The government must address ‘inexplicable variations’ in sixth form colleges’ A-level results

Sixth form colleges are reporting that their A-level results do not reflect the grades they provided, or three year trends. Here, Sixth Form Colleges Association chief executive Bill Watkin explains why government action is needed.

There is a huge discrepancy between the teacher-led centre-assessment grades (CAGs) and the exam board algorithm-led calculated grades. Just 4 per cent of the members that responded to an SFCA survey yesterday felt that their CAGs were in line with their calculated grades.

The survey also reported a huge disparity between this year’s results and colleges’ three-year trends. Not because the teaching was worse, not because the students were worse, not because the exams were more difficult. But because the lockdown algorithm has got it wrong.

This is not a sector lacking in experience or expertise. It is a sector that has consistently been among the highest performing in the country. This is not a problem of over-grading or wholesale blips. This is a clear indication that the statisticians have got it wrong this year. As one college leader quoted in the survey said, “We deliver over 30 different A-level subjects, and we are below the three year average by some distance in every single one”.

The model has not worked

Back in late March, when it was first clear that the summer exams in 2020 could not proceed as scheduled, Ofqual and the Department for Education immediately set out their position: exams are the most reliable form of assessment of a young person’s ability and potential, but in their absence, the system would rely on teachers’ professional judgement and every effort would be made to reduce bureaucracy.

Centres were asked to submit, using all the available evidence (including mock exams), CAGs based on their professional expertise to the exam boards. There would also be a statistical standardisation exercise, to be carried out by exam boards, to ensure that this year’s results were in line with the last three years. This would help preserve the integrity of the exam system and ensure that this year’s students were neither advantaged nor disadvantaged. The model was designed to ensure that there was comparability in outcomes, and no grade inflation. This year-on-year consistency became the holy grail at Ofqual and DfE.

But this was always going to be difficult, with no external assessment in a year when schools and colleges have only just switched to brand new exams – new content (more rigorous and extensive), new structure (linear), new assessment (terminal exams, not modules).

At the same time, teachers were also asked to rank order their students – a much more difficult exercise and one which pitted students against their classmates. But it became clear that the rank order was going to be critical, especially for those clustered around grade boundaries, who would be most at risk of dropping a grade if boundaries were moved by exam boards.

Last week saw two important changes:

1. Appeals were to be allowed in those cases where the centre’s population had changed, or where there had been a change of leadership or if evidence showed that a recent blip was not reflective of a trend.

2. The exam boards would now discount CAGs in classes of 15 or more students; for small classes they would only use CAGs, and in between they would take CAGs into consideration.

The latest decision – to allow mock exams to be used as part of the appeals process – is not as worrying as first thought. To use mock exam results as part of an appeals process is not unhelpful. Indeed, mock exams have already been used this summer as a vital piece of evidence in arriving at the CAGs, though the CAG is a much more sophisticated measure than the mock exam alone.

Mock exams are sometimes made deliberately difficult, they may address only a proportion of the syllabus, they may be taken six months before the actual exams, they are not subject to moderation. And – as our survey highlights – many centres did not hold mock exams this year, because they were scheduled to take place after lockdown started.

So, in a large class, which did not take mocks, the rank order and the boards’ standardisation will still determine the grades. In a small class, whose students had sat mocks, the CAGs and, in the event of an appeal, the mocks will be the determining factors.

The national picture will show no significant overall change in grades awarded this year, but the national picture is like an average; it masks huge variations. Sixth form colleges, in which one in four of all A-levels is taken, have experienced inexplicable variations. The solution is to shift the focus away from year-on-year comparability and use CAGs as the truest measure, even if it means accepting some grade inflation this year.

It is imperative that we revert to CAGs as the sole determinant for this year’s cohort. Not just those whose grades are lower than their CAGs. But every student. In this way, there will be some winners, those whose teachers were generous in the CAGs, but there will be no losers. All will get the grades their teachers said they would get if there had taken the exams this summer.

Sixth form colleges cry foul over standardisation as principals report problems with A-level results

The body representing sixth form colleges has demanded action after the vast majority of principals reported lower-than-expected A-level grades following this year’s moderation process.

The Sixth Form Colleges Association fears its members have been disproportionately impacted by problems with the system which replaced exams this year, with almost half of principals reporting that overall, their calculated grades were “much lower” than what they had submitted to exam boards.

The government must address this as a matter of urgency and we will do everything we can to ensure that students are not penalised as result of what has turned out to be a failed experiment

Students across England will receive their A-level results tomorrow, which are based on centre-assessment grades which have been standardised by exam boards. Schools and colleges received the results yesterday.

The government has said that around 40 per cent of A-level grades have been amended during the standardisation process, but that overall results will be slightly higher this year than last year.

But in survey of 81 sixth form college principals, responsible for some 75,000 students receiving results this week, 96 per cent said that overall their calculated grades were “lower than centre-assessed grades”, and more than a third reported that calculated grades bear “little or no resemblance” to performance in previous years

The revelation comes after Ofqual confirmed that more weight had been placed on centre judgments for institutions with lower entries “overall, or in particular subjects”, prompting fears that larger settings like sixth form colleges would be worse affected than smaller school sixth forms.

Bill Watkin

Bill Watkin, the SFCA’s chief executive, today called on the government to revert to the grades provided by schools and colleges.

“The government must address this as a matter of urgency and we will do everything we can to ensure that students are not penalised as result of what has turned out to be a failed experiment,” he said.

Principals were also encouraged to give their reaction to the grades in response to the survey. One described being “lost for words as to this outcome and devastated for our staff and students,” while another said their grades this year were “significantly lower” than at any point in the past 5 years.

“We would appear to be below our historic data both at centre- and in some cases subject-level and making this year’s set of results the college’s worst results in the last 15 years,” another respondent said.

On Tuesday night, in response to concerns about calculated grades, the Department for Education announced some students would be appeal to receive a “valid” grade from a mock exam if it was higher than the grade provided by exam boards.

But Watkin said the announcement “paled into insignificance in the face of the two far bigger challenges highlighted by our survey: the gulf between centre assessed grades and calculated grades; and the utter failure of the statistical standardisation model to ensure year-on-year comparability in results”.

The SFCA survey also found just 56 per cent of respondents had used mock exams for all their subjects during 2019-20, as many had been scheduled to take place after the pandemic forced education providers to close in March.

Writing for FE Week, Watkin said that while using mock results was “not unhelpful” as they had already been used in calculating centre-assessment grades, the tests “are sometimes made deliberately difficult, they may address only a proportion of the syllabus, they may be taken six months before the actual exams, and they are not subject to moderation”.

“It is imperative that we revert to CAGs as the sole determinant for this year’s cohort. Not just those whose grades are lower than their CAGs. But every student. In this way, there will be some winners, those whose teachers were generous in the CAGs, but there will be no losers. All will get the grades their teachers said they would get if there had taken the exams this summer.”

The DfE was approached for comment.

Key workers of tomorrow are taking their first steps today

On the day BTEC learners will be finding out their results, Cindy Rampersaud writes about how their skills will help the country rebuild.

This year, 250,000 post-16 young people and adults will be receiving their BTEC qualifications. It is a time of anticipation, nervousness and hope but set against the unprecedented disruption caused by COVID-19 the class of 2020 are truly deserving of special recognition for their hard-work and tenacity.

But while it has presented its evident challenges, COVID–19 has provided an opportunity to reassess and genuinely appreciate the contribution of key workers. Throughout the lockdown we relied heavily on care workers, nurses, and food retailers, to keep so many aspects of our daily lives going. Many of these individuals would have gone to a further education college or studied with a training provider, and many of these will have taken a BTEC, apprenticeship or other vocational qualification.

Included in the class of 2020 receiving their BTEC results this year will be 65,000 taking their first steps towards being the key workers of tomorrow, helping the country to rebuild. 4,000 prospective construction workers will receive their results this year, along with a further 45,000 health and social care professionals and 15,000 engineers. Many others will be progressing onto university.

Despite the wider economic backdrop, employment prospects for those heading into these careers are promising. Currently, there is a shortage of over 100,000 full-time equivalent staff in the NHS and a further 122,000 in adult social care; by 2035 there will be around 950,000 new adult social care workers needed and the King’s Fund suggests the NHS workforce gap could reach almost 250,000 by 2030.

In addition, experts forecast that around 203,000 people with engineering skills are needed every year and around 168,500 construction jobs will be created by 2023.

The Chancellor has recently recognised just how vital these workers will be to the national effort by committing a further £100m to fund further training places for health and social care, engineering and construction at his recent economic statement.

Globally, we are also seeing confidence in vocational education rising. This week Pearson released its second annual Global Learner Survey, capturing the voice of over 7,000 people worldwide (from seven countries, including 1000 respondents from the UK). 69 per cent in UK (72 per cent globally) in 2020 said a degree or certificate from a vocational college or trade school is more likely to result in a good job with career prospects than a university degree (up from 66 per cent last year in UK and 68 per cent globally). This is a pattern we’re seeing with our BTECs, with students in countries as far away as Thailand and China signing up to study them and seeing the value of these vocational career focused qualifications.

Conducted in May 2020, in the midst of the pandemic, the data throws up some interesting questions for the education sector in this increasingly digital environment and disrupted economy. The findings show learners see COVID as a turning point for modern learning, with online schooling and the need for more digital skills leaving a lasting mark. Globally and in the UK, 87 per cent of respondents said that the economic disruption of COVID means people now need to be comfortable working remotely and in highly digital environments. To achieve this, traditional education programs won’t be enough, with 89 per cent of learners globally (88 per cent in UK) saying that people will need to develop more digital skills such as virtual collaboration, communication, analysing data or managing remote teams to move forward in this economy.

Building these core skills and employability through the course of study has always been the central part of the BTEC offer. We place a real focus on developing content and curriculum to allow access and progression for the specific sector a course is related to, as well as the transferable skills that are relevant to many different sectors. We’re also working to look at what the emerging industries are and where the jobs of the future will be, especially post-Covid and with our ever-increasing reliance on technology.

Today is a moment to salute the hard work and dedication of the class of 2020, who have had to continue their studies during an extraordinary time. We should also reflect on the value that the FE sector brings to communities and the wider UK PLC economy and the importance it holds for our future economic recovery. I look forward to seeing what careers this cohort goes on to and the impact they’ll have on our society

Ofqual to provide guidance on “valid mock grades”

Ofqual has announced it will publish guidance on how colleges can use “valid mock grades” to appeal A-levels and GCSE results next week.

The Department for Education confirmed late last night that some students will be offered the option to use grades given in mock exams instead of their standardised A-level and GCSE grades.

The DfE said students “could receive the higher result out of their calculated grade, valid mock grade, or autumn exam grade” – with the mock exam option available via the appeal process.

Exams regulator Ofqual has shed some light on when education leaders can expect the information: “We understand why the government has wanted to provide some additional assurance for students, by confirming that evidence from valid mock exams can be considered as part of an appeal,” the regulator said today.

“We are working urgently to operationalise this as fairly as possible and to determine what standards of evidence will be required for the appeal. We will provide more detail early next week.”

The regulator added: “We will continue to do everything possible to ensure students achieve grades that are as fair as possible in the circumstances this summer.”

Last week Ofqual set out the full arrangements for appeals this year, which confirmed colleges will be able to appeal if they were expecting results this year to “show a very different pattern of grades to results in previous years”.

Elsewhere the regulator reiterated that under the current exams system brought in to facilitate the cancellation of summer exams the “vast majority of the grades students receive will be the same as, or within one grade of, their centre’s grade”,

“Adjustments were only made where necessary to bring consistency to the standards between schools and colleges. However, that moderation was essential to create a level playing for students.”

The deadline for colleges to submit appeals is September 17.

DfE sets out plans to allow disappointed exam students to use ‘valid mock grades’`

Students will be given the choice of receiving a “valid mock grade” instead of their standardised centre-assessment grade under new plans for GCSE and A-level results announced by the Department for Education.

The government has finally confirmed its plans after the proposal to use mock exam grades was briefed out to some newspapers last night, announcing that students will be able to choose which grade they are issued via the appeals system.

In a statement issued late last night, the DfE said students “could receive the higher result out of their calculated grade, valid mock grade, or autumn exam grade”, and claimed the move would “bolster fairness and give students security of ‘triple lock’ process”.

The DfE has also announced it has set aside £30 million in funding for schools and colleges holding autumn exams, which were announced earlier this year as a fallback for students who feel they haven’t got the grades they deserved from this year’s system of school-provided grades, standardised by exam boards.

The announcement comes amid a row over whether the system, which will see grades moderated based on schools’ historic outcomes, will be fair for all students.

In Scotland, which used a similar system, ministers were forced into a U-turn earlier today, promising to withdraw all grades that had been downgraded – around a quarter of those issues.

The DfE said tonight that under its new system, students “could accept their calculated grade, appeal to receive a valid mock results, or sit autumn exams to ensure the achievements of young people are recognised”.

The department also said Ofqual “has been asked to determine how and when valid mock results can be used to calculate grades”.

“All outcomes will hold the same value for universities, colleges and employers, building on the significant number of students who will still progress as a result of their calculated grades. Similar arrangements will apply to vocational and technical qualifications,” the department said.

Education secretary Gavin Williamson (pictured), who has been criticised tonight for his “eleventh hour” decision less than two days before A-level results day, said: “Every young person waiting for their results wants to know they have been treated fairly.

“By ensuring students have the safety net of their mock results, as well as the chance of sitting autumn exams, we are creating a triple lock process to ensure confidence and fairness in the system.”

He went on to say that “no-one wanted to cancel exams – they are the best form of assessment, but the disruption caused by Covid-19 meant they were not possible”.

“This triple lock system will help provide reassurance to students and ensure they are able to progress with the next stage of their lives,” he added.

However, the department still insisted tonight that centre-assessment grades were the “fairest possible approach in the absence of exams”, and that the grades students receive on Thursday “will be based on the judgement of their school or college, and have been moderated by exam boards to make sure the same standard is applied for all students, whichever school, college or part of the country they come from”.

Students who want to use a “valid mock exam result” will be able to do so through the appeals process, the DfE said. Individual candidates will have to notify their centres, which will then have to provide evidence of mock exam results to exam boards.

But Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders union, said tonight that the “idea of introducing at the eleventh hour a system in which mock exam results trump calculated grades beggars belief”.

“The government doesn’t appear to understand how mock exams work,” he said.

“They aren’t a set of exams which all conform to the same standards. The clue is in the name ‘mock’. And some students will not have taken them by the time that schools were closed in March. So, this immediately creates the potential for massive inconsistency.

“Schools and colleges have spent months diligently following detailed guidance to produce centre-assessed grades only to find they might as well not have bothered. There is certainly concern about the standardisation process applied by the exam boards, but there are also good reasons for having this system in place because it ensures that this year’s grades are roughly in line with those of previous years, and this is important in terms of fairness to students over time.

“If the government wanted to change the system it should have spent at least a few days discussing the options rather than rushing out a panicked and chaotic response.”

Chief executive of the Association of Colleges David Hughes said without students sitting exams and assessments, “this was always going to be an imperfect process” and it was “no surprise the outcomes are being questioned like never before”.

He said what was needed was “to put all of our efforts into helping every student navigate a route through results day and onto their next step”. 

But he did warn that, ahead of GCSE results day next week, the association “would urge the government to consider the interests of students on the border of grade 4 in English and maths” and would “support an approach which makes sure they do not lose out”.

A Department for Education’s condition of funding rule means all students in England aged 16 to 19 who have achieved a grade 3 in English or maths are required to retake the subject.

The association’s approach would involve agreeing the moderation process should not downgrade any student from grade 4 to 3, as the grade 4 boundary “is like a cliff-edge, so it would be highly unfair for standardisation based on previous results to over-ride teacher assessments” and such a measure “would

Hughes did praise the commitment to underwrite the additional costs of autumn exams, as this new series will incur a range of extra costs – including accommodation, administration and invigilation – and additional places on colleges.

But “we still hope the numbers of young people needing or wanting to enter in the autumn will be low” because they have been able to progress, and large numbers of entries would cause disruption to students and colleges, as well as logistical problems.

 

 

University picked as preferred bidder to take over HS2 college at risk of insolvency

The national college for High Speed 2 looks set to be taken over by a university as part of a government review initiated after the FE commissioner warned it faced potential insolvency.

The University of Birmingham has been announced as the preferred bidder to take on the National College for Advanced Transport and Infrastructure (NCATI), as part of a structure and prospects appraisal (SPA) of the college.

The university has said it wishes to turn it into a “successful and financially sustainable educational institution to support local, regional and national economic growth”.

Its bid, which includes partner organisations the National Skills Academy for Rail, Network Rail and City & Guilds, will now be scrutinised by the government, the commissioner and both the college and university.

NCATI’s interim chief executive Sue Dare said the college was “delighted” to have gained “strong support from an internationally-renowned university”, and “looks forward to securing a bright future for the college through this exciting partnership”.

The University of Birmingham has added that all parties need to be assured NCATI’s “significant financial and educational difficulties” can be “overcome” before the transfer can go ahead.

NCATI, known as the National College for High Speed Rail (NCHSR) until October, took £4.55 million from the DfE to sign off its 2017-18 accounts.

FE Week reported last month that the college was seeking partner providers after being placed in supervised status, an Ofsted grade four and a report from FE commissioner Richard Atkins which said the board had to be instructed on how to operate while facing “potential insolvency”.

The national college, which opened in 2017, is not the first to seek out partner providers. The National College Creative Industries created partnerships with two local providers and then dissolved itself earlier this year, after having required a £600,000 Department for Education bailout to sign off its 2017/18 financial statements.

Atkins found NCATI had also based its 2019-20 budget on having 761 apprentices and 263 full-time learners, whereas in December 2019 it only had 216 apprentices and 94 other full-time students.

A DfE-commissioned report on the national college programme found NCATI had struggled with learner numbers due to delays in announcing HS2 contractors, which meant employers were unable to commit to the apprentice volumes they had originally anticipated.

Following the commissioner’s report, NCATI was placed in supervised status and has been undertaking the appraisal with the commissioner. As part of this, the college agreed not to file completed 2018-19 financial statements until after the appraisal’s completion.

The college was engulfed in controversy at the start of this year when it was revealed it had hired lawyers to stop the publication of its grade four Ofsted report.

NCATI later dropped the High Court challenge, after it cost them £73,000, and the report was published, revealing employers were having to teach apprentices skills which were not covered by the college.

Exams 2020: Ofqual confirms final appeals process for GCSEs and A-levels

Schools and colleges will be able to appeal against GCSE and A-level results if they feel data used to standardise grades was not a “reliable basis” for predicting 2020 results, Ofqual has confirmed.

The exams regulator has set out the full arrangements for appeals this year, confirming that centres will be able to appeal if they were expecting results this year to “show a very different pattern of grades to results in previous years”.

All summer exams were cancelled this year following the Covid-19 outbreak. Instead, settings were asked to submit the grades they thought pupils would have received had they taken exams, and to rank pupils within those grades.

Exam boards have then used historical data to standardise grades, but this has prompted concerns that pupils at certain institutions – such as those on an improvement journey or that have gone through recent big changes – could be adversely affected.

As set out earlier this year, Ofqual has confirmed that students will not be able to appeal themselves, but they will be able to ask their centres whether they have made an administrative error in submitting their grade or position in the rank order. If centres agree, they can submit an appeal to the exam board on pupils’ behalf.

Centres will be able to appeal if they believe something has gone wrong in processing the results, such as an error in their own submission, or if they believe an exam board has made a mistake “when calculating, assigning or communicating a grade”.

They will also be able to appeal if they can “evidence grades are lower than expected because previous cohorts are not sufficiently representative of this year’s students”.

This could include where a single-sex school has become co-educational, where there has been “significant change” in leadership or governance, where settings have experienced “monumental events” such as fire or flood.

Centres will also be able to appeal if they were “expecting results this year to show a very different pattern of grades to results in previous years”, Ofqual said.

“That could include where the grades of unusually high or low ability students been affected by the model because they fall outside the pattern of results in that centre in recent years,” said Ofqual.

“In most cases, this will only be apparent by reviewing centre-wide data. Therefore centres, rather than individual students, will be best placed to consider whether this has occurred.”

Ofqual has also published information to help students understand whether they might have reason to complain about bias or discrimination. Although they won’t be able to appeal on these grounds, pupils can make a complaint.

If they suspect bias or discrimination, students have been told to first speak to their centre and raise a complaint through its complaints policy. If they feel their concerns are not addressed by their centre, students can then consider raising concerns with the issuing exam board.

But Ofqual’s guidance states that this “would not be an appeal, but rather an allegation that malpractice or maladministration occurred in relation to your centre assessment grade(s) or rank order position(s)”.

The regulator said such allegations “would be serious, and taken seriously”, and that they would not be subject to the same deadlines as appeals.

The guidance also states that in cases where students have a concern about raising allegations with centres, it “may be appropriate for you to discuss this directly with the exam board instead”.

Students “can also contact the Equality Advisory Support Service for advice if they think they have evidence of discrimination”, Ofqual said.

Apprenticeship assessment oversight change was needed as Ofqual has the regulatory levers to enforce changes

End-point assessment is a key aspect of the government’s apprenticeship reforms, providing an independent test that an apprentice has achieved occupational competence at the end of their apprenticeship.

It only succeeds where it is seen to provide a fair, reliable and consistent test of whether  different apprentices have reached competence and that includes assessing their knowledge, skill and behaviours in ways, which are relevant to the occupation in the real world. If this is not the case, end point assessment (EPA) will lose credibility and the overall quality of apprenticeships will be compromised.

For that reason, the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (the Institute) has a responsibility to ensure that evaluations of the quality of end-point assessment are undertaken on all apprenticeship standards. We meet this responsibility through external quality assurance (EQA).

This week we have published our response to the consultation we ran this spring on a proposal to move to a simplified and strengthened model of EQA. In the new model, all EQA would be undertaken by either Ofqual or, for integrated degree apprenticeships, the Office for Students. Both organisations will work to a framework set by the Institute. In addition, for a very small number of standards where a statutory regulator already has a role regulating access to the profession, we expect that these organisations will provide EQA, rather than Ofqual or the OfS.

The consultation response sets out our plans to transition to this new delivery model of the next two years. We will work closely with existing EQA providers and end-point assessment organisations to ensure that this transition is managed as smoothly as possible. The existing EQA regime will remain in place for each individual standard until it transitions to Ofqual’s remit.

I am grateful to all those who took the time to respond to the consultation, particularly at what has clearly been a challenging time for every organisation, with many competing priorities. The views expressed in the consultation were diverse, but the majority of respondents saw clear benefit in the proposed approach and we will therefore be proceeding with it.

This represents a significant development of the existing system of EQA, where the service is provided by a range of employer-led and professional bodies, as well as Ofqual and the Institute itself.

The current system has been effective in monitoring the quality of end-point assessment delivery. Many EQA providers have built strong and productive relationships with the end-point assessment organisations (EPAOs) in their sectors, combining both occupational expertise and links to employers, with understanding of assessment. This has been particularly important in recent months as we have dealt with the unprecedented challenges facing the end-point assessment system as a result of COVID-19. EQA providers have played a crucial role in our response, sign-off on flexibilities and participating in taskforces to agree more significant changes to assessment. I know, and it is further reiterated by the responses to the consultation, that this role has been welcomed across the end-point assessment sector.

I am grateful for the work that existing EQA providers have undertaken in the current system and for their continuing support over the next few years to provide a robust EQA service and supporting an orderly transition.

However, the current system is not as simple to understand or engage with as it could be. Nor is it as strong as it might be given that few of the current EQA providers possess the regulatory levers to enforce changes. This has meant that even where poor practice has been identified we have relied on the goodwill of end-point assessment organisations to ensure improvements are made. Finally, the current way of funding for the EQA system is inefficient, which has meant that EQA providers have had to charge end-point assessment organisations directly in order to cover their costs.

The proposal we are now taking forward strengthens the system by addressing those shortcomings: as EQA will be delivered by two organisations, both with established regulatory powers and both funded directly by government. The current EQA providers will work alongside Ofqual to ensure a well-managed and orderly transition.

Responses to the consultation highlighted, more than anything else, how crucial it is to make sure that the employer voice is still heard in EQA work. Respondents were concerned that without the employer voice EPA and apprenticeships will lose credibility and the link through to industry best practice.

In fact, I believe that the new system has the potential to strengthen the use of the employer voice in EQA. We will be creating a new directory of employer organisations on which Ofqual and the OfS will be able to draw occupational expertise which will supplement the assessment expertise of the education regulators, enhancing EQA. In the current system around 30% of apprenticeship standards have an employer-led approach to EQA. The use of the employer directory allows us to involve a greater number of employer bodies across a greater number of standards. It also allows us to use them more strategically so that they can add more value.

By focusing more specifically on whether the EPA is providing relevant assessment of the occupation and whether it works in industry, I hope that we will be using employer organisations and professional bodies both more effectively and more efficiently.

Rule change restricting use of 16-19 tuition fund branded ‘bureaucratic madness’

An “unwelcome” change to the rules for the government’s 16 to 19 tuition fund which restricts the learners the money can be spent on has been branded “bureaucratic madness”.

The Education and Skills Funding Agency has updated its guidance on the fund to add a new stipulation that it can only be spent on learners who failed to achieve a grade 4 in English or maths at the age of 16.

This is an unwelcome change to a welcome initiative

Ministers unveiled plans for the £96 million one-off fund for 2020-21 last month, following a U-turn on their unpopular decision to exclude 16 to 19 providers from the £1 billion Covid catch-up fund. The £96 million comes from a £350 million pot originally allocated for the government’s National Tutoring Programme.

At the time, the government said the fund was to “provide small group tutoring activity for disadvantaged 16 to 19 students whose studies have been disrupted”.

Although Education and Skills Funding Agency guidance released last month stated that funding would be allocated on the basis of the number of learners without an English or maths pass, there was no stipulation that the money be spent only on those pupils.

But updated guidance issued by the ESFA this week states that “although the actual tuition does not need to be for GCSE English or maths, the students supported all need to be those who had not achieved grade 4 or above in at least one of those subjects at this level by age 16”.

The ESFA said this week that the guidance was reissued to “correct an omission”, but the Sixth Form Colleges Association described it as an “unwelcome change to a welcome initiative”.

“Disadvantage takes many forms – it is not just students with lower levels of English and maths attainment that have fallen behind at a result of the Covid crisis,” said deputy chief executive James Kewin.

“GCSE performance is only one proxy for disadvantage – targeting the funding in such a narrow way will mean many students that live in deprived areas, have no access to IT or have caring responsibilities for example will be overlooked.”

Kewin said college leaders were “best placed to target funding at the students that need it most”.

“In general we’d like to see fewer regulations and more trust put in the professionals. That’s one reason why raising the rate of core funding remains the best way to ensure that all students get the education and support they need”.

The guidance has also been updated to include an “expectation” that tuition is “delivered to small groups of up to three students”, and that the government “would not expect groups supported from the fund to exceed five students”.

Steve Hewitt, an FE funding consultant, described the change on Twitter as “absolute bureaucratic madness”.

But the Association of Colleges said the criteria “will cover most of the students on courses below level 3 and concentrates the funding for interventions where they are most needed”.

“It doesn’t prevent colleges continuing to target other students with learning needs,” a spokesperson said.