Here are 4 things the FE White Paper missed out

Verdict on the White Paper? Fine start but requires improvement, writes Stephen Evans

“We must put employers’ needs for skills centre stage. We must make colleges and training providers more responsive to employers’ and learners’ needs, reaching out to more businesses and more people, and providing training in ways that suit them.  

“Creating a truly demand-led approach means reforming qualifications, reforming the way we fund colleges, and reforming the way we deliver training.” 

It’s difficult to argue with this quote from the White Paper. Unfortunately, it’s from the 2003 Skills White Paper.  

Will this latest publication be the moment we look back on as when we finally “cracked it”?  

Short answer: only with investment, more radical change, and sustained commitment.  

The good 

Perhaps the White Paper’s main contributions are to put further education centre stage, which matters after the last decade, and to provide helpful hooks for future change.  

For example, I welcome plans to focus more on the outcomes of learning. We’ve long argued for that and worked with the Greater London Authority on it, though the details will be key.  

The intention to look at multi-year funding is great too and, while there’s a balance between simplicity and targeting support, it would be good to simplify the current complex funding and accountability arrangements. 

The Lifetime Skills Guarantee, focus on apprenticeships, and commitment to increase investment, while already announced, are also really welcome – there’s more to do, but it’s great to be talking about how to invest rather than what to cut. 

A point, though, about language. When I worked in government, I was advised not to describe reforms as “radical”, as discussion of this White Paper often has: people would notice if they were, otherwise you’d be over selling.  

No White Paper can solve everything, so it’s important the government doesn’t over claim its impact: better to argue there’s a big plan, moving in the right direction.   

Missing or more needed 

This White Paper aims to align provision with local economic need and deliver better outcomes.  

But how will the new Local Skills Improvement Plans, to be agreed by colleges, employers and others, fit with devolution in parts of England?  

What traction will these plans have? Isn’t this what Skills Advisory Panels were meant to do?  

Similarly, the White Paper would have benefited from more recognition of the wider benefits of learning (health, citizenship etc) and breadth of provision.  

And while there’s lots of talk of employer leadership, I can’t see very much about how we raise their demand for and investment in skills. 

Now here are four areas where the White Paper must go further: 

  1. Investment

We need substantial and sustained investment after a decade of cuts that have left millions fewer adults taking part in learning. There’s little new money here, so let’s hope the government is working on a long-term funding settlement for the next spending review. 

  1. Basic skills

Nine million adults have low literacy or numeracy, but participation in learning has plummeted. More than 20 years on from the Moser Report, which drove a significant focus on this challenge, it’s disappointing not to see greater ambition. 

  1. Retraining

The Lifetime Skills Guarantee is great, but its focused on a first level 3, so we need more help for those needing a level 2 or to retrain at level 3, as well as with maintenance costs. With longer working lives and a changing economy we need to be think bigger. 

  1. Joining up

How will we align skills with employment support, like Kickstart and Restart? What about local government. There is little mentioned apart from Mayoral Combined Authorities, for instance. 

Verdict 

It’s great the White Paper puts further education centre stage – there’s lots of positives already in train to shout about, and some interesting new ideas.  

But to avoid becoming another footnote in the history of skills policy, we’ll need long-term funding and commitment to more radical action.  

Perhaps not a giant leap, but hopefully several steps in the right direction. 

Ofqual delays decision on solution for apprentices stuck in limbo

A decision on whether apprentices can receive teacher-assessed grades for their English and maths if they are unable to sit their assessments has been pushed back by Ofqual until at least late February.

As previously reported by FE Week, tens of thousands of work-based learners, mostly in the health and care sectors, have been stuck in limbo and unable to complete their functional skills programme due to Covid-19 restrictions since the start of the academic year.

Ofqual launched a consultation last week to set out its plans for replacing exams this year, including for vocational and technical qualifications (VTQs) if they cannot be sat safely.

The exams regulator’s consultation says that if an apprentice can attend a training centre to sit their functional skills test or complete it remotely, then they should.

But it goes on to suggest that if these two methods are not possible, then “alternative arrangements” can be applied and can include teacher-assessed grades like GCSEs and A-levels.

FE Week pressed the regulator for clarity on when a final decision on this issue would be taken, and a spokesperson said it would be “determined through the consultation”, the outcome of which will not be until “late February”.

But even when the decision is published, a “technical” consultation will follow on the framework of rules that awarding organisations will have to abide by before putting in place the alternative arrangements.

By this point, it is expected that the majority of functional skills awarding bodies will have remote proctoring solutions in place for the assessments, thus cancelling out the need for a large number of teacher-assessed grades.

The Ofqual spokesperson made clear that through the consultation, awarding bodies will “need to determine the most appropriate approach to awarding based on their qualification design and delivery, including what the minimum assessment evidence should be for the valid and reliable award of each of their qualifications ̶ including functional skills”.

However, they added that this “does not follow that functional skills learners will automatically be issued with calculated results in the same way as in 2020”.

Association of Employment and Learning Providers managing director Jane Hickie has urged officials to allow teacher-assessed grades now.

“When the government is saying that everyone should stay home unless absolutely necessary, it is ridiculous to still expect tens of thousands of apprentices who have been unable to take their maths and English tests for months to travel miles to do so at test centres,” she said.

“Mass volume remote testing is still weeks away, and the logjam is now said to number 60,000 apprentices and still growing.

“Apprentices should have access to teacher assessments now.”

Functional skills learners were able to receive calculated results last summer following the cancellation of exams, but Ofqual has refused to reintroduce them even for those that cannot access their training centre to sit their assessments since September.

Awarding bodies have meanwhile struggled to introduce remote solutions that allow apprentices to take the assessments either at home or in the workplace.

FE Week spoke to the awarding bodies that offer functional skills this week and found that four of them – NOCN, Open Awards, Skillsfirst Awards and Highfield Qualifications – do have proctoring solutions available that allow the assessments to be sat at home and be remotely invigilated.

NCFE has meanwhile been piloting its own proctoring solution and will roll it out fully in the “coming weeks”.

Pearson and City & Guilds, the awarding bodies that deliver the greatest number of functional skills assessments annually, have begun offering their own “test at home” solutions but only on a small scale. Full-scale solutions are planned to be rolled out in the coming months.

OCR and AQA both told FE Week they are not working on developing a remote proctoring solution, saying that the functional skills learners not being able to sit their normal assessments has not been a big issue for them.

Ofqual’s consultation is running for two weeks and will close on January 29. 

For wider VTQs, it proposes that where practical exams and assessments which are “required to demonstrate occupational competence for employment and apprenticeships” should “continue to take place throughout the academic year where they can be delivered in line with public health guidelines, including remotely”.

Where these assessments cannot be delivered safely, they should be delayed.

For written VTQ exams, Ofqual is proposing to issue a revised version of its Extended Extraordinary Regulatory Framework, which gives awarding organisations the “flexibility to adapt their assessments and qualifications to mitigate against the disruption the pandemic has caused”.

Where exams have not been able to take place, such as the January BTEC series, they are likely to be in scope of teacher-assessed grades.

‘Compressed’ exams and early results day: Post-qualification admissions proposals revealed

Exam dates could be brought forward or ‘compressed’ to allow for extra time to process university applications under new proposals for post-qualification admissions (PQA).

The Department for Education opened its consultation into the proposed changes for a PQA system into higher education today.

One model would see students apply to university after receiving their A-level results, while a second model would allow pupils to make ‘pre-qualification’ applications but would likewise only receive offers after results are announced.

Under the first model there would be the need for a longer application window which would be created by moving A-level results day forward from mid-August to the end of July and pushing back university term start dates to “no earlier than the first week of October”.

This would allow “at least six weeks” for the processing of applications and the making of offers.

The DfE explains it is exploring different options which would allow it to move results day earlier with the preferred route being “to compress the exam timetable, the marking period and the requirement for UCAS to receive results data well in advance of results day”.

Another option could include exams being held earlier “but the feasibility and impact of this” will be explored through the consultation.

Under this model it is noted students may require support in choosing courses and completing applications but if teachers were expected to provide this support it could have implications for their statutory terms and conditions.

The consultation states: “Our preference would be to avoid affecting teachers’ conditions or workloads as much as possible.”

Under the second model, applications would be made during term-time, as they are now, but offers would come after results day.

A benefit of this model would be students “require significantly less support over the summer with their applications” – which would have less impact on teachers.

The DfE states this route could be implemented with smaller changes to results day – only bringing it forward by a week or two – and term start dates and “could create a longer window of approximately 9-10 weeks for the making and accepting of offers”.

Learners would apply in the normal way at around the same time as they currently do. However applications would be held in the system until results day and offers are only made once results are known.

In order to ensure no offers are made in advance a third party, such as UCAS, would hold the full application until results day – with headline data released to providers to enable the planning on intakes.

Gavin Williamson explained the proposal has come about as it “is becoming increasingly evident that the current system of admissions to higher education is preventing some students from reaching their full potential at the first hurdle” and PQA could “level-up” admissions for disadvantaged students.

UCAS previewed this consultation last November, by putting forward the option of a post-qualification admissions system, or a post-qualifications application model where the entire process of applying for university or college took place after results were distributed.

Post-qualification admissions was the preferred option, as UCAS’ director of strategy, policy and public affairs John Cope said it could “significantly” level up the playing field for further education and skills providers.

Last year a study by the Sutton Trust into reforming university admissions 66 per cent of just over 500 students surveyed in September felt a post-qualification approach would be fairer than the current system of predicted grades, with 30 per cent saying it would be “much fairer”.

In the equality analysis accompanying the consultation it finds that PQA “is likely to have a positive impact on high attaining but disadvantaged students”.

While some evidence suggests “students from a white background are more likely to be positively impacted by moving to a system no longer based on predicted grade . .. in any case, it is likely that White and Black students will benefit most from the implementation of post qualification admissions.”

The consultation closes on May 13.

Next phase of £1.5bn college capital funding programme launched

Colleges have been told how they can now apply for the next phase of the government’s £1.5 billion capital funding scheme, with applications for the fund due in by 15 March.

The Department for Education has today reopened applications for the Further Education Capital Transformation Fund, first announced by the chancellor of the exchequer Rishi Sunak at his March budget.

It comes on the same day as the publication of the landmark Skills for Jobs White Paper, and the DfE says one of the key objectives of the fund will be “to support the government’s further education and technical education reforms”.

The DfE is aiming to “upgrade the FE college estate and to significantly reduce the proportion of FE college estate not fit for purpose or in unsatisfactory condition, ensuring all colleges are excellent places to learn”.

The bidding process will be split across two stages: the first will involve colleges proving their projects support reforms to the FE sector and will maximise space utilisation, while the second stage will be a more detailed look at project plans, costings and affordability, and the project’s deliverability.

Colleges will be notified of the outcomes of stage one on 14 May 2021 and, if they have been successful, will have until 30 July 2021 to submit for stage two. Colleges will be informed of the outcomes of that in the week commencing 27 September 2021.

The minimum threshold for projects is £500,000 and there is no upper threshold, but FE colleges have been told they will be expected to contribute up to 50 per cent of their project costs.

Applications can only be made by FE corporations or designated institutions for further education. Sixth form colleges or any other FE provider not constituted as an FE corporation or designated institution cannot put in a bid.

After Sunak announced in the spring the £1.5 billion would be made available for English colleges, prime minister Boris Johnson announced in June that £200 million of that would be fast-tracked to be available from September 2020, a year earlier than planned.

In August, it was announced more than 180 colleges would share the £200 million, with the biggest beneficiary, NCG, receiving £4.5 million.

FE Week has asked the DfE if the remaining £1.3 billion is now up for grabs through this new application process.

See the full guidance and the application form here.

DfE finally publishes ‘interim’ response to Augar Review

The Department for Education has finally published its initial response to Philip Augar’s review of Post-18 Education and Funding, almost two years after it was launched.

It is worth noting, however, that this is an “interim” response and the final conclusion will not be set out until the next Comprehensive Spending Review.

Much of the response reiterates plans outlined in the FE white paper, which you can read about here.

Here are the key things you need to know from the Augar response.

 

Lifelong loan entitlement to create ‘a flexible system’

Augar’s (pictured) report recommended the introduction of a “lifelong learning loan allowance” to be used at higher technical and degree level at any stage of an adult’s career for full and part time students.

As part of the prime minister’s lifetime skills guarantee, the DfE has committed to moving to a system where everyone has a “lifelong loan entitlement” from 2025, giving them access to the equivalent of four years of post-18 education.

The DfE claims this entitlement, to be consulted on in “early 2021”, will enable universities and colleges to provide a more “modular” offer.

 

New ‘Local Skills Improvement Plans’ to align courses to employer needs

The Augar report made clear that it was vital for post-18 provision to address labour market needs.

The DfE said it is their “vision” for the “substantial majority” of post-16 technical and Higher Technical Education to be aligned to employer-led standards by the end of this decade.

The department will also give employers a “central role” in shaping the technical skills provision offered in local areas beginning with Trailblazer areas where accredited Chambers of Commerce, and other business representative organisations, will “work with further education colleges and other providers to develop new Local Skills Improvement Plans”.

As per the white paper, these plans will be created by employers and providers, with the employers setting out a “credibly articulated and evidence-based assessment of skills needs to which providers will be empowered to respond”.

The DfE intends to legislate to put the employer leadership of Local Skills Improvement Plans on a statutory footing, “strengthening the voice of employers in local skills systems across the country”.

 

Rebalancing from academic to technical education

The DfE says it aims to create a “system whereby the quality of our technical and academic education is on a par, and the two are equally accessible.

“We want every student with the aptitude and desire to go to university to be able to do so and we want technical, employer-centric training to be a viable option for many more people.”

In 2018, the department announced plans to overhaul qualifications at levels 4 and 5 and create a “new generation” of courses at these levels.

The DfE said today that this “approved Higher Technical Qualifications offer” is a “high-quality prestigious alternative to the traditional full-length academic degree model” and will “ensure that everyone, no matter where in the country they are based, has access to the same quality of qualification and to equally good outcomes”.

They added that T Levels, rolled out for the first time in September 2020, will also help “close the gap” between academic and technical education.

 

Reforming skills funding

The DfE intends to make reforms to funding across the sectors in order to enable a “new, flexible, fairer system”.

The Augar response reiterates that as well as the lifelong loan entitlement, the department is making investments in further education “to ensure that public money is spent on high quality education and training that leads to good outcomes”.

“This includes a £400 million increase in 16-19 funding at Spending Review 2019, and a £291 million increase to 16 to 19 funding at Spending Review 2020. We have also committed to invest £1.5 billion of capital funding to refurbish the further education estate.”

The Augar report also highlighted the “significant, and growing, taxpayer subsidy in the higher education student finance system”. The DfE therefore intends to “freeze the maximum tuition fee cap to deliver better value for students and to keep the cost of higher education under control”.

This will initially be for one year and further changes to the student finance system will be considered ahead of the next Comprehensive Spending Review.

I fear today’s FE White Paper is the worst of both worlds

Neither political capital or actual capital are backing up today’s FE White Paper, writes Jonathan Simons

In 2009, while working in No 10, I worked with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on a White Paper called “Skills for Growth”.  

The White Paper committed to government working with local employers to develop “local strategies” to ensure that “skills provision fully reflect the needs of all areas in the region.” 

The following year, under the incoming Coalition government, I worked with BIS and DfE jointly on a White Paper called “Skills for Sustainable Growth”. In that, the government suggested a new system of finance and loans for individuals to access training later in life and to build up higher level technical skills. 

Stop me if this sounds familiar. 

It’s not that today’s analysis is wrong. It’s that none of it is new.  

There’s two broad options for policymaking in government, especially in complex areas like skills.  

The boring one is taking the existing policy architecture you have and evolving it.  

I was perhaps a little unfair in my impression that none of this has changed from a decade ago. The difference between FE loans in 2010, and the shape of a finance system in this White Paper are significant.

The latter is more flexible, and will build on 10 years’ worth of learning about who accesses credit, how it needs to work, how providers need to manage it, and so on. Similarly, a decade ago, the dominant feeling was that it was all about higher skills, and the middle skills were disappearing.  

Today’s White Paper is clear that intermediate skills have a vital role to play in the economy.  

The second option is to make big, dramatic changes. This can happen when there has genuinely been a paradigm shift in the environment, or when there is a change of political approach towards a sector.  

Such an approach is heralded by White Papers and legislation, and the spending of political capital, and actual capital.  

We’re arguably in such a moment now. The pandemic has revealed (or perhaps highlighted to those politicians not watching as closely as FE Week readers) the fissures in the skills system and labour market productivity.  

Millions of people have sadly lost their jobs and thousands of businesses are shuttered. The labour market of 2025 will be different to the labour market of 2020 on a scale that is very rarely seen within such a short window. 

But the pandemic has also meant that the Treasury is extremely reluctant to make long term financial commitments, while the future shape of the economy is unclear.  

So what I fear is that today has seen the worst of both worlds.  

Because government has committed to publishing this White Paper for over a year now, it has done so – despite the Spending Review in November cutting the ground away from under them.  

We’ve got soaring rhetoric. We’ve got big statements about a paradigm shift. But we have neither political capital, nor actual capital, backing it up. We’ve announced big things, before we have big levers to make them work. 

Chris Skidmore, the former higher education minister, wrote an excellent piece in Conservative Home in which he gently castigated his fellow politicians for rushing to make quick announcements in an effort to be seen to be doing something.  

The saving grace is government has left the political window open

He quotes psychologist and economist Daniel Kahneman about thinking fast, and thinking slow. All too often, Skidmore wrote, the temptation when we can’t answer a difficult question slowly is to answer a different, easier question quickly.  

The saving grace is government has left the political window open. In the next few months, with a fair wind and a successful vaccine rollout, we’ll know more about the medium-term economic impact.  

We’ll know more about what is signal and what is noise in the labour market. We may also have a change in personnel at the top which could lend this agenda greater political capital.  

So the mission for all of those who work in FE and skills policy is clear. We must see today not as the end, but the end of the beginning.  

The task is to continue to press government in the run up to this Autumn’s Comprehensive Spending Review. Only then will the reality of change and the investment of tomorrow meet the political rhetoric of today.  

Never in 37 years have I seen colleges in the limelight like this White Paper

This White Paper is the first glimpse of where further education could be heading – for the better – writes Sally Dicketts

Today’s eagerly awaited “Skills for Jobs” White Paper will be seen positively by the optimists in the sector and with disappointment by others. I sit in the first camp – I am full of optimism today.

It goes without saying that there is no such thing as a perfect White Paper. But we should all be delighted and recognise the significance of today’s release. And it is worth remembering that the most realistic alternative was not a different White Paper, but no White Paper at all.

I am optimistic because never, in my 37 years in the FE sector, have I seen government put colleges onto the centre stage and recognise the important role we undoubtedly play in achieving social mobility, greater equality and diversity and enabling economic growth and recovery.

We can individually quibble with parts of the paper, bewail issues of funding – or we can decide to change our destiny and embrace the work with employers even more than we do at present.

And I am optimistic because today’s White Paper is one of the first tangible examples of what government means when they talk about “building back better” and “levelling-up”.

Not only are colleges included (which just a few years ago we’d have been thrilled about), they are front and centre. This is one of the first major policy announcements on what a post-pandemic world could look like.

We will of course need to make sure that the bits we take issue with are ironed out, and any commitments are backed by funding, but that is what the consultation period will be for.

Now, more than ever, working together collaboratively will be key. The aim will be to really impact locally on the quality and range of technical education provided to our communities.

When I work with colleague principals and CEOs from all over this sector I am always wowed by people’s passion and thought for their learners and staff.

This thought and concern for learners now needs honing into envisioning a future where we are at its centre.

We need to be working with and helping to shape the implementation of this White Paper to ensure our learners benefit and get the skills knowledge and attributes to improve their life choices and our economies.

I look forward to working with you on finessing and using this White paper to further catapult this sector not only into the limelight but into being the powerhouse for skills to drive the economy and our communities to success.

We are responsible for the lives of so many young people and adults. Let’s use our collective ingenuity and interest in learning and development to make this difference with agility, thought and innovative use of technology and our people.

I have real optimism for our future, as long as we stay open and curious to change, work and support one another, and trust and believe in our staff and students to work their magic.

Hull College Group to close down Goole campus

A troubled college group is set to lose another one of its campuses at the end of this academic year, FE Week can reveal.

Hull College Group has taken the decision to close Goole College after finding that it is running at a loss and deeming the premises to be of “low quality”.

The move will involve Hull College dropping the word “group” from its name, as it will now only consist of one site having demerged from its other campus, Harrogate College, in 2019.

Former Dudley College boss Lowell Williams was employed by Hull College Group earlier this year as a consultant to work on an estates strategy, and has now taken the reins as interim chief executive.

In an interview with FE Week he said: “There is no need for the Goole College site.

“It is running on a loss and there are better options for young people and adults locally, so the college has made the decision to stop trading at the end of this academic year.”

A statement from the college added: “The detailed arrangements will be made available in due course as we work with East Riding Council and other local providers to ensure an ongoing place for all of our Goole College learners.

“The corporation have identified that Goole College is not in a position to best meet the future needs of learners and having maintained this loss making provision for some time, the college is no longer in a position to do so.”

Goole has been a part of Hull College since before the turn of the millennium, and according to its website, currently runs courses up to level 3 in areas such as hairdressing, mechanical engineering and welding, and health and social care; as well as ESOL, foundation courses, and higher education courses in teacher education and early years.

Williams said the college was informing staff of the decision this morning and insisted there are “significant redeployment opportunities” to the college’s main site, so he is “hoping but cannot guarantee” that there will not be any redundancies.

The interim chief executive said the college will speak with stakeholders about the decision, including the Conservative Brigg and Goole MP Andrew Percy, who has been approached for comment.

Recently published board minutes for October 2020 for Hull College also suggest it is looking at moving away from its city centre campus. The minutes said: “Governors discussed whether the college should consider a move away from its current city centre site with the interim chief executive explaining that this was not yet a theme that had been explored but he was preparing to engage in those conversations with key stakeholders.”

Hull College Group has run into a number of problems in recent years and received a £42 million bailout from the government in 2018 as part of a Fresh Start process.

Its financial troubles were what led to Harrogate College being transferred to the Leeds-based Luminate Education Group in 2019.

FE Commissioner intervention is ongoing at the college.

Traineeships tender results revealed

Bidders to the government’s traineeships tender are now being informed of their outcomes following a slight delay.

In decision letters sent out yesterday, seen by FE Week, the Education and Skills Funding Agency tells providers that they will be observing a ten-day “voluntary standstill period” from 19 January before entering into the contracts on 1 February 2021.

A total of 215 awards have been made from almost 400 bids, with the total funding standing at £64.4 million.

The funding is being split across the nine regions in England – ranging from £20.8 million for London providers to £2.6 million for the south-west. Forty five providers in London were successful in their bids (see table).

Click to expand

The contracts, which are just for 19 to 24 traineeships, are hoped fund around 20,000 new starts between February and July 2021.

The ESFA had planned to notify bidders of outcomes on 11 January, but previously said the “high volume of tenders received” had “necessitated having to inform you that notifications of award will be delayed slightly”.

The tender is one way the government plans to triple the number of traineeships starts this year – as pledged by chancellor Rishi Sunak over the summer as part of his plan to combat youth unemployment amid the coronavirus pandemic.

Employer cash incentives of £1,000 have also been made available, as has growth funding for providers to deliver 16-to-19 traineeships.

As FE Week revealed last week, Sunak was said to be personally “annoyed” at how long the tender took to get off the ground, considering he announced the plan to triple numbers in July.