Former adviser to skills minister calls for temporary ban on new adult apprentices

The response to the pandemic recession must centre on supporting those who are finishing their education and those who are struggling to find work, says Tom Richmond

Given the controversy surrounding the apprenticeship levy before the outbreak of Covid-19, it is unsurprising to see calls for the levy to be reformed as part of the government’s response to the economic crisis. In our EDSK report at the beginning of this year, we found that the introduction of the apprenticeship levy in 2017 had already contributed to a steady fall in the proportion of apprenticeships being provided to young people compared to older learners.

If the objective is to prevent young people suffering financial hardship in the coming months, a major package of direct and temporary measures will be required to overcome the challenges posed by Covid-19. Minor policy tweaks and good intentions will prove entirely insufficient. There are three tools that the government has at its disposal – all of which could be implemented relatively swiftly.

First, the government should introduce a temporary ban on new apprenticeships being offered to learners aged 25 and over until, say, the end of 2020. It is often forgotten that “adult apprenticeships” did not exist until 2007, yet they have subsequently swamped the apprenticeship system. In a time of crisis, this cannot be allowed to continue. To cushion the impact of this change on older workers, the government could bring forward some of the funding earmarked for the upcoming National Skills Fund to support those who need to retrain or upskill during this period.

Second, the government should ban apprenticeships for learners who are not new recruits to their employer. The latest Department for Education survey of apprentices showed that 61 per cent of “apprentices” were already employed by the employer with whom they started their apprenticeship, and 42 per cent were working for their employer for at least 12 months beforehand – thus illustrating the amount of funding that could be freed up.

The same survey found that 84 per cent of apprentices aged 25+ were already employed before their apprenticeship began compared to 47 per cent of apprentices aged 19-24 and just 28 per cent of those aged 16 to 18. This means that any restrictions on the use of apprenticeships for existing employees will disproportionately benefit the youngest learners.

Third, the government should rekindle the Apprenticeship Grant for Employers (AGE). In 2012, when over a million young people were unemployed, this grant of £1,500 was given to employers who took on up to three apprentices aged 16 to 24. Eighty per cent of the grants went to businesses that employed up to 25 people, and 85 per cent went to employers that had never had an apprentice before.

The government should reintroduce a more generous version of AGE as part of their Covid-19 response. Small and medium-sized employers would receive £5,000 for every newly recruited apprentice aged 16 to 18 and £2,500 for new apprentices aged 19 to 24. Additional grants of £5,000 would also be given to any employer that has never recruited an apprentice before or has not done so in the past 12 months. There is nothing to be gained by timid action on this front, particularly when employers’ training capacity in terms of staffing and resources is likely to have been seriously curtailed by recent events.

Although such spending might feel like a luxury, England is in fact remarkably stingy when it comes to encouraging employers to take on apprentices (even in the good times). In Austria, companies have received government grants for each apprentice since 2008 equivalent to as much as three times an apprentice’s gross wages. In France, organisations employing apprentices for at least one month can benefit from a tax credit of €1,600 per apprentice per year. In the Netherlands, a subsidy for employers was introduced in 2014 of up to €2,700 per apprentice per year.

While there is no perfect policy waiting to be plucked off the shelf, the response to Covid-19 must revolve around supporting young people who are finishing their education throughout the rest of this year as well as those who are struggling to find work. There is nothing wrong in principle with upskilling the existing workforce, but it would take a brave politician to argue in the current climate that people who already have jobs are more important than those who do not.

Necessity breeds invention, and grade assessment has had to adapt quickly

This crisis has shown how well we can make transitions in order to protect students’ interests, says Julie Mizon

According to Dutch historian Rutger Bregman, crises bring out the best in us. And while it will take some time before we can assess the success of the rapid changes we’ve seen across the sector, there’s no doubt that, despite the physical distancing, the resolve for sector stakeholders to work together to protect students’ interests has surged, allowing us to make significant transitions in a short space of time.  

QAA’s Access to HE Diploma has had to change fast too. We’ve moved swiftly to an estimated grade model. Getting there required collaboration with Ofqual, the Department for Education, and Access Validating Agencies (AVAs), and we consulted extensively with Access students. And now that we’ve developed an Extraordinary Regulatory Framework (ERF) (‘extraordinary’ is the regulatory term – we’re not trumpet blowing) to make sure the principles for assessment are consistently applied, we’re talking to Access providers and students to make sure everyone knows what we’ve done and what’s going to happen. 

Consulting providers and students through webinars has been a great way to get a direct sense of what the key concerns are. Above all, course tutors want to make sure the grades they award are fair and that their students are as prepared for their transition to higher education as possible. 

The basic roadmap is clear. Students who plan to complete their Access to HE Diploma by July 31, 2020 will now receive estimated grades for all remaining assessments with submission dates after March 20, 2020. AVAs will ask course tutors to generate those estimated grades based on their professional judgment. Those really are cornerstones of the model: professional judgment and evidence. The evidence will include the student’s prior attainment, formative assessments and any other records of student performance. The course tutor will review all the grade indicators that have been given for a unit and will then determine the final grade for the unit using the existing method of establishing the midpoint of grades in the unit grade profile. 

This is the fairest solution, as ultimately tutors are best placed to judge the likely performance of their students. QAA and AVAs will do everything they can to make sure grades awarded this year are as fair as possible. Grades will be subject to quality assurance processes, including internal moderation, external moderation and standardisation. 

We have to make sure that student awards and results have been quality assured and approved. They must also be ready around the same time as in previous years, to allow timely transfer to UCAS and higher education providers. That means grades will reach UCAS by July 27, 2020, and should reach students around the same time.  

Occasionally, students may feel their grade doesn’t accurately reflect their performance. That’s a risk of any estimated model. In such cases, students will have the opportunity to appeal, or may choose to sit their assessments at the earliest reasonable opportunity. The latter may, however, impact their ability to progress to higher education in September – and it’s down to us and to course providers to make those choices clear. We’ve hosted webinars for students too – and there are more coming up this month.   

Last week we published further detail for students continuing their studies after July 31, 2020. There are three key considerations for providers after the summer. Firstly, the challenge for tutors and students in a full or partial move to digital delivery. Secondly, we have to be alive to the possibility that there may be changes to the way work is assessed. And finally, the possibility that, depending on provider and AVA arrangements, assessments won’t happen as or when originally planned.  

We’re encouraging continued learning, where possible, because it’s critical for students to be as prepared as possible for their transition to higher education. And we have to be open to other options too. The ERF provides a structure and rules around who is eligible for estimated grades, which is particularly helpful for students on flexible learning pathways. We are working with AVAs and providers to provide information about other options for students, for example, breaks in learning. AVAs are also working with providers where students are due to complete close to, but after, 31 July 31.

Ultimately, we have to be open to the possibility of continuing change too. Through collaboration and solidarity, we’ve got to a place where we can offer the best possible outcome for students. If the pandemic context changes, collaboration will be important again.

It’s hard to argue that further college rationalisation isn’t needed

Rationalisation needs to reconcile three very different types of college – and the grey areas in between, says John Cope

It is almost impossible to identify when this was said: “Commissioners cannot repeat too often that they have been impressed with [the] technical knowledge of the masters and managers of industrial establishments on the Continent”, unfavourably comparing us with Germany. Was it the Roberts Review in 2002? Tomlinson in 2004? Wolf? Sainsbury? Ney? Augar? Nope. It’s from an 1884 Royal Commission on technical instruction. Predating even the appointment of Nick Gibb as schools minister.

In an echo of history, Gavin Williamson announced last year, “Today, I am setting a new ambition. To super-charge further education over the next decade with an aim to overtake Germany”. Colleges have been braced for a skills “white paper” ever since, and as revealed by FE Week, it is now imminent and potentially explosive.

Most dramatically of all, it looks like the government is set to bring colleges back into the public sector. This could be interpreted in many ways. At the tinkering end, it could change the ability of colleges to borrow, some DfE intervention powers, and the role of the FE Commissioner. At the revolutionary end, we could be about to see what lay behind the overlooked Augar recommendation for the “rationalisation of the [college] network” to “establish a genuinely national system”. This isn’t entirely new territory, the government’s area review has led to more than 60 mergers since 2015, with more in the pipeline. But pushed to its maximum, it is radical.

It’s hard to argue rationalisation isn’t needed, but it can’t be narrow and top down. It needs to cover more fundamental questions on what a college actually is, where do sixth forms fit in, should universities keep creeping into apprenticeships, and does the academisation of schools into large groups offer lessons for a similar process with colleges. 

The huge scope of an increasing number of college groups couldn’t be clearer to me as a new non-exec director of the Activate Learning group, which includes colleges, higher education, apprenticeships, UTCs, academies and sixth forms. This is the first of three types of college – massive in scale and educational offer. With nearly 20,000 learners, it’s a similar enrolment to the Universities of York or even Imperial. It’s groups like this I think the department has in mind as a “new normal”.

A second type of colleges are the converse – small and hyperlocal. They tend to be in struggling communities and towns, scraping by financially, and are outcompeted by sixth forms and universities on funding and prestige. I vividly remember a college principal despairing that having attracted enough students for courses to break even, a massive new sixth form was approved just down the road.

The third type are more specialist institutions. Not necessarily large or with thousands of students, but with a unique specialism, usually related to the local economy or a sector in which the UK is a world leader, allowing it to leverage private investment and prestige.

“Rationalisation” therefore needs to reconcile these three very different groups and the grey areas in between, such as independent training providers. In doing so, the government must learn the lessons of academisation. Setting out in 2010 to rationalise secondary schools into 20 or 30 super school groups with 100-plus schools each, the system has ended up more fragmented, with LA schools, single academies, tiny and huge trusts all existing a decade later. They have also struggled to grow the pool of effective leaders and the strength of governance needed to sustain groups that could feasibly oversee £1 billion of public money. 

So if Williamson is serious in his ambition on colleges, there can be no half measures: rationalisation of the whole system needs huge cash incentives for mergers and support for college leaders to oversee huge institutions. And when the inevitable pushback comes, the department has a compelling case to the sector, parents, and learners (backed by a long-term funding settlement and cross-party support) so the reforms don’t become a toxic distraction or top-down reorganisation, but a stable settlement that will last for decades.

The can has been shaken, so we must proceed with caution

Re-opening campus is a high-risk, high-stress, physical and emotional challenge, says Stuart Rimmer. Here are some guiding principles to keep in mind

At my school there was a boy called Dave. He was well off and (mostly) good hearted, so used to buy cans of Tango at break time for fellow students who were less well off (me). This was usually well received, except that around one in three times Dave would secretly,  violently shake the can before handing it over, resulting in the poor student (still me) getting an explosion that normally led to arguments and a massive uncontrollable mess. 

This crisis has been punctuated by daily changing, uninformed and contradictory but mostly benign DfE guidance notes. Generated by 23-year-old Cambridge graduate policy geeks, who have been turfed out of Sanctuary Buildings and are now located in their childhood bedrooms in the Surrey commuter belt, with their PCs set to rapid-fire, like Custer’s cavalry trying to repel the natives, the latest campus re-opening guidance being handed over is a bit like Dave’s can. 

This view can be juxtaposed with the ESFA response, which I have experienced as more sensible, steady, measured and interested in identifying risks and recognising the sovereignty of individual corporations to make decisions in the context of health and safety law and colleges doing our very best. 

I have reminded my governors that guidance is simply that. It does not mandate, but suggests. It points to what we should or could do, but not what we must. This is an important distinction, especially where the weight of culpability rests. While this remains the case, our paramount concern must be the safety of staff and students. This will require a re-opening approach based on pragmatism, phasing and principle-led decisions. 

I wish also to delineate two distinct issues – that of opening in September against issues of closing off this academic year. The former is still to be fully explored, while the latter is managing amid crisis, with action born out of necessity, not detailed planning. The approaches may be governed by similar H&S rules but the emphasis must be different. 

I propose that to close off this year the focus needs to be based on three principles.

1. The safety of staff and students is the primary concern. Safe systems of working should be defined locally and will require detailed risk assessments at college, building, course and individual level. Risks cannot be eliminated but can be better understood and mitigated. Staff morale and commitment through the crisis has been high in many colleges and this must be protected at this crucial juncture. 

2. Priority groups must be identified at a local level. Colleges need to have the flexibility to choose these for themselves. These groups should be selected by what is necessary, not what is desirable. 

3.  Face-to-face interventions in June should only be focused on ensuring that progression can be secured for all students, so they are not disadvantaged, or risk wasting a year. 

Colleges have a very busy few weeks ahead, with a range of complexity to navigate, including risk assessments, training for staff, meaningful consultation with staff and unions, re-engagement of facilities, including new cleaning protocols, communications to students, re-supply of PPE, identification and planning priority groups (based on baskets of quals yet to be revealed by Ofqual), taking legal advice and finally, corporation approvals. Each of these items is in itself a detailed work stream. 

The educational, social and even psychological case for re-opening can be easily made with obvious benefits. However, we have to deal with the situation as it is, not how we would wish it to be, and policy makers need to be mindful of this. Re-opening campus is a high-risk, high-stress, physical and emotional challenge that should be treated respectfully. 

We now need to learn to work out how to open the fizzy can, but with flexibility, caution and only when necessary. 

Apprentices ALSO expected to receive face-to-face training from June

Apprentices aged 16 to 19 will also be expected to restart face-to-face contact with their training provider from June.

The Department for Education made the announcement in updated guidance last night that offered colleges significant flexibility over which learners they invite back onsite after half term.

It made clear that not only can they bring back 16 to 19-year-old learners on the first year of a two year GCSE, A-level or vocational and technical qualification course, but apprentices as well.

“We will be expecting colleges and providers to treat 16 to 19-year-old apprentices consistently with other learners for their off the job training where possible and appropriate, so that they can be offered some face to face contact.”

The guidance applies to other FE settings in addition to colleges, including independent training providers, local authority delivery and special post-16 designated institutions.

Minister for apprenticeships and skills, Gillian Keegan said: “I would like to thank everyone across the FE sector who has worked so quickly to successfully move learning online so students and apprentices can continue to progress during this difficult time.

“It’s been wonderful to hear how colleges and other providers have embraced distance learning, but we know many young people, especially those who need additional support or are looking ahead to assessments and exams next year or have been unable to complete their assessment for their existing qualifications, would benefit greatly from face-to-face contact.

“This is why we are giving providers the flexibility to offer a combination of face-to-face and online delivery from 1 June to more of their students and apprentices.

“We will continue to be led by the scientific evidence and will only take further steps when the time is right.”

Last night’s guidance said that adults in the same class as 16 to 19-year-old learners could also receive face to face tuition, as can 16 to 19-year-olds due to finish this academic year “but not been able to because their assessments have been deferred”.

Many colleges are already open to vulnerable students and children of key workers, but the guidance makes it clear they do not have to open more widely from the June 1.

Monday June 1 is the earliest opportunity, but many colleges are expected to plan to open at a later date, after many leaders told the ESFA they would need more time to prepare.

Opening from June: College leaders given flexibilities

College leaders have been given significant flexibility over which learners they invite back onsite from as soon as June.

The Department for Education made the announcement in updated guidance tonight after college leaders had strongly demanded them.

It is understood senior staff from the Education and Skills Funding Agency had phoned nearly every college principal on Wednesday 13 May to quickly collate feedback on the expectation they reopen from as soon as 1 June and only for those 16 to 19-year-old learners on the first year of a two year course, equivalent to year 12 in schools.

Mirroring the findings of an FE Week survey the following day in which 54 per cent of college leaders that responded said they were supportive of the announcement, a massive 94 percent (32 out of 35) said the DfE should leave it to college leaders to decide who should come into college when they reopen.

The new DfE guidance, published on May 14, says: “We understand that there may need to be some flexibility in place due to the variety of learners and courses offered in FE setting.”

Adults in the same class as 16 to 19-year-old learners could also receive face to face tuition, as can 16 to 19-year-olds due to finish this academic year “but not been able to because their assessments have been deferred”.

Apprentices aged 16 to 19 should also be included on the same basis “for their off the job training where possible and appropriate, so that they can be offered some face to face contact”.

The DfE added that the policy also applies to “a small number of local authority providers, specialist post-16 institutions and independent training providers”.

Many colleges are already open to vulnerable students and children of key workers, but the guidance makes it clear they do not have to open more widely from the June 1.

Monday June 1 is the earliest opportunity, but many colleges are expected to plan to open at a later date, after many leaders told the ESFA they would need more time to prepare.

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said the guidance “will help colleges to make the right decisions in the best interests of their students, whilst maximising the safety of staff”.

“We are advising every college to make their own decisions on their assessment of priorities, needs, the context in which they operate and individual risk assessments and we are confident that is what the government wants,” he added.

The latest guidance will be welcomed by Shelagh Legrave, chief executive of Chichester College Group, as she responded to the FE Week survey to say she wanted to be given “flexibility as to who is on site” along with “more guidance on health and safety”.

In terms of the college staff there were “some very enthusiastic to return tomorrow, others more reticent”, according to Legrave, who added: “We will not force staff to come in if they feel unsafe.”

Russell Lawrance, principal of Haringey Sixth Form College, said he encouraged the government to “set the challenge so to speak – but don’t interfere in the detail” and committed to all students “having a virtual meeting or a phone conversation or meeting in college with staff as a minimum sign off”.

And Bill Jones, principal of Leeds City College, also called on the government to “trust college leaders” whilst “responding swiftly to our questions and concerns”.

The government has also given college leaders the “flexibility to decide the appropriate mix of online and face to face content for each programme, reflecting what will maximise learner engagement as well as supporting more vulnerable learners, and enabling the provider as a whole to minimise transmission risk”.

Despite the flexibilities on offer, 71 per cent of those responding to the FE Week survey said they thought a significant number of students will refuse to come into college in June and 46 per cent thought a significant number of staff would refuse.

And nearly all college leaders expressed concern when asked about the logistics and cost of staff and student transport.

More guidance on the safe use of transport is expected from the DfE as they “will be consulting with sector representatives”…“and this will be published along with further guidance for secondary schools and colleges and other providers in the week commencing 18 May”.

Ofsted raps first school over Baker Clause

A school has been rapped by Ofsted for flouting the Baker Clause, as the inspectorate begins to police the controversial rule.

Leicestershire-based King Edward VII Science and Sport College was rated ‘inadequate’ in a report published on Wednesday following an inspection in January.

Inspectors found, among other leadership and safeguarding issues, that the school was “not currently meeting its statutory responsibility to ensure that providers of technical qualifications and apprenticeships visit the school to inform pupils about these options”.

The watchdog said leaders “do not make sure that pupils receive independent careers advice”, which means students “do not feel well prepared for their next steps”.

Ofsted added that leaders “must” provide pupils with “information about what technical education and apprenticeship opportunities are available in accordance with the school’s legal obligations under the ‘Baker’ clause”.

FE Week understands this to be the first case of a school being pulled up by the inspectorate for failing the Baker Clause.

Ofsted confirmed it had not found any references to the rule in the reports it was able to search from the last academic year.

The controversial rule was introduced in January 2018 and stipulates schools must ensure a range of FE providers have access to pupils from year 8 to year 13 to provide information on technical education and apprenticeships.

It became law after the government adopted an amendment to the 2017 Technical and Further Education Act, proposed by former education secretary Lord Baker, who claimed schools were “resisting” those who tried to promote more vocational courses to pupils.

The government has become increasingly concerned at non-compliance with the rule but has yet to take any meaningful action.

While it has sent out numerous letter to schools and multi-academy trusts reminding them of the duty, no action was taken in the first year of its existence, even though a study by the Institute for Public Policy Research found that around two-thirds had broken the law.

It led to the clause being labelled a “law without teeth” by Charles Parker, the then executive director of the Baker Dearing Educational Trust, which helps to run University Technical Colleges.

Former Department for Education minister Lord Agnew sent out the most recent batch of warning letters in February 2020 – but MPs, such as education select committee chair Robert Halfon, believe the government is still “not doing enough”.

The lack of action has led to calls for Ofsted to assess compliance with the rule as part of a wider judgment on a schools’ careers guidance.

King Edward VII Science and Sport College is an academy that teaches around 750 students aged 14 to 18.

Aside from poor careers guidance, Ofsted found that governance was “not effective” and while staff do a “good job” to support pupils, some “do not feel supported by senior leaders” and “worry that leaders may respond negatively” if they raise concerns. 

Student safety was another concern, with inspectors reporting that leaders “did not respond appropriately or follow statutory guidance in relation to a serious safeguarding incident”.

Since Ofsted’s visit in January, the school has joined the Apollo Partnership Trust and appointed a new governing body.

Jennifer Byrne was the school’s principal at the time of the inspection, but a press release on its website states that vice principal Emma Booth has since become acting principal.

Julia Patrick, chief executive of the Apollo Partnership Trust, said that although King Edward VII College was not part of the academy chain at the time of the inspection, they have taken Ofsted’s report “very seriously and are actively reviewing it with a view to early implementation of any recommended changes”.

She would not comment on Byrne’s position at the school.

Ofsted has paused the publication of inspection reports during the Covid-19 pandemic, but has said it will release them sooner if requested, as was the case with King Edward’s.

Highlights from the ‘regional skills concordat’ college showcase

Twelve months ago a “regional skills concordat” was set up so that 11 colleges would work with industry to identify current and future skills gaps.

Robert Halfon, the MP for Harlow and chair of the education select committee, launched the collaboration in April 2019 claiming the “vital and exciting development will provide a ladder of opportunity for those from disadvantaged backgrounds and improve the prestige of skills development”.

The UK Innovation Corridor – a network of science and technology companies, academics, start-ups, finance and law firms from London to Cambridge – set up the project and helped produce a “showcase” of FE college-led employer engagement and skills activity along the region.

Former college principal and chair of the UK Innovation Corridor, Ann Limb, praised the collective efforts as “phenomenal”. The final showcase was due to be presented in parliament but had to move online owing to the Covid-19 pandemic.

FE Week joined the webcasted event on Wednesday, during which ten of the participating colleges answered one of three questions about the benefits of developing partnerships with businesses and potential future changes to engagement with employers.

Here is how the showcase went…

Q1: How has your employer engagement most benefited the college, your learners, employer partners and the wider community?

Hertford Regional College

Katrina Dougherty, vice principal of enterprise and innovation, said the college operates a destination curriculum model, which “supports learners to see their current studies as a passport to their future careers and not just the achievement of a qualification in its own right”. She focused on the provider’s 15-year relationship with Winchmore Brickwork – its team visits at least once a month to actively engage in programme delivery and typically uses the partnership to recruit their apprentices each year. “Working with Winchmore has enabled us to provide learners with access to real-time, hands-on experience,” she added.

Peterborough Regional College

Marie Peene, operations director of apprenticeships, provided the example of the development of the level 3 food and drink engineering maintenance apprenticeship standard. Prior to delivery, the college engaged with employers and the National Skills Academy for Food and Drink to shape the curriculum. Forums, meetings and feedback informed the contextualisation of the programme as well as the layout and equipment that should be used in the centre. Further engagement allows staff at the college to ensure they have up-to-date expertise.

Q2: Which employers has your college engaged with?

Capital City College Group

Barry Connolly, strategic advisor for engineering development at Conel

Barry Connelly, strategic advisor for engineering development at Conel (part of CCCG), discussed the gratitude of Transport for London rail and of global real estate firm CBRE for the development of apprentices’ engineering skills and benefits to their businesses. He added the college’s facilities put it in a “strong position to bring out further growth” and that increased employer partnerships would create new apprenticeship opportunities to help “young people within the local community and the UK Innovation Corridor become the next generation of qualified engineers”.

Waltham Forest College

Senior business adviser Nelson Dean spoke about the development of the college’s partnership with One Housing Group. It started with a request to help recruit one apprentice and has now grown into a bigger programme with opportunities for industry work placements. Dean said Waltham Forest College also has wider discussions with the housing association’s supply chain and host networking events to explore the challenges of the industry and how the college can support the upskilling of staff or provision of candidates for jobs.

Ada, the National College for Digital Skills

Principal Stuart Noss elaborated on Ada’s partnership with software company Salesforce. It provides “significant” numbers of mentors every year and sponsors events such as a weeklong take-over of the college to co-deliver a client brief training project, giving students “the opportunity to experience what the real world will be like”. The firm has also helped design the curriculum, is part of the induction programme and provides grants to invest in welfare. Noss concluded the partnership is “hugely beneficial for both parties”.

Stansted Airport College, part of Harlow College 

Deputy principal Will Allanson explained that the partnership came about due to the college’s location, the fact Stansted Airport was the largest single employment site in the East of England and that there had been no access to vocational education within the district. He said the curriculum had been designed to prepare people to go into employment at the airport. “We join the dots up with young people between where they are and where they need to get to,” Allanson continued, citing employers coming in to work alongside learners and tutors at the college as well as opportunities for work placements.

Q3: How do you see your employer engagement changing in the coming one to five years? What is driving this change?

Cambridge Regional College

Deputy principal of Cambridge Regional College Michelle Dowse

In the most popular quote of the seminar, deputy principal Michelle Dowse passed on the perspective that “resilient companies don’t bounce back, they bounce forward”. She said that many employers in the Innovation Corridor have told her they will embrace the technological changes that many of them have accelerated during lockdown and “they’ll require even more support from us to help them make those changes”. She predicts this may take the form of more webinars, virtual career support and interviews, as well as greater flexibility in delivery models. 

Capel Manor College

Key issues for principal Malcolm Goodwin included climate change and food security, which he said had been highlighted with the pressures on the supply chain during Covid-19. For the specialist environmental and land-based college the most effective way to develop multi-employer collaboration has been hosting large fairs. “Looking at the three- to five-year picture, I think I can see the alumni playing a much more significant role,” he concluded.

New City College

Steve Lee, the deputy group director for apprenticeships and business development, said the college has been maintaining engagement with employers and stakeholders during the pandemic and “keeping that momentum going where we can”. It is currently in the process of opening a new campus and modernising the others with hopes to “meet the needs of employers and to future-proof education where we can”. Input received so far on equipment and technology has been utilised to shape what the campus should look like.

North Hertfordshire College

Adam Barnes, head of employer engagement, outlined how the college’s separate brand for apprenticeship provision, Hart Learning & Development, was set up to look at how it could “expand on a more national basis”. By cutting the number of courses on offer, it was able to create “a much more tailored programme”. He sees the provision of pre-apprenticeship training to help clients with recruitment as an area for future growth. According to Barnes, this means the provider “can design things that are expressly related to the job roles that people go into”.

 

DfE publishes ‘checklist’ for the wider reopening of colleges

The Department for Education has published a “checklist” to assist colleges with their wider reopening from 1 June.

Government guidance was updated this evening to help leaders decide “what to consider and steps to take when planning increased attendance”.

It says that given the “varied nature” of colleges it is “not possible for the government to be prescriptive and provide a blueprint that could apply to every college”.

“A tailored approach, within these guiding principles, will be required to ensure an approach that is practicable, safe and which meets, as far as is possible, the needs of the learners, staff and wider community,” the guidance adds.

The DfE warns that implementation of the checklist “may well have financial implications” so “care must be exercised to ensure these are taken into account with due regard for the impact on the college’s overall budget and financial position”.

It also states that the week commencing 1 June is the “earliest” that colleges should start to reopen for face to face contact with 16 to 19 learners on the first year of two-year programmes, alongside the provision they are offering to priority groups.

The department says that they “understand” there may need to be some flexibility in place due to the variety of learners and courses offered in FE settings, so although the main face to face contact is for 16 to 19 learners from 1 June, there “may be some courses that include learners within a class that are over 19”.

“Some 16 to 19-year-olds will have been due to finish this academic year, but not been able to because their assessments have been deferred (typically where they involve a license to practice). These learners can be included in on-site delivery if they would benefit from face to face contact,” the guidance adds.

“We will be expecting colleges and providers to treat 16 to 19-year-old apprentices consistently with other learners for their off the job training where possible and appropriate, so that they can be offered some face to face contact.”

Association of Colleges chief executive David Hughes said the guidance “makes clear that 1 June is not set as a rigid date for re-opening”.

“We are advising every college to make their own decisions on their assessment of priorities, needs, the context in which they operate and individual risk assessments and we are confident that is what the government wants,” he added.

Among the recommendations, colleges have been urged to consider establishing a “coronavirus governance and leadership group which meets regularly to monitor the board approved plan and consider any required adjustments and/or circumstances that may have arisen that require an immediate policy response”.

“The group’s membership, role and relationship to the full board should be agreed by the board, along with regular reporting protocols,” the DfE said.

In addition to colleges, the guidance also applies to the “smaller proportion of 16 to 19 learners in other further education settings – including local authority delivery, special post-16 designated institutions and independent providers”. 

The checklist and guidance can be read in full here.