Labour will seek amendments to the Skills Bill so that metro mayors have a bigger role in local skills improvement plans, the House of Lords has heard.
The party will also seek to remove proposed new powers for the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, warning that the plans would “undermine the independent status” of Ofqual.
The government’s Skills and Post-16 Education Bill received its second reading in the Lords this afternoon, following the publication of the first draft last month.
Among 53 speakers was Baroness Wilcox (pictured) for the opposition, who outlined the amendments that Labour is proposing.
Local skills improvement plans (LSIPs) led by employer representative groups (ERBs) and new powers for the education secretary to intervene when colleges “fail to meet local need” are central new pieces of legislation in the Skills Bill.
Wilcox said she is “concerned” that the government’s “desire for employers to take the lead in skill reform, lack clear structures, transparency, and will render providers passive recipients of LSIPs”.
“We will seek to amend the bill to empower the metro mayors and combined authorities to co-produce the plans in recognition of the crucial role they have to play,” she added.
“We will also seek to extend LSIP consultation to student representatives, trade unions, local and devolved governments and other relevant agencies.”
It comes after FE Week revealed in April that London mayor Sadiq Khan had slammed the government for cutting mayoral authorities out from leading new LSIP pilots.
Wilcox also said Labour is concerned that the education secretary will have the power to “select or sack ERBs, sign off on all LSIPs, to detect whether colleges are fulfilling these requirements, and to merge or replace colleges without recourse to local circumstances”.
“The first port of call for approving local plans and remedying poor local performance should be local, and not a centralisation of taking back control to Westminster,” she continued.
Wilcox called for the education secretary’s to be “narrowed to apply only in clearly defined exceptional circumstances”.
Another key proposal in the Bill is to give the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, a non-departmental public body directly accountable to ministers, the ultimate sign-off power for the approval and regulation of technical qualifications in future.
The Federation of Awarding Bodies has already warned that this would be a “retrograde step” from the independence of Ofqual and introduce a conflict of interest.
Wilcox said Labour is “concerned that this handing back, day to day of political control of technical qualification regulation would undermine the independent status of Ofqual and risks of cumbersome new dual regulatory approval system”.
“We will seek to amend the bill to ensure that off call remains the sole body,” she added.
The Centres for Excellence in Maths are headed into their fourth year. With just two years of funding left, FE Week looks at how it all adds up
“I’ve been in the sector 20 years, and this is the first big initiative on maths I’ve seen with FE in the title,” says Zia Rahman, head of maths at Newham College in London. His colleague, Liz Hopker, nods. “Prior to this project, there hadn’t really been that much about maths in FE – mastery had been mainly about schools.”
The initiative they’re talking about, the Centres for Excellence in Maths (CfEM), was launched by the Department for Education in 2018. Schools already had ‘maths hubs’, maths mastery was a big topic, and there were even paid trips to Shanghai. But specific initiatives for post-16 maths seemed to have been forgotten.
It was not for a lack of trying over the preceding two decades. Various attempts had been made to shift stubbornly low pass rates in maths GCSE, improve adult numeracy and create more vocationally focused qualifications, explains Andrew Davies. He’s vice chair of the National Association for Numeracy and Mathematics in Colleges, which he says was set up precisely because there was so little cross-sector collaboration on maths in FE.
“There’s been an awful lot of efforts on maths that have been very well meaning,” he begins. “The chief flagship policy in recent years has been the centres, which has given the opportunity to share good practice.”
Prior to that, there was the 1999 Moser report, which sounded the alarm on the state of numeracy among adults. Then there was the 2004 Inquiry into Post-14 Mathematics Education, which warned of huge teacher shortages and issues with the curriculum and CPD. It prompted a well-regarded resource package by the University of Nottingham called Standards Unit – but then again all went quiet.
Then came the “gamechanger” recommendation in the Wolf review in 2011, says Davies. The report warned that less than half of students aged 18 held both maths and English GCSE passes. Worse, only four per cent were achieving them during the 16-18 phase. By 2014, it was a condition of college funding for students without a grade 4 to enrol in maths and English.
But the problems rolled on. Both the Sainsbury review of technical education in 2016 and the Industrial Strategy in 2017 warned of the need to improve maths study. A review of post-16 maths by professor Sir Adrian Smith said the country must “recognise more explicitly…the fundamental importance of further education”.
Various initiatives followed, including Maths for Life, which espouses “dialogic teaching” (encouraging students to discuss). At the same time a level 3 “core maths” qualification arrived in 2014, GCSE maths was reformed in 2015, and functional skills maths was also reformed in 2019.
Despite all these efforts, data shows less than a quarter of students who arrive without a GCSE grade 4 in maths aged 16 will have achieved this two years later.
So three years ago the government announced £40 million to be shared between 21 colleges, which would act as Centres for Excellence in Maths, working with up to ten partner colleges. The Education and Training Foundation and the University of Nottingham got a slice of the funding to support the project.
It wasn’t entirely without controversy – as FE Week pointed out at the time, six of the 21 centres actually had below average GCSE resit pass rates.FE Week analysis can also reveal the latest Ofsted reports for seven centres actually highlight concerns around maths attainment. Meanwhile, the colleges with the very best GCSE maths pass rates, such as Dudley College, had not become centres at all.
Perhaps this explains why the CfEM focus is on research. While the equivalent Centres for Excellence in SEND (also overseen by the ETF) disseminate their proven good practice, the maths centres were handed a fact-finding mission.
This is two-fold: first, ‘action research projects’ led by staff, and second, national trials on mastery led by Nottingham University. Findings from the latter have been stalled by Covid, and will now come out at the project’s finish in 2023.
These are centres for excellence, not of excellence. No one would claim to have all the answers
“It evolved into being research focused,” explains Steve Pardoe, head of the CfEMs at the ETF. “These are centres for excellence, not of excellence. No one would claim to have all the answers. The action research, for instance, has been hugely popular.”
The colleges agree. Running their own research has allowed staff to address one of the first problems facing the sector, explains Hopker ̶ the lack of academic evidence in an FE setting. “We did literature reviews, which did show there was very little on maths in FE,” she says. “Just since doing the action research, there’s now already so much more available.”
The centres pitch the projects to the ETF who help refine research questions and methods. Colleges must investigate four areas: motivation and engagement of learners, use of mastery, use of data and technology, and use of contextualisation (in which maths is placed in an applied context). In 2018/19, up to £170,000 was available per centre, and this year, it was up to £210,000.
The maths mastery handbook developed with the ETF, Centres and Pearson
At Fareham College in Hampshire, staff decided to research motivation by training learning support assistants to become one-to-one maths coaches, providing an extra hour of learning a week. “We did a lot of work around growth mindsets,” says Rosie Sharp, centre lead. “It’s about recognising that the students have already done the GCSE once and failed, so more of the same isn’t going to work.”
A major issue facing the centre project is that hard attainment data over the past two years has been impossible to get, owing to cancelled exams.
So Sharp’s team surveyed the students using questionnaires. Before coaching, 32 per cent reported feeling positive about maths; afterwards, 65 per cent did, she says. Meanwhile attendance at maths lessons has gone from 76 per cent to 82 per cent. The centre has now trained 11 coaches across it six ‘partner’ colleges.
Motivation and ‘contextualisation’ was the focus at City College Plymouth. The college decided to interpret the idea of a “centre” literally, using funding to create a more inspiring physical space kitted out with re-purposed tablets, says Nadia McCusker, centre lead.
Meanwhile other lessons were held in unusual locations, including orienteering sessions in woodland, or using ratios to mix dyes in hair and beauty workshops. “By taking them out of the traditional environment, we were able to engage them with maths more than usual.”
GCSE resit passes rose 20 percentage points in the latest November exam series, to 58 per cent, she adds.
Some of these changes have been inspired by “maths mastery”, which is explained in an FE-specific handbook compiled by the ETF and Pearson. Geoffrey Wake, professor at the University of Nottingham, and director of the centre trials, explains. “Slow down, first of all. It’s about working out where the student’s understanding is, and building it up, block by block, from there. It’s giving students the time to think through the concepts. Not rushing through the curriculum.”
This is key for FE maths teachers, who can feel they must squeeze a two-year GCSE course into about 30 weeks, he says. “We’re saying, do the fundamentals.”
Debra Jory, maths manager at City College Plymouth, says the centre team changed its maths scheme of work to reflect this. “Instead of teaching all the GCSE again, we went back to the basics. That’s also been motivational for students.”
At Leicester College, ‘network’ meetings between centres and their partner colleges have allowed such approaches to spread, says Michelle Bilby, centre lead. Students now use HegartyMaths, an online resource, to learn the basics themselves. This has also allowed the college to halve class sizes, which has improved learning in more complex topics, she adds.
Meanwhile at Leeds City College, the college used centre funding to buy £1,000 annual licences for maths software for its college partners after trialling the software itself. It focuses, mastery-style, on teaching maths in “personalised building blocks”, says Jonny Diamond, head of English and maths.
Another approach to maths mastery “with an FE lens”, spearheaded by Emma Bell, centre lead at the Grimsby Institute, has even been shortlisted for a national award.
Emma Bell presenting to staff from other colleges about the Centre
But with full attainment data lacking, for now the biggest claim to success is probably the CPD opportunities.
“Anything that can allow teachers to collaborate and improve in this area is very welcome,” says Julia Smith, a spokesperson for the Mathematical Association. “It can be a very tricky arena to work in. This has raised the profile of post-16 mathematics.” Diamond puts it more succinctly. “When maths teachers from Leeds are emailing maths teachers from Shipley, that’s great. They’re happier when they work.”
But big issues remain, which the centres – currently working across 172 colleges – do not directly address. Teacher shortages is one, but several staff warn that the numeracy crisis among adult learners is being overlooked. Others say that similar Centres for Excellence are badly needed in English and digital skills.
However, the most unanimous call from staff and experts is for a closer look at the GCSE itself, and whether it is the right qualification for FE. The government has remained quiet, but Alison Wolf, author of the 2011 review, has stated she doesn’t think it should be “compulsory” to do GCSE English and maths. She is looking at alternative curriculums for 16-19 learners, she says.
The CfEMs are a start, building up a much-needed catalogue of ideas. Professor Wake reflects: “It’s a project, funded for five years. But we know that embedding what we’ve learned into the fabric of FE can be really difficult. So, what’s the legacy?”
Government plans to remove funding for the majority of BTECs will hit the most disadvantaged young students the hardest, numerous sector-representative groups have warned.
In a joint statement published today for a campaign called #ProtectStudentChoice, 11 organisations urge ministers to rethink plans outlined in the level 3 qualifications review.
They express concern that removing funding for BTEC qualifications “will leave many students without a viable pathway at the age of 16 and will hamper progress to higher education or skilled employment”.
Exams regulator Ofqual raised similar fears in January after a consultation on the review closed, warning that learner choice would be adversely narrowed and that the move would destabilise the qualifications market.
The Department for Education’s own impact assessment concludes that students from disadvantaged backgrounds have the most to lose if applied general qualifications are defunded, as it is these students who typically choose to take the courses.
Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, described the plans as a “hugely unnecessary risk which will hit disadvantaged youngsters hardest”.
School, college and university groups are now encouraging their members to write to their MPs to make the case to ministers to protect BTECs.
The Department for Education is expected to publish the final outcome of the review before the end of the summer term.
Under proposed plans, the department would introduce a binary system of T levels and A-levels, where most young people pursue one of these qualifications at the age of 16.
It will involve stripping down what the DfE claims to be a “confusing landscape” of over 12,000 courses on offer to young people at level 3 and below, removing funding for those that compete with T Levels and A-levels by autumn 2023.
Ministers claim there are multiple qualifications in the same subject areas available – many of which are “poor quality and offer little value to students or employers”.
The review includes applied generals, tech levels and technical certificates. While these cover a wide range of courses, BTECs, awarded by Pearson, are the most popular.
In their joint statement, the 11 organisations warn that for “many” young people, applied generals will be a “more appropriate route to support progression to higher levels of study or a meaningful job, than an A level or T level-only study programme”.
Defunding them would “leave many students without a viable pathway at the age of 16 and will hamper progress to higher education or skilled employment”.
The organisations also say the present implementation timeline is “not feasible, particularly given the unfolding impact of the Covid pandemic”.
They add that funding should not be removed for any applied general qualification unless an “impartial, evidence-based assessment has concluded that it is not valued by students or employers”.
‘It is a hugely unnecessary risk’
Bill Watkin, chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association said: “The government’s plan to sweep away the majority of applied general qualifications like BTECs will make it harder for many young people to access higher education and harder for many employers to access the skills they need. Ministers must protect student choice and guarantee that applied general qualifications have a major role to play in the future.”
Barton added: “Scrapping applied generals will pull the rug from under the feet of the 200,000 young people who benefit each year from taking these proven and established qualifications which provide a great pathway to university courses, training and careers.
“It is a hugely unnecessary risk which will hit disadvantaged youngsters hardest.”
A DfE spokesperson said: “Our reforms to technical education are more crucial now as we recover from the pandemic. For too long we have allowed too many young people to leave education without the skills employers need – it’s critical we act now to address these skills shortages.
“We are putting employers at the heart of the skills system and boosting the quality of qualifications on offer so that all students, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, can be confident that whatever option they take post-16 it will be high quality and will lead to good outcomes.
“We have always been clear we want to phase these reforms in so that they are manageable.”
The 11 organisations that have issued today’s joint statement are:
Association of School and College Leaders
Collab Group
Grammar School Heads Association
NASUWT: The Teachers Union
National Education Union
NEON: The National Education Opportunities Network
University and College Union members at 11 colleges across England are voting on industrial action from today.
Ten of the ballots follow college bosses’ “refusal to make a decent pay off to staff”, while a separate one has opened at a group that is planning to make 30 staff redundant while investing in a controversial “teacherless” tech venture, as revealed by FE Week on Friday.
If the UCU members vote to strike, the action will be planned for the autumn term. The ballots close on July 14.
The union says bosses at the 10 colleges voting over pay have refused to provide a good salary increase despite the government announcing a £400 million increase in FE funding in late 2019.
They warn that the pay gap between college and school teachers currently stands at £9,000 as staff working in further education have suffered real terms pay cuts of over 30 per cent in the past decade.
UCU is demanding a pay increase of greater than 5 per cent at the 10 colleges.
In December, the Association of Colleges recommended colleges give their staff a 1 per cent pay rise because of the unforeseen and “severe financial pressure” colleges are now facing owing to the Covid-19 pandemic that has “forced many into deficit”.
Commenting on the strike ballots, UCU general secretary Jo Grady said: “Employers have millions more in the bank after government investment, so staff should not have to threaten to strike to be paid fairly. Colleges across England need to urgently offer staff a decent pay increase to avoid disruption.
“We are supporting members to vote ‘YES’ in a ballot to take strike action in the autumn. Strong, properly funded further education is central to creating a fairer society, and is more important than ever as we come out of the recent pandemic.”
The separate ballot is being held at Capital City College Group over pay, working conditions, and compulsory redundancies.
As this newspaper revealed last week, the college is planning to make over 30 staff redundant while investing millions into a new coding school which involves a “sink or swim” admissions model and no teachers.
Two governors resigned at the group as a result of the venture.
Number 10 is seeking a “deputy director for education, jobs and skills” to work in a new unit set up to drive policy implementation.
According to a job advert, the new £71,000 to £117,800-a-year role will be based in the Number 10 Delivery Unit, a new team within the Cabinet Office that “should grow to around 40 staff” over time.
The vacancy is likely to exacerbate concerns that education policy is increasingly run not from the Department for Education, but from the prime minister’s office itself. Although it is normal for Downing Street to have advisers on education policy, the new role is for a senior civil servant.
Sir Michael Barber
The delivery unit, set up based on the recommendations of former Tony Blair adviser Sir Michael Barber, will “support capacity building in government departments”, and take “a clear leadership role in how we can collectively achieve successful delivery of the government’s ambitious agenda for the people of this country”.
The unit will also act as “guardian of the centre’s delivery priorities and the associated tools and techniques for getting things done”.
New official to ‘focus departments’ on delivery
The new deputy director, who will be appointed on a two-year contract, will lead an education, jobs and skills team and “focus departments and delivery partners on the successful delivery of critical outcomes in that area”.
The new role will involve using the prime minister’s “backing” to “intervene effectively where delivery is slowing to get projects back on track”.
The appointed official will also work with the head of the delivery unit to “communicate their team’s mission and purpose across government”, and build “robust networks at the most senior levels in departments to both monitor and support delivery, as well as strengthening the focus on delivery at the centre of government”.
It will also be their responsibility to work with data experts “both in departments and in Number 10”, to develop a “world-class system for collecting information on, and visualising progress in the delivery of the education, jobs and skills mission”.
Deputy director will ‘track progress’ on departmental outcomes
This will involve linking the work of the delivery unit to “wider systems and processes (in Cabinet Office and HM Treasury) for tracking progress on the government’s priorities and departmental outcomes”.
They will also work “closely” with the director of the levelling up mission to “oversee the contribution of education, jobs and skills to the delivery of levelling up”.
According to the advert, the delivery unit is looking for someone with “the personal presence, effectiveness and credibility to operate at a very senior level across government and beyond”, with a “proven track record” of working with “senior stakeholders” such as ministers and chief executives.
The successful candidate will also have expertise “relating to the education, jobs and skills mission”, for example, in “education or skills policy or education bodies”. Experience working in a devolved setting, like a local authority or mayoral office, is “desirable but not essential”.
Candidates will be assessed on their ability to see “the big picture”, to change and improve, their leadership, communication and influencing capabilities and their ability to deliver “at pace”.
The closing date for applications is June 27.
PM complained of ‘sluggish’ response to Covid
Boris Johnson
The new delivery unit, which will be run by England’s vaccine deployment lead Dr Emily Lawson, will replace the Downing Street implementation unit set up by David Cameron. It will be similar to a unit run by Barber during the Blair years.
Boris Johnson warned in a speech last year of a need to fix problems “brutally illuminated” by Covid, including the “parts of government that seemed to respond so sluggishly so that sometimes it seemed like that recurring bad dream when you are telling your feet to run and your feet won’t move”.
According to Civil Service World, Johnson’s official spokesperson said earlier this year that the unit would not affect policymaking at department level, but was “about making sure that the prime minister’s priorities are being delivered”.
But i News reported that Johnson risked accusations of trying to “override” the civil service.
The government is effectively nationalising technical education through the Institute for Apprenticeships, writes Tom Bewick
Leviathan was a mythical sea monster in the Book of Job. In the modern context, it refers to an enormous superstructure that sucks the life out of innovation, investment and entrepreneurial endeavour.
Monopolies – like those in the state or private sectors – are examples of how good intentions easily end up short-changing the public. Just think of the ongoing battle over the railways.
Enter, then, the post-16 Skills Bill. Don’t get me wrong: there’s a lot to welcome in the draft legislation. The individual lifelong learning entitlement is genuinely a step forward in eventually cementing a statutory right to adult education and retraining.
From a social policy point of view, it’s up there with the 1946 NHS Act, which established the idea of universal healthcare free at the point of need.
Notwithstanding the complex funding and qualifications rules governing the lifetime skills guarantee, it doesn’t take a genius to see how this concept can be built on in future.
But one major difference is that this is no longer the 1940s. People are sceptical of paternalistic institutions that are bossy and want to tell them what to do.
In many ways, that is the biggest flaw in the proposed legislation. Without offering any real evidence of how outcomes will be better, a Conservative government has set upon a course to nationalise technical education.
A Conservative government has set upon a course to nationalise technical education
The 18th-century philosopher Edmund Burke made the point that societies were best served by an approach to human affairs that “puts its trust in experience and in the gradual improvement of tried and tested arrangements”. Where, in this bill, is the trust in FE?
The draft legislation does not attempt to build on tried and tested qualifications.
Instead, it assumes the right of the secretary of state to effectively nationalise the technical education system via the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education.
The current regulator, Ofqual, has been sidelined in the process. One long-term reading of the legislation is that it sets the scene for Ofqual to be eventually abolished. After all, some might argue, what is the point of a statutory regulator if it has oversight over a diminishing part of the qualifications landscape?
As we’ve already seen with the development of T Levels, the government has assumed intellectual ownership and control of these qualifications. The legislation gives the Institute the right to run a state monopoly in qualifications, alongside its accreditation role of other quals that it doesn’t own.
Awarding organisations work under licence (commercial contracts) to deliver the content and curriculum expertise. This Bill paves the way for the Institute to extend this operating model to other forms of technical qualifications in future.
When combined with the rationalisation agenda of the below level 3 vocational qualifications review, it is apparent for all to see just how significant a re-making of the VTQ landscape this could turn out to be.
The Institute will have the power to put in place moratoriums to prevent the development of new qualifications, as well as the power to lift them.
It will also be able to designate technical courses that are not necessarily qualifications regulated by Ofqual or developed by awarding organisations.
In practice, this could mean a local college or FE provider could apply to the Institute to have its courses accredited, therefore bypassing the need to use qualifications offered by regulated awarding bodies.
The other significant powers the Institute will be assuming is the ability to charge fees for regulation. There will need to be safeguards built in during the passage of the Bill. We’ve already seen how EQA charges have added an “invoice chasing” culture to the apprenticeship programme.
With post-pandemic public expenditure under severe pressure, the Bill could be used as a funding ratchet, enabling the DfE to push even more of the costs of regulation onto the FE sector.
That’s why accepting Leviathan is never a good idea.
Councils have had to respond to the collapse of some of their region’s biggest employers, writes Richard Leese
As the vaccine is rolled out and the economy opens up, local government is turning its attention to planning and supporting recovery.
With the powers to work in partnership with national government and others, councils can help well-intended but often disconnected national schemes keep people in work and businesses recruiting.
This is why, working with the Learning and Work Institute and grant management services company Rocket Science, we have produced a dedicated Local Skills and Employment Recovery Hub.
It includes a number of resources to help councils understand and develop their thinking around employment and skills programmes as we emerge from the pandemic.
The hub also pulls together best practice as well as helpful jobs and skills recovery guides for those, including colleges, looking to tackle skills and employment issues in their local communities.
Although each council approached their response in different ways, some common themes emerged about their experiences and situations. One common thread was local leadership and partnership.
Whether they were focused on shifting their service to online, working directly with businesses to mitigate impact, or developing a coherent council-wide response, there have been some big shifts in their employment and skills offer.
The hub pulls together best practice and jobs and skills recovery guides
For example in Devon, the county council had to respond rapidly to the collapse of one of the region’s biggest employers, Flybe. They set up a redundancy support team, aimed at being the “joining glue” for local support.
This included linking recently redundant workers to training support, through both the adult education budget and a £750,000 fund to provide training focused on transition-to-growth sectors.
In other examples, Halton Borough Council in the north-west of England, and the London Borough of Hounslow found a significant increase in vacancies in the healthcare sector.
They have formed strong partnerships to help move people from other forms of local employment, notably in manufacturing and at Heathrow Airport, into temporary work in these sectors.
Meanwhile in Shropshire, the council faced issues common to many rural authorities, where sectors have been impacted by the effects of Brexit on the agricultural sector. By working with local employers, they have encouraged more businesses to relocate to the area as they move out of bigger cities.
This close working with local businesses on the ground is mirrored in many councils, including in Essex, where the council supported local businesses to adapt as they reopened again after periods of lockdown.
A key first step is to map existing support. The complexity of employment and skills policy means there will often be disjoints or areas where better join-up would deliver better results.
Given all delivery is ultimately local, this can only be done locally, and here councils play a key role.
There will always be issues where the evidence on what works is more limited, or where there are gaps in support. So, another step is identifying these gaps in evidence and support, and thinking about how best to fill them.
Perhaps the biggest message from these case studies is the role local government can play in making sure local growth, development and regeneration delivers good job and skills opportunities.
Of course, this is more important than ever as we seek to recover from the pandemic. With the end of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, there could be an increase in the number of people in our communities facing unemployment or seeking to retrain.
Those predominantly affected will be between 16 and 25 years old, as well as older people who have fared less well when trying to re-enter the labour market after previous recessions.
Councils are uniquely placed in their communities to convene with local and national partners, including colleges, to address these challenges.
Being a digital native for employers is very different to how young people use their devices daily, writes Bev Jones
Generation Z is regarded as digitally enabled. They are the generation that has grown up with technology being an inherent part of their lives – in the way they communicate, socialise and access entertainment.
So why then are so many employers struggling to find young people who are equipped with adequate levels of digital literacy?
Through our partnership work with employers, we know that young people leaving school and college are not the digital natives we assume them to be. Yes, they have their phone attached to them all day, and many are gaming experts – but this is quite different from having the digital skills needed for employment.
These “skills” encompass a wide range of competencies, many of which are assumed to be innate. But they are not.
For example, communicating online is more complex than young people may think. Using the right tone and language is a skill that may not come naturally and has to be adapted to specific situations.
Sending formal emails is a key business skill, which students need to be taught as it is such a different form of communication when compared to everyday interactions with friends.
And the same is true when it comes to taking part in business video conferences ̶ these are dramatically different from FaceTime calls with peers. Colleges must start with these basics, as they are crucial building blocks to sound digital capability.
Beyond the skillset for communicating efficiently online, we also need to ensure young people can keep themselves, their data and other people’s data safe. Cybersecurity is a huge industry, catalysed by the growth in online activity. Young people moving into employment must understand the importance of cyber safety, including their own wellbeing when operating in a digital world.
Communicating online is more complex than young people may think
Technology is playing a huge part in recruitment and career development, which students also need to understand and use to their advantage. Yet they can only do this with the right training and support ahead of their journey into employment.
Being able to use a variety of software, apps, video-conferencing technologies, and having the confidence to undergo interview and assessment centres online, are all real-life, essential skills that must be acquired. They are for the benefit of both the employer and the young person.
FE colleges must play a leading role in ensuring young people have these skills, across the many vocational subjects they offer.
An example of this within the construction industry can be seen at City of Glasgow College.
Construction is changing rapidly, with digital technology moving to the forefront as modern methods of construction replace more traditional ones.
Digital design is now a requirement of government construction procurement processes. Yet this is not sufficiently reflected in current education policy, where there is a real disconnect between the skills young people need for work and the skills actually being taught.
So building and civil engineering company Sir Robert McAlpine took its own action, working with us to establish a Career College at the City of Glasgow College.
As part of this initiative, an employer skills board has been launched, with representatives from major construction employers such as Balfour Beatty, Morrison Construction and Cidon.
Board members have discussed and agreed the skills, knowledge and behaviours that employers need their young recruits to be equipped with upon leaving college. The City of Glasgow College is now using this insight to re-design study programmes and develop digital skills CPD programmes for staff.
The CPD aspect is crucial. Many FE tutors are sector-specialists but are not always given the time or opportunity to keep up to date with fast-moving industry developments. Now they are being supported to understand how technology is impacting the construction sector.
As a result, tutors can demonstrate to students the real-life connection between digital skills and employment, contextualising the lessons being taught.
The Skills for Jobs white paper sets out the need for employers and educators to work more closely and the huge role that digital technology will play. We must not assume students are digital natives but roll up our sleeves and upskill them now.
Plans to hand the government’s apprenticeships quango new powers over technical qualifications are a “retrograde step” and introduce a conflict of interest, awarding bodies have warned.
The Federation of Awarding Bodies has sought legal advice over the Skills Bill ahead of its second reading in the House of Lords tomorrow.
A key proposal in the Bill is to give the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education the ultimate sign-off power for the approval and regulation of technical qualifications in future.
In a position statement, seen by FE Week, the FAB says that while this may look like an “obvious extension” of remit, it “actually sets the scene for a muddled and cumbersome two-tier system of qualifications regulation emerging”.
The federation is concerned the move would reverse the “gains” of independent regulation that parliament intended in 2009 when it set up Ofqual.
Unlike Ofqual, the institute is a non-departmental public body directly accountable to ministers, not parliament.
FAB explains that Ofqual was created following a period of “significant scandals and instability” in the regulation of qualifications which resulted in the then Qualifications and Curriculum Authority being abolished.
It warns that the government is in danger of repeating the “mistakes of history by handing back day-to-day political control of technical qualification regulation directly to ministers via the institute”.
“We believe this to be a retrograde step as it will not secure strong public confidence in these important qualifications in future,” the statement says.
It goes on to claim that this part of the Skills Bill, in its current form, fails to meet “five Cs”: competence, coherence, competition, complexity and cost.
One of the biggest concerns for FAB is that the legislation would introduce a “material conflict of interest”, since the institute will be both a state awarding/accreditation body for technical qualifications (e.g. T Levels) as well as a regulator deciding which technical qualifications can be granted regulatory approval for public funding purposes.
“In an unprecedented move, this turns the institute into both a market participant in qualifications (by developing, accrediting and certificating its own technical qualifications) and a market regulator of technical qualifications, deciding which qualifications that they do not own can operate in the marketplace in future,” the briefing note said.
“We don’t have a problem with the institute being either a market participant or a market regulator, but we do not believe it is in the national interest to allow it to operate with both these functions in hand.”
Writing for FE Week, FAB chief executive Tom Bewick said the new power proposed for the institute “is the biggest flaw in the proposed legislation”.
“Without offering any real evidence of how outcomes will be better, a Conservative government has set upon a course to nationalise technical education.”
In response to the concerns, a DfE spokesperson said: “Now more than ever, the role of employers in the skills system is critical to our economic recovery and growth.
“The Bill will give the institute responsibility for ensuring that employers’ views are at the heart of the system, whilst Ofqual will continue to regulate and maintain education standards. We believe that both organisations (working together with awarding organisations) have a vital role to play to ensure the quality of technical qualifications.”
The Skills Bill does admit that by extending the institute’s approval powers, the “risks of duplication and inconsistency” in the qualifications market “are increased”.
To combat this, the institute will be required to cooperate with Ofqual to create a “single approval gateway” for technical qualifications.
