Latest news from FE Week

Keeping BTECs will allow T Levels to work

Preserving funding for applied general qualifications is the best way to ensure T Levels succeed, says Ian Pryce

Can you remember that dress that went viral in 2015, generating more than 10 million tweets? There were furious rows about whether it was black and blue, or white and gold, yet everyone was looking at the same frock.

We thought there were two dresses, but closer inspection revealed they were identical.

There probably haven’t been 10 million tweets on the proposed culling of BTECs in favour of T Levels but, once the concept of T Levels as a mass-market qualification met the bruising reality of parental expectation and employers’ capacity, there have been compromises.

Too much compromise would undermine the idea of the T Level and end with them looking surprisingly similar to a BTEC. That was never the plan, but, as Mike Tyson famously said, “everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth”.

The compromise started in earnest in the past few weeks, with three separate statements.

First, despite the Treasury announcing funding for 100,000 T Level students by 2024, up from an estimated 1,300 last year, we were told on November 4 there was no target for T Level recruitment.

Second, at the same time our new education secretary explained there was never an intention to stop funding BTECs, and indeed high-quality BTECs will continue.

This is at odds with the Department for Education consultation response last August that expected applied generals to become “rare”.

Third, a “temporary” change was announced by the Education and Skills Funding Agency to allow up to 40 per cent of T Level work placement to be done remotely.

Then finally at the start of this week Nadhim Zahawi announced the removal of BTECs would be delayed by a year, and the exit requirements for English and maths, requiring students to achieve level 2 in those subjects, would be watered down.

The reassurance from the education secretary on preserving funding for applied general qualifications is welcome. He rightly recognises it is the best way to delivering a fabulous new addition to our curriculum.

Meanwhile, the government should also be applauded for recognising the traditional post-16 curriculum had a major gap. There was no true, industry-specific, technical education programme.

T Levels were developed thoughtfully and effectively, with upfront investment in facilities and staff training.

They are genuinely world-class qualifications, designed for elite students who have a strong notion about their future career.

But they are designed for that minority.

They are not designed for a mass-market. It seems unlikely T levels will become highly valued if their sole comparator is A-levels.

T Levels are designed for a minority, not for the mass-market

In contrast, BTECs and equivalents are designed as mass-market options. Like A-levels you can as easily offer a very wide range of subjects in rural Cumbria as you can in urban Manchester.

They can be studied in colleges or schools. Crucially they do not require a deep commitment to an occupation, which is helpful when few 16-year-olds know their ambitions in any precise way.

We also have a practical barrier, if we are hellbent on switching 200,000 students to a T Level.

The idea that our current employer landscape could support quality work placements for so many is silly.

Employers in specific sectors are not evenly spread across the country. You need to be of good size to offer most placements, yet in the UK there are fewer than 8,000 companies that employ more than 250 staff.

The danger is that if the government culls BTECs, it will actually damage T Levels, because we will see further compromise on content, quality and design.

Parents will not allow their children to be forced to choose a narrow specialism with no effective exit.

Let’s not throw away the promise of the T Level by trying to make them all things to all students.

Otherwise, just like the blue/gold dress, they could end up looking very much like BTECs do now.

More Ofsted scrutiny is needed – but it must result in more funding

More inspections will reveal a system close to collapse, so ministers had better get the chequebook ready, writes Ed Reza Schwitzer

The reaction was swift and predictable. From the moment it was announced that Ofsted will inspect every college, school and further education provider at least once by 2025, there were howls of protest.

It is not hard to see why. Critics are right that Ofsted inspections and the wider accountability system cause stress and anxiety for teachers and leaders. And they are also right that many teachers and leaders are struggling from non-stop work over the past 18 months.

Amanda Spielman recognised as much, telling the Association of Colleges conference this week it had been a “very turbulent year in education, and a difficult time for colleges”.

I cannot emphasise enough how much respect I have for teachers and leaders – and I completely believe the unions when they say many of them are close to total burnout.

But accountability exists for a reason – to ensure students are both safe and receiving a high-quality education. And it is exactly at a time when staff are most stretched that students are at the greatest risk.

We still do not fully know the impact of Covid-19 on students, and particularly the most vulnerable.

Students are at the greatest risk exactly when staff are most stretched

And while the vast majority of colleges and schools delivered heroics for them (moving education online, safeguarding vulnerable students on site, and often delivering vital supplies to students’ homes) this was not the case universally.

We know from focus groups that there are a small minority of colleges and schools where online teaching was essentially not happening, or was of insufficient quality. No one was inspecting them.

This isn’t about blame, but we cannot have a situation where, unnoticed by anyone, a small minority of colleges and schools has failed to adapt to the challenges of the pandemic. This would be to fail thousands upon thousands of students.

And, of course, the awful truth is that even the colleges and schools who pulled out all the stops during the pandemic may also be struggling from burnout, having given their all.

What we knew about their safeguarding, leadership and quality of education has gone out of the window during the pandemic.

And we all know that drops in these standards are likely to affect vulnerable students worst.

Which returns us to the original point and the role of Ofsted.

Having someone check up on you after most likely the worst, most traumatic experience in your professional career will always be seen as heartless and unhelpful – but in reality it is the time when this check and balance is most needed.

If we accept this argument, it is still important to deal with the legitimate criticism of the effect on staff wellbeing.

I would argue that much of the narrative around catch-up to date has been unrealistic. Money for tutoring or a longer day is helpful, but the more fundamental, human point is that teachers and leaders need time off to recharge.

They need support to help them cope, and need training to help them manage the transition to a new way of teaching. And this all requires funding.

I have heard many people say that anxious, unhappy students can’t learn, and I agree. But anxious, unhappy staff are a problem too.

Anxious, unhappy staff are a problem

So I say, keep the Ofsted inspections. It’s right to scrutinise education at this moment in time.

But if Ofsted confirms the many challenges schools and their staff face, as I suspect will be the case, then let’s use that to reinforce arguments for why proper catch-up funding is needed.

Amanda Spielman said this week that her plan “lets the government know how Covid recovery is going”.

So let us say to government: “You asked Ofsted to uncover issues – and they no doubt will.

“When this happens, be ready with your chequebook. It’s going to be expensive to truly fix a system that is close to collapse.”

Diary: Behind the scenes at the AoC conference

Diversity and climate change were the big topics of the event in Birmingham, writes Philippa Alway

After two years of Zoom meetings, being able to come together in person for Association of College’s annual conference was pretty special. In the time apart, colleges have shown the vital role they play in their communities and truly stepped up during the pandemic.

From the last two days, it is clear the importance of colleges has been recognised.

Politically, colleges and the further education sector are in a really strong place. The enthusiasm for colleges and the role they will continue to play as we rebuild as a country shone through every keynote speech and breakout session.

Politically, colleges are in a really strong place

Having the new education secretary, Nadhim Zahawi, address conference and make some positive announcements before and during his speech was a clear sign that he and his ministers are listening and reacting positively to us. His speech went down well, and I believe in his intention to work and collaborate with us on the big issues.

The announcement to delay the defunding of BTECs and other technical qualifications and to remove the English and maths GCSE exit requirement for T Levels is a sign the education secretary is taking an evidence-led view.

Disadvantaged students stood to lose the most from a rushed qualification reform timeline, so this delay and these changes are welcome.

Equally, his commitment to widening the eligibility for free level 3 courses to those earning less than the national living wage will help adults who will benefit most from the government’s skills for jobs plans to access the opportunities.

There is always more campaigning to do. As the skills bill progresses through parliament we will continue to make the case for amendments that increase access to education and skills for the most marginalised communities.

This must include empowering colleges to play an ever-stronger role in skills planning as strategic partners with their local employers and stakeholders.

That’s why it was so welcome to hear the shadow secretary of state, Kate Green, in her speech on the first day, commit to retaining the amendments made in the House of Lords, along with Labour’s support for further strengthening these and other areas.

Our president, Sally Dicketts, spoke passionately about systems leadership and much of her speech chimed with the themes in the Independent Commission on the College of the Future’s final report.

The conference showed this in action as well as words, with breakout sessions focused on equality, diversity and inclusion, mental health, climate change and sustainability.

There was also a conference address from Jonathan Dewsbury, the Department for Education’s lead on sustainability and climate change. It was great to join him in a breakout session to present the AoC’s Green College commitment. The commitment to action is clear – both from DfE and from the sector.

We heard just a taste of how colleges are leading the change needed from Yvonne Kelly at Barking & Dagenham College, and William Baldwin at Brighton, Hove & Sussex Sixth Form College.

The discussion with delegates focused on the tangible next steps they can take, and the Climate Action Roadmap for FE Colleges, which FE climate commissioner, Steve Frampton, called the go-to resource.

Another key – and related – theme from conference was equality, diversity and inclusion. The AoC governance team published a bold and honest report on the first day, highlighting the lack of diversity of many college boards.

There is a clear need to do better at representing people from minority backgrounds at the highest levels of further education, and I hope this report and the call to action from conference speaker and footballer Eniola Aluko means that the college board delegates at the next conference will become more and more diverse.

As we leave conference for another year, I’m glad I made it out in one piece after Tuesday night’s celebrations.

I’m really grateful to work in a sector that is front and centre of the change that has to happen to create a fairer, happier and more sustainable future.

You can listen to The FE Week Conference Podcast Special episode here.

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 370

Helen Molton, Vice principal for higher technical skills and academic studies, The Sheffield College

Start date: September 2021

Previous role: Assistant principal for higher education, Bishop Burton College

Interesting fact: She has been a keen netballer since being at school.

Suzanne Thurlow, Senior recruitment consultant, FEA

Start date: November 2021

Previous job: Vice principal, organisational development and learner services, Cheshire College South & West

Interesting fact: While raising two children, her family ran a smallholding with a varied collection of animals as pets, including breeding emus and piglets.

Jonathan Slater, Senior advisor, The Public Service Consultants

Start date: November 2021

Previous job: Permanent secretary, Department for Education

Interesting fact: He was runner up in the second division of the York and District Table Tennis Association Cup in 1982.

Lee Barrett, Head of personal and social development, Leicester College

Start date: September 2021

Previous job: Director of quality, teaching, learning and assessment, Coventry College

Interesting fact: He can play Grade 8 piano and had an early “midlife crisis” in his mid-20s, so he travelled the world for nearly two years.

Ignored: 80% of colleges fail on legal requirement to inform the visually impaired on accessibility

Eight in ten of the UK’s colleges and post-16 academies are failing to meet a legal requirement to provide information on how visually impaired or blind students can access learning, new research has found.

The report, Technology and accessibility in further education, also revealed that half of general further education colleges failed a ‘mystery shopping’ exercise where researchers requested this information.

One student with an impairment surveyed for the report said it “sometimes feels like I just get
ignored” by colleges, which “kind of makes me question my future”.

Researchers also found over 90 per cent of 23 specialist colleges audited have not met a legal requirement for a statement on accessibility on their websites.

Colleges’ compliance with accessibility rules worse than universities

Under The Public Sector Bodies (Websites and Mobile Applications) (No.2) Accessibility Regulations 2018, FE colleges are legally obliged to develop accessible websites, learning, teaching and assessment materials.

This can include giving users the option to change font size, for there to be sufficient contrast in the colours used, and for websites to sufficiently describe what is on a webpage so software that reads it out can properly explain to a visually impaired user what the page is showing.

Analysis of the websites of over 400 UK post-16 providers, including colleges, sixth forms
and 16-19 academies revealed only 13.36 per cent were compliant with the regulations – the lowest of all public sectors.

Forty-nine per cent of universities were compliant, while the most compliant was the police, with over 60 per cent.

“After three years of the regulations being in effect, for colleges to be significantly behind to this extent is symptomatic of a sector that is unable to react,” reads the report, carried out by
accessibility consulting company All Able.

Eight out of ten colleges do not provide useful or legally-required information

As part of the 2018 regulations, public bodies must produce accessibility statements, which helps disabled people navigate accessibility issues and signposts support.

The providers’ websites were analysed for their statements, and it was found 127 (29.7 per cent) had no statements publicly available, while 195 (45.6 per cent) provided poor advice in All Able’s view, and 34 (7.9 per cent) had statements that did not meet the regulations.

This means eight out of ten colleges do not provide information that is useful or meets legal requirements, according to the report.

Separate to this research, All Able analysed the websites of 23 UK specialist colleges that provide to young people with learning difficulties and disabilities and found 21 had no statement or a ‘poor attempt’ at one on their websites.

Researchers also contacted a sample of colleges via email or a web form as a blind
person looking to enrol who wanted to get in touch with the disabled student support service and find out about the accessibility of the college’s digital platforms.

Almost half of the colleges did not respond, and where colleges did respond, one-third could not say which virtual learning environment they used, which tells the student what technology they will need to access it.

Just three per cent gave legally required information on the accessibility of the learning environment or directed the person getting in touch to whether systems will be compatible with assistive technology.

Specialist provision system ‘under significant pressure’

The trust’s head of education, Tara Chattaway, criticised colleges for a “prevailing culture where student support departments are viewed as the only teams that have a responsibility to consider the needs of people with disabilities”.

The report reasons that the “system of specialist provision is under significant pressure,” citing a 2019 Royal National Institute of Blind People report showing just under half of local authorities have cut or frozen vision impairment education services.

It recommends “urgent” action to improve legal compliance, with the government targeting guidance on the requirements at college leadership.

Specialist providers’ network Natspec said it takes the recommendations “seriously,” and “will continue to work to improve accessibility for all students” through its assistive technology support service, TechAbility.

“We look forward to supporting the work of the trust and helping to ensure the new resources being developed are available to all our members,” a Natspec spokesperson added.

Association of Colleges chief executive David Hughes said colleges “take very seriously the need to be accessible for everyone, including blind and partially sighted students.”

He promised the association will “look carefully” at this report and is “keen to see what needs to be done”.

External governance reviewers ‘must understand the local context’, conference delegates are told

A senior Ofsted inspector has warned colleges against using “reviewers for hire” who would “fly from one end of the country to another” for new external governance reviews.

Colleges should instead call upon reviewers with knowledge of the local context and stakeholders to investigate how governors can improve their effectiveness.

This comes after the skills for jobs white paper revealed in January that the government would be setting out new requirements for boards to be regularly appraised by an external reviewer.

New FE Commissioner Shelagh Legrave was among a panel of her team members and Department for Education officials speaking about the reviews at this week’s Association of Colleges annual conference.

Using ‘reviewers for hire’ for governance audits would be a ‘shame and a waste’

During a question-and-answer session, audience member and Ofsted senior inspector for further education and skills Richard Beynon warned attendees: “If people are going to get underneath governance and the relationship between governance and leadership, they can’t do that if they’re flying from one end of the country to another.”

This, he explained, was because the review would not understand the local context and stakeholder base of the college.

“It fills me with disappointment that perhaps we’re going to have a fleet of reviewers for hire who circulate around colleges in the country,” said Beynon, as this would “be a shame and a waste”.

Instead, colleges should “start thinking about reviewers in your locality in your region. Think about how they can bring value because they understand the mission, the purpose and the context in which the college operates.”

Deputy FE Commissioner and panellist Meredydd David said reviewers “understanding the local context” of a college was a “very, very good point”.

However, Legrave highlighted how the national leaders of governance, nine governors and clerks who mentor and support struggling college boards, do travel from one part of the country to another, which “works very effectively”.

While understanding the context a college operated in was “vital”, she believes “expertise could be geographically spread”.

Reviewers will have to be ‘independent and suitably experienced’

The commissioner’s FE adviser Esme Winch told delegates that reviewers ought not to provide any other service to the college which could be a conflict of interest, should be independent of every board member, should have a breadth of experience of education and charity governance and ought to be accredited by an organisation such as the Chartered Governance Institute, or Institute of Directors.

The DfE has said guidance on the reviews will be published in spring 2022.

But interim DfE guidance dated this month and seen by FE Week mandates that the
reviews must take place on a three-year cycle, so a college board’s first one will fall due between 2021/22 and 2023/2024.

It will be up to each board to commission an “independent and suitably experienced provider” to deliver the external review.

The guidance says there is no prescribed model for self-assessments or external reviews, but they should look at a board’s impact and how it can be enhanced.

Despite having been first mooted for English colleges in the white paper, external governance reviews have been a requirement for the FTSE 350 companies – the largest businesses in the UK – since 2010.

The boards of Scottish colleges must have their effectiveness externally validated every three years under the Code of Good Governance for Scotland’s Colleges.

The Education Training Foundation, supported by the Association of Colleges, was commissioned by the DfE in August 2020 to carry out pilot external governance reviews.

The 28 reviews that followed found boards were composed of a range of different expertise and skills, but most boards did not review their impact or evaluate individual governor performance.

The Association of Colleges’ governance advisor Kurt Hall told Tuesday’s session the reviews also found there was a “big gap” where most boards had not created an “inclusive culture”.

‘Outstanding’ provider not inspected for 11 years downgraded in first Ofsted report

An FE and skills provider previously exempt from Ofsted inspections has lost its ‘outstanding’ status in the first round of published reports.

Independent provider Fareport Training Organisation Limited has dropped to a grade two in its first Ofsted visit since it earned a grade one in 2011.

‘Outstanding’ providers are being inspected this term for the first time since 2010, after an exemption was removed last year.

It will be the first time ‘outstanding’ providers are inspected under the education inspection framework (EIF), which was introduced in 2019.

As such, Ofsted expects fewer providers will stay ‘outstanding’, with national director for education Chris Russell saying the framework makes that “a challenging and exacting judgment to achieve”.

This week the watchdog announced every college will receive a full inspection until 2025, regardless of whether they are rated ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’. Typically, such colleges would receive a short inspection.

Ofsted pulls up provider on careers advice and functional skills

At the time of its inspection, Fareport had 449 apprentices on levels 2 to 5, who “develop
substantial new knowledge and skills, which they apply quickly at work”.

Inspectors highlighted how leaders “have created an ambitious curriculum and culture for apprentices, including those with additional learning needs”.

The provider was brought up on its functional skills provision though, with the report finding trainers “lack the confidence to support apprentices with English and maths”, so the learners fail their exams multiple times or do not pass them before they get near the end of their training.

Apprentices do not benefit from impartial careers advice, so “do not know what they
may be able to do outside their current company or sector”. But they are informed about further qualifications and opportunities with their current employer.

In a statement, Fareport called the inspection process “very thorough and testing”, but the report “highlights many strengths”.

The provider had not self-assessed as ‘outstanding’ this year, owing to a dip in success rates caused by a “large number” of apprentices leaving work or not being released for training.

Retention issues, Fareport says, “have now been largely resolved”.

On the recommendation about functional skills, the provider said it has an action plan under way and has appointed a new trainer. It will be implementing impartial careers advice in consultation with its employers.

First two Ofsted full-inspection reports bring ‘good’ news to colleges

The first colleges to have full inspection reports published by Ofsted since visits resumed have seen ‘good’ results.

West Thames College has improved from grade three to grade two, with an ‘outstanding’ for behaviour and attitudes.

East Durham College has maintained its grade two, originally awarded in 2008, also with a grade one for behaviour.

Inspectors found the former, which has two main sites in London, to be “a welcoming and inclusive place in which to study” by its 3,664 learners.

A “very high” proportion of adults “successfully get jobs or programmes at work” following their courses, and learners have benefitted from remote work experience at a local airport, while health and social care students volunteer with the NHS.

Leaders were praised for ensuring learners receive suitable careers advice and guidance, but it was found business administration apprentices do not receive “sufficient” advice and in a small number of cases, apprentices do not know what to do after their course ends.

Leaders have identified that they need to improve apprentices’ careers advice.

West Thames College principal Tracy Aust said providing high-quality provision in a safe environment “so effectively in the current climate is no mean feat” and she is “incredibly proud of our staff, our students and our partners”.

Both colleges praised for students’ behaviour

East Durham’s learners participate “enthusiastically” in lessons, with “exceptional” behaviour attributed to high expectations set by leaders and staff.

This ensures students are “respectful, courteous and very well-behaved in lessons, social spaces and workplaces” which creates a “safe and nurturing environment” across three centres.

The range of subjects and types of provision are “well informed by the needs of employers and key regional partners”, so learners and apprentices study programmes which provide opportunities for them to gain employment or move to alternative jobs.

Inspectors did find fault with teachers not taking sufficient account of the support and learning requirements of high-needs learners, while they and managers do not act early enough to identify adult learners’ additional needs.

College chair David Butler said staff and students’ “determination to work together to continue to offer the best educational experience we can, whatever the challenges we face, has been endorsed in this report”.

Full inspections by Ofsted resumed in September, after having been postponed by the coronavirus pandemic.

Chief inspector Amanda Spielman announced this week all colleges and FE providers will receive full inspections by summer 2025.

MPs have their say on the Skills Bill

MPs have called for more flexibilities in local skills plans and for even more time before some level 3 qualifications are defunded.

The Skills and Post-16 Education Bill received its second reading in the House of Commons on Monday; a part of the process where MPs get to have their say on the broad principles behind the bill.

Unusually, this bill started its parliamentary journey towards becoming law in the House of Lords. This means that by the time MPs got to see it, it had already been significantly amended by the upper house. Unlike in the House of Commons, the Conservatives do not enjoy a majority in the Lords, so it has been widely speculated that many of the amendments that passed in the Lords would be unlikely to make their way in the final bill.

In total, 44 MPs had their say from both government and opposition benches in a debate lasting nearly three hours.

MPs push Zahawi with extra requests for the bill

In introducing the bill, the education secretary, Nadhim Zahawi, announced the one-year reprieve to the defunding of some BTECs and level 3 qualifications, which was welcomed by MPs on all sides.

Several MPs, including Labour’s shadow education secretary, Kate Green, urged Zahawi to support the Lords’ amendment for a four-year moratorium on level 3 defunding, rather than the one year announced at the debate.

In her speech from the opposition benches, Green said the one-year reprieve was still “a very short time for people to come to terms with the new T level offer.”

Zahawi also used his introductory speech to announce that current T level exit requirements to include GCSE English and maths would be scrapped.

Despite receiving a mixed reception from sector leaders, this policy change was welcomed by Mansfield MP Ben Bradley, who said “we should not be preventing people who want to do a T level in early-years education from accessing it because they were not very good at trigonometry”.

The Commons education committee chair, Robert Halfon, came to the debate with a list of requests for the bill, including a “skills tax credit to revitalise employer-led training” and directing some of the £800 million currently spent on widening access to universities towards supporting students from disadvantaged backgrounds to do apprenticeships.

BTECs, local skills plans and devolution also debated

The “BTEC issue” was by far the most commented-upon topic throughout the debate.

However, the design of local skills improvement plans also featured heavily.

Zahawi committed to a government-backed amendment that would place the role of mayoral combined authorities in the development of local skills improvement plans on a statutory footing.

A similar amendment was proposed in the House of Lords and received cross-party support.

Tom Hunt, Conservative MP for Ipswich, wished to see this go further, saying in the chamber that there “should not be an arbitrary distinction between an area that happens to have a mayor and combined authority and an area that does not. I do not see why Suffolk should not benefit from devolved adult education in the same way as Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, which happen to have a mayor.”

There was little insight into any further government amendment, or which specific amendments from the House of Lords the government wants to change or delete.

Toby Perkins, the shadow skills minister, said: “The government have indicated that they will be seeking to overturn Lord Baker’s amendment on careers guidance, which would have allowed a range of educational and training providers access to every student in years 8 to 13.”

Perkins, alongside several other MPs including Conservative Peter Aldous and Liberal Democrat Munira Wilson, also argued that the government should support a Lords amendment that would allow universal credit claimants more access to training without losing benefits.

The bill “leaves out apprenticeships and is silent on the role of independent training providers”, Perkins also said in his remarks.

MPs will next debate bill at the end of this month

In summing up, skills minister Alex Burghart defended the government’s proposals to create designated employer representative bodies, but was careful not to over-define what they would look like. Throughout the debate, several MPs had questioned the suitability of chambers of commerce alone to fulfil that responsibility to lead on local skills improvement plans.

A committee of MPs will now be formed to debate each clause of the bill in detail and make decisions on amendments from MPs. This process is expected to begin at the end of this month.