisms to allow colleges to apply for in-year growth if they have a spike in student numbers, the AoC has previously pointed out that this is based on affordability.

Profile: Lisa O’loughlin

The Manchester College principal, Lisa O’Loughlin explains her collaborative strategy to provide the city with routes out of deprivation. By JL Dutaut

When Manchester mayor, Andy Burnham called this week for schools to be closed to create a “true circuit break”, it is safe to assume that, as with so many other politicians’ educational announcements, the “and colleges” bit was intended, if silent.

That’s a shame at any time, but given the impact of the virus in Manchester and the north west, and the work colleges like The Manchester College, part of LTE Group, have done for their students and communities, it is a doubly frustrating omission. Since the initial lockdown, Manchester has suffered a lengthy period of restrictions higher than the rest of the nation, and as the prime minister beat a reluctant path to a second lockdown, the region’s plight became totemic for the inequalities the pandemic has brought to light and sharpened across the nation.

There is a multiplier effect going on in northern towns at the moment

When I interviewed The Manchester College’s principal, Lisa O’loughlin just days before the second lockdown was announced, her comments already foreshadowed Burnham’s fears, expressed this week, for what could happen if Manchester came out on 2 December and straight back into a regional tier 3. “We’re concerned that it isn’t a level playing field. And yet, at the end of this academic year, our learners will be assessed in the same way as the students in a tier one or tier two area.”

And it isn’t just about the academic impact. “What COVID does is it places a set of pressures on communities,” she adds. “Overlaid on other fundamental aspects of deprivation, that is creating a situation which is more challenging for our learners. We have students from very, very deprived communities. We have a high proportion of learners without GCSE English or maths. There is a multiplier effect going on in northern towns at the moment.”

But if anyone understands the nefarious effects of that regional deprivation and how to go about tackling them, it is surely O’Loughlin. A northerner through and through, she’s been at the college since 2013, its principal since 2014, and spent the previous ten years of her career at Blackburn College. She went to school in Wigan, graduated from Manchester University and got her teaching qualification from the University of Central Lancashire.

And O’loughlin is not unfamiliar with the barriers she is dedicated to helping students overcome. From a modest background, her father a joiner, her mother a seamstress and her two older sisters a secretary and a nurse, she was “very lovingly referred to as the odd one in the family”. She attended local catholic schools and was lucky enough to be academically able – though it did mean she was encouraged to park her artistic interests to pursue academic subjects. She was the first to go to university, where she studied media and business management, and later came back to the arts for a master’s degree. Today, a principal and mother – she has little time for it herself but, married to artist, Jamie, her life is still steeped in it.

After a decade spent in media production, O’loughlin was asked to cover a class at a local college, and was hooked. She gained her teaching qualification and moved to Blackburn College, which had TV production facilities. “It allowed me to keep a foot in both camps,” she says, but she’s never looked back since.

People described The Manchester College as a soft landing place for our community

A local success story then, principalship hasn’t all been plain sailing for O’loughlin. Rated ‘good’ by Ofsted in May 2014 – just 6 months before she took the top spot from Jack Carney, who had recruited her as vice principal – The Manchester College’s climb from its previous ‘satisfactory’ rating wasn’t to be sustained. By 2017, the college was back in category 3, deemed to require improvement in every area except apprenticeships, where it was judged to be ‘inadequate’. “When I joined in 2013,” O’Loughlin tells me, “people described it as a soft landing place for our community, and that’s a really lovely way of describing the college, but we lacked the ambition we needed for our learners.” But the 2017 Ofsted visit didn’t account for a strategy the college had already put in place a year before, that hadn’t yet borne fruit. “Accelerating progress, ambitions towards careers, and positive advocacy. Those are the key underpinnings of our strategy for social mobility.”

That social mobility strategy came with the formation of LTE Group, to which The Manchester College is central, accounting for some 25,000 of its purported 95,000 learners across the country. LTE Group isn’t the result of horizontal integration through college mergers – though The Manchester College is itself the result of a long line of mergers over decades – but rather across a much broader field of education and training. The first such partnership of its kind according to its own literature, today it comprises corporate professional development provider MOL, offender education, training and employability provider Novus, apprenticeships provider Total People, and degree-level course provider UCEN. As well as the college of course, albeit with a re-purposed offer.

The group’s shared expertise paid off. By 2019, it was rated ‘good’ in every area. The previously ‘inadequate’ apprenticeships provision, now managed by Total People, was no longer in Ofsted’s scope for inspection – though it was rated ‘good’ in its own inspection.  Achieving that meant taking a long hard look at local provision and zeroing in on the college’s place in it. “We have some excellent sixth form colleges in Manchester, and some of the highest performing in the country. And so what we asked was, ‘what is it that we should be providing for our communities?’ and it’s very much a route to a technical or professional career. We are The Manchester College. There isn’t another big GFEC in Manchester so if anybody’s going to do it, it’s got to be us.”

Just last week, former skills and apprenticeships minister, Anne Milton welcomed the publication of the College of the Future Commission’s final review. Of its 11 recommendations, she particularly highlighted the ineffectiveness and cost of competition and joined calls for greater local collaboration. Based on her LTE experience, O’loughlin, who is also chair of the Greater Manchester Colleges Group since 2016, has some very clear ideas about that.

Accelerating progress and positive advocacy – those are our key underpinnings

For a start, notwithstanding any white papers and plans to take colleges back into public ownership, balancing collaboration and competition is something she evidently feels Westminster could learn something about from the regions. “Manchester is fantastic at collaborating to improve outcomes. We’ve been doing a lot of that work for about four or five years, developing that kind of strategic perspective on how skills should develop across the city region, and we’ve become a really strong strategic senior partner to the combined authority and to the local authorities. That’s a real positive and I suppose, ahead of the white paper, is a bit of a model for a way of working.”

As everywhere else, Covid has “intensified” that partnership working. Monthly meetings of the group of nine colleges are now more likely to be weekly or fortnightly and bilateral conversations a normal part of life. But balancing that collaboration with a healthy amount of competition – the type that is purported to create the conditions for improvement – is a recipe no policy maker has yet cracked. Again, O’loughlin has ideas. She’s clear that even in Manchester, there is a constant risk that competition will gain the upper hand. “We manage to collaborate in spite of it,” she says.

The key, she suggests, is not in regulating competition or enforcing contrived collaboration, but in accepting that curriculum itself determines where specialisation is required. “Up to level three, we believe that all colleges should offer a broad-based provision, because that’s what our communities need. But at level four or five, there is an opportunity for us to each become specialists. Obviously, capital investments and so on are better invested and better value for money if you’re not spreading it across a number of organisations. For us, we feel that that is something that absolutely we could achieve.”

Collaboration, then, not as a vehicle for improvement through partnership working, but as a means of ensuring investment is targeted to ensure all learners across a region have access to the best possible training and facilities for their sector. A simple redefinition of terms, it’s an approach that is already unlocking a wealth of opportunities for the learners of Greater Manchester and could do so for other regions.

After all, it was the facilities at Blackburn that gave O’loughlin her first step to where she is now, advocating for Manchester’s students. So as the skills sector faces the continued impact of Covid and the end of the Brexit transition phase in the coming months, here’s hoping her words penetrate the Westminster bubble.

Ofsted reveals key findings from FE visits during pandemic

Ofsted has today published a summary of what they found during their first “interim visits” of colleges and training providers that are taking place this autumn.

A total of 36 providers were visited between September and October – the majority of which (22, or 61 per cent), were previously judged as ‘requires improvement’.

While the visits do not result in an inspection grade, they do produce a published letter which tells the public how each provider is “coping with this challenging start to the new academic year” in the face of Covid-19.

Here are five things we learned.

 

1) Financial pressures weighing down on leaders

Many of the leaders interviewed by Ofsted said the pandemic had increased their costs at the same time as reducing their income streams and destabilising future funding.

Examples of costs that had increased included remote learning: purchasing IT equipment, licences for software, online servers, upgrading Wi-Fi, purchasing laptops for staff and learners, and buying and posting textbooks and workbooks to learners.

Day-to-day running costs to make sites Covid-19 secure, such as buying hand sanitiser, have also shot up, as have staffing costs, such as additional pastoral support and increased cleaning. Induction costs have also risen, such as extended induction courses to develop learners’ digital skills.

Leaders had seen a fall in income due to their inability to run commercial events during the pandemic.

They were responding to these increased pressures in “different ways”. Some leaders had “restructured their staffing and pay models and had reviewed recruitment for staff, either delaying hiring new staff or furloughing existing staff”.

A few leaders of community learning and independent providers told Ofsted they were “frustrated” because they felt there had been “comparatively little support for them compared with other providers in the sector, such as colleges”.

 

2) DfE’s skills toolkit ‘restricting’ provider

Some leaders told inspectors they were looking to “diversify their courses” to increase income, for example, by training staff to deliver new courses in new areas, such as adult education.

However, one leader said that they are concerned about the long-term security of adult courses as it is an already “flooded market”.

They saw the Department for Education’s skills toolkit, which launched in April and directs the public to already-existing free online digital, numeracy and work readiness courses to adults, as “potentially restricting which areas they could diversify their business into”.

The provider is not named in Ofsted’s report.

Commenting on the finding, Mark Dawe, chief executive of a private provider called The Skills Network, said he “understands there is a concern from some” about free courses putting providers off of moving into certain subject areas, but insisted there is “so much more to offer”. 

“I can see where there might be a concern but it is more about thinking who are the learners and employers we are supporting?” he told FE Week. “If they want to use a free resource and that is adequate, then fine, but there is a whole group  that need more support than just these online resources.”

The DfE said the toolkit is not designed to be representative of the breadth of training providers can offer in terms of subject matter or course delivery.

 

3) Course content has shifted

Ofsted found that providers’ move to remote learning often resulted in “shifting around of course content, for example teaching theoretical work during the first national lockdown and fitting in practical sessions in the autumn”.

Meanwhile, leaders had also identified that some of their courses “did not fit the needs of the changing job market”, which prompted them to “devise new courses or modify content within existing courses”.

For example, some were running new courses to develop learners’ virtual interview skills and vocational IT skills.

 

 

4) Increase in health and social care subject admissions

Inspectors found that some providers saw an increase in learners signing up for health and social care and science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects and a decrease in learners signing up for travel and tourism courses.

Staff said these changes were due in part to “increasing interest among learners in healthcare and science as a result of the pandemic”.

 

5) Employer relationships have grown ‘stronger’

“Many” of the providers that Ofsted visited felt their relationship with employers and other organisations had “improved through increased communication” over the pandemic period.

Leaders in a few providers had even formed “local networks” with each other and other stakeholders to share good practice.

And in two instances, the “supportive relationships” formed during the pandemic resulted in a stakeholder joining the provider’s governing body.

DfE seeks views on ‘undervalued’ level 2 and below quals market

The Department for Education has launched a call for evidence to find out what is “working well” with qualifications at level 2 and below.

It is part of the government’s review that seeks to simplify England’s “confusing” vocational and technical qualifications landscape by removing funding for those qualifications that compete with T Levels and A-levels.

The DfE says there are around 8,000 level 2 and below qualifications across a wide range of subject sector areas, but “many have low or no demand” while others “do not have clear progression routes to further education or employment”.

New analysis published by the department today found that 60 per cent of 16 year olds who study a classroom-based level 2 course do not move on to study at level 3 the following year. It also highlighted that 37 per cent of students who leave education with a level 2 qualification find it harder to get a job, compared to 14 per cent of students who leave with a level 3 qualification.

While detailed proposals on how to improve this system will not be put forward until next year, today’s call for evidence does outline some early “solutions” that the department has in mind.

These include removing public funding from level 2 ICT functional skills qualifications and level 2 IT for User qualifications, following the launch of essential digital skills reforms at level 1.

For 16 to 19 year olds at level 2, the DfE also proposes to develop a new “transition programme” designed to support progression to level 3. This would be similar to the tailored preparatory T Levels transition programme that launched this year.

Another key goal of the department is to “improve outcomes for all students who are using classroom-based level 2 study to enter into employment”. They believe potential solutions might include “being more prescriptive about the pathways that lead to employment and aligning classroom-based study with employer-led standards” that are developed by employers and approved by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education and form the basis of apprenticeships and T Levels.

The DfE states it also wants to “streamline” qualifications at level 1 and entry level, and asks training providers to define “good outcomes” for students at these levels to “help us determine the programmes they need” to keep.

Views are also being sought on how English as a second or foreign language (ESOL) qualifications can be “better targeted towards progression and employment”.

In her foreword of today’s call for evidence, skills minister Gillian Keegan said that level 2 and below classroom-based study is a “key part of our further education landscape that is too often undervalued and its importance should not be ignored”.

However, “they are not allowing the diverse range of students they serve, including some of the most vulnerable or those with special educational needs, learning difficulties or disabilities,  to fulfil their potential”. 

She adds that the government’s ambition for level 2 and below study is “high” and “we want to give students and employers the confidence that every programme or qualification at level 2 and below is high quality”.

The deadline for submissions is 31 January 2021.

FE colleges have been too reluctant to challenge bias against black and Asian apprentices

Too many colleges and employers have a ‘diversity and inclusion’ policy but go no further, writes Jeremy Crook

Will 2020 mark a turning point in how employers and the FE sector deal with racial inequalities?

Those of us working with black and Asian young people are still waiting to see.

There has been some progress – black and Asian apprentice numbers have increased. In the past decade the proportion of BAME people starting an apprenticeship has increased from nine per cent to 15 per cent.

But across primary and secondary education in England, BAME groups represent 34 per cent of the student population. It’s not enough progress.

Think about this: young black and Asian people are at least twice as likely to be unemployed as young white people, whatever their qualification level. Only eight per cent of apprenticeship starts for 16-19-year-olds are from BAME backgrounds.

The Black Training and Enterprise Group (BTEG) was set up nearly 30 years ago to influence the new training and enterprise councils (as they were then called) to tackle racial inequalities in skills and employment.

There have been many more initiatives since then, but none has managed to transform the race disparities in apprenticeships.

It seems that many employers, especially in STEM-related sectors, do not recognise the benefits of ethnic diversity.

It also appears that FE colleges and other organisations that interface with employers have been reluctant to challenge unfair and poor recruitment practices.

Racial bias in recruitment remains conscious, unconscious and widespread. Some employers and their national bodies have avoided facing this issue head on. This has to change.

Too many employers, training providers and colleges are still stuck on the first rung of the race equality ladder: they have an equality or diversity and inclusion policy but go no further.

Not long ago, I facilitated a workshop in Bradford for textile employers, organised by the council and an FE college.

The college had built good relationships with textile employers offering high-tech jobs but struggling to recruit locally. Despite Bradford’s ethnically diverse population, the employers said they were unable to recruit talent from Asian communities.

Listening to the employers it was clear that they were ready to reach out to diverse communities. But at the same time it was equally clear that they held stereotyped and outdated views about why.

The employers held stereotyped and outdated views about why Asian people were ‘not applying’

Asian people were “not applying” to their firms, although none was conducting any ethnicity monitoring to see what the actual application rates were.

The workshop prompted a council initiative to help employers adopt fair recruitment practices. This is something that should be happening routinely, although perhaps it is difficult for certain stakeholders to play this role because they have not always got their own house in order when it comes to ethnic diversity either.

Regrettably the government no longer publishes application data by ethnicity but previously published data for 2015/16 showed that around 25 per cent of all apprenticeship applications were from ethnic minority people.

Meanwhile, only around 10 per cent of those starting apprenticeships in the same year were from an ethnic minority.

These figures dispel the widely held myths that black and Asian young people and their parents lack awareness of apprenticeships or are reluctant to apply.

Looking forward, employers in growth sectors need practical support to improve recruitment and implement workforce ethnicity monitoring. They could use the Greater London Authority’s recently published Inclusive Employers Toolkit for construction and technology.

But BTEG still wants much more to be done to tackle poorer success rates for black and Asian apprenticeship applicants. Application data is important in achieving this and should be shared with employers and colleges.

We are also calling on the Department for Education to set a stretch target (one that requires entirely news ways of working) for the number of 16-18-year-old black and Asian apprenticeship starts in growth sectors over the next four years.

The FE sector should be a catalyst for change. Let’s finally make this happen.

The second government consultation must make currency of qualifications king

The technical qualifications we end up with must have value for employers and universities, writes Ruth Gilbert

As a sector, we have been working hard for many years to raise the parity of esteem between vocational or technical qualifications and academic qualifications.

Progress has undoubtedly been made, with the government recognising the important part that apprenticeships and technical education must play in the country’s post-Covid 19 economic recovery and highlighting the vital role of colleges in this.

The development and introduction of T Levels in 2020 has also been a clear nod towards the recognition of the value of high-level technical skills. They are a much-needed addition to the qualification landscape, putting technical skills on a par with the “gold standard” A-level.

But we must never forget that the purpose of education is to give people the skills they need to get a good and meaningful job.

This takes more than simply stripping out qualifications and requires a much more holistic approach aligned with the future of our industry and economy.

Rather than focusing on the quantity of qualifications, the government should recognise that it is the quality of curriculum content and delivery that is the key thing to get right.

So the question now is what should become of the plethora of other vocational qualifications offered by colleges, learning providers and sixth-forms around the country?

The right approach takes more than simply stripping out qualifications

This is, of course, a difficult question and one that the Department for Education is quite rightly consulting on.

Having worked in FE for many years, I strongly believe that giving students a clear line of sight to work must be at the heart of every post-16 course and qualification.

To do this, employers and HE institutions need to recognise the value of the various education pathways – with an understanding of the competencies a particular qualification will develop.

An A-level grade, for instance, is instantly recognisable, providing the employer or university with an understanding of a student’s ability and knowledge.

All vocational qualifications need to carry this same “assumed” value, a value that will ultimately come from impact. Employers must expressly endorse and reference T Level entry to the workplace.

FE and HE providers must embrace more flexible delivery that is accessible while learners work, including degree apprenticeships and part-time HE options.

We also need universities to recognise T Levels, for parity of opportunity with A-levels, on HE progression.

And industry must also drive the development of new qualifications and modifications. The world of work moves quickly, and qualifications must keep up.

Here at the Career Colleges Trust we have just created a new level 2 and 3 qualification in Logistics and International Supply Chain Management, through a collaboration with seven FE colleges, a Rotterdam-based learning provider and several logistics employers.

A T Level in this area is also needed to provide a clear point of higher entry for young people who know relatively little about this growing sector ̶ illustrating exactly how different qualifications can co-exist successfully to meet industry need.

We should not forget BTECs and other awarding body certification, often recognised as “the standard” for specific industries. We have to ask the questions “are they still current, and is there an alternative that better prepares students for work/progression?”.

The second government consultation must make currency of qualifications king.

Seeking out new industries and opportunities has never been so important for our economy so this is a perfect time to consider our portfolio of technical qualifications.

I’m in no doubt about how to improve our skills education after visiting WorldSkills

Off-the-job training in apprenticeships is clearly critical, while GCSE resits need to be rethought, writes Anne Milton

When I attended WorldSkills Abu Dhabi 2017, I was privileged to be the first government minister to witness WorldSkills on foreign soil. It was an experience I will never forget.

I was left in complete awe of the competitors. They demonstrated an amazing level of skills and had the mental stamina to keep up the intensity of a competition lasting up to four full days.

I soon realised that I was witnessing excellence from those incredibly talented young people. My visit gave me a fantastic opportunity, as a relatively new minister at the time, to learn about other countries’ skills systems. It left me in no doubt as to what we must do to improve skills levels in this country.

It is traditional to cite Germany as the gold standard for technical education. But we shouldn’t just try and emulate one country, there are many other countries that are also doing some excellent work on technical education.

For instance, Russia has used all that it learnt from WorldSkills as a basis for overhauling the country’s entire skills system. Meanwhile, a minister from Singapore was clear that one of the pillars of their successful technical and vocational education system is high English and maths standards.

There should be no weakening of our requirement for off-the-job training

This is something we haven’t yet got right in England. We want young people to achieve a strong standard in both subjects, but the GCSE resits policy can lead to young people repeatedly sitting exams and repeatedly failing, which can then go on to have a very detrimental impact on their confidence and self-esteem.

Functional skills qualifications help with this, but we need to continue to strive to find a better way of getting young people to develop and improve.

There was a lot of interest in our apprenticeship reforms and the introduction of T Levels. Discussing how apprenticeships work in different parts of the world is always useful. In particular, these conversations hardened my views about the importance of the off-the-job training element of apprenticeships.

Some businesses in the UK were unhappy about our requirement that 20 per cent of an apprenticeship should consist of off-the-job training. But what I discovered was that this minimum requirement is lower than those in place in almost every other country.

This confirmed my view that there should be no weakening on this requirement if we are to have the world-class apprenticeships our young people deserve.

What is clear to me is that to raise the esteem in which technical education is held, we must look at what excellence in skills looks like.

WorldSkills UK knows this better than anyone else. It holds the ring on excellence.

It leads the way on best practice because it must achieve exceptionally high standards for Team UK to win medals when competing against some of the strongest nations.

We also need long-term investment so providers can plan ahead. Further education has long been underfunded; adult education has dropped even further behind. Only by significantly increasing our investment can we achieve parity of esteem. How this funding is spent – and who these decisions are made by – is also critical.

Team UK does very well in the medal tables, consistently placing in and around the top 10. As a nation, we punch well above our weight for every pound spent.

If the government is serious about its stated ambitions on skills and technical education, what better way to do this than bidding to host the WorldSkills competition on UK soil?

If the UK is prepared to back a bid, just think what a message this would send to the country and the world about the importance of skills to the UK economy.

FE Week has been a strong champion of this bid and I look forward to talking further to the paper at the WorldSkills UK International Skills Summit next week.

It is a chance we simply cannot afford to miss as we strive for excellence in our skills systems.

The WorldSkills UK International Skills Summit takes place on November 11 and 12. For more information visit worldskillsuk.org