The UK’s elite squad of skilled young people in electronics has beaten their Chinese counterparts in this country’s first virtual pressure test – a new means of training for the international WorldSkills competitions during the pandemic.
FE Week spoke to competitors, trainers and organisers to find out if the innovative model will become the new norm.
Five members of Squad UK, based at Gower College Swansea, and five competitors from China in their own country, undertook a “pressure test” on Thursday, pitting the two teams against one another in an electronics skills competition.
Rhys Watts
Although the competitors were thousands of miles apart, they kept in constant contact over Zoom.
UK competitor Rhys Watts took gold at the event, with Ben Lewis and Liam Hughes taking joint-silver, and China taking the bronze medal.
This was part of a two-day event hosted by the Department for International Trade, with the first day on Wednesday featuring speakers from the department, Team UK training managers, college leaders and the Chinese government, discussing how best to train for and compete in skills competitions.
Watts told FE Week he was “chuffed” to win and to see the work he had put in pay off was a “big achievement for me”.
“It went well on the whole. There were a few points were my soldering wasn’t going as planned, but then I just took a second and carried on.”
Steve Williams
Speaking after finding out his team had won the medals, electronics training manager Steve Williams said: “I can get a bit emotional with this sometimes. Seeing the work these guys have put in through lockdown is absolutely remarkable.
“This is the first bit of pressure testing they’ve been put under and they’ve risen to the challenge.”
The competitors had two hours to make a controller from a kit, which could then design and run a set of traffic lights.
Williams came up with the task himself, and it was then signed-off by the Chinese side.
He said the skills it called on “directly fits into FE curriculum, whether we’re looking at BTEC or another curriculum.
“It fits into what industry is looking for, which is engineers who are IT literate, who are digitally literate and have all the digital skills needed to push the envelope.”
He said a task that fits in snugly with the needs of industry was the whole ethos of WorldSkills, getting competitors ready for competitions, but also the world of work.
Each side was judged by experts from their own country, but Williams insisted the standards were “exacting”, with, for example, the soldering joints on the competitors’ projects being examined under a microscope.
He called the pressure tests “vitally important” because if they do not test the UK’s competitors against other national teams “we are going in cold to international competitions and that’s incredibly dangerous”.
There was a hitch when the computer screens they were using froze, but “generally it went very well,” Williams said.
Training his competitors for Shanghai will now continue virtually: each of them has a fully equipped electronics lab at home and they are communicating through Zoom.
The online pressure test comes after the WorldSkills Shanghai competition was pushed back from 2021 to 2022, and the EuroSkills competition, set to take place in Austria next January, was indefinitely postponed.
Following the decision on Shanghai, WorldSkills UK chief executive Neil Bentley-Gockmann told FE Week they were looking at running pressure tests with other countries.
Parisa Shirazi
Head of skills development and international competitions for WorldSkills UK Parisa Shirazi said that traditionally, “we would pressure test by taking squad members to other countries to compete with their counterparts”.
But due to the travel restrictions around Covid-19, she said: “We are looking at new innovations and how we can simulate the same experience, the same pressure, with the use of technology.
“Today marks a really great step for us in how we can then look to adopt the principle of this livestreamed training activity, which enables us to benchmark and compare the standard our young people in comparison to our counterparts across the globe.
“What this gives us a really good proxy so we are then able to establish the distance our students and apprentices need to travel.
“And there are some really insightful lessons we can take away, as we can then say ‘are there differences in our education and training system that we’re maybe not teaching to the right level or standard in comparison to China?’.”
China was a key candidate for the test as their technical and vocational education system has had to adapt to the demands of a fast-growing industry, especially in electronic products.
So, Shirazi says, WorldSkills UK is looking at what China has done which they could adopt for the UK’s own system.
“The competition,” she says, “is a vehicle. Our ambition is looking at how we can mainstream excellence.”
WorldSkills UK is looking at holding a series of these events next year, with Shirazi saying Wednesday’s mini-conference was intended to “draw from the lessons we have learned about the logistics and operation of putting on an event like this, which we can then replicate across the multitude of skills in our portfolio”.
“We see in the UK, real value in this. For young people and where we can bring together policymakers, industry leaders and education providers across the globe, to collaborate and share practice.
“This is not something we’ve done before, and there is some real gold dust in that, I think.”
An example of this meeting of minds was exemplified in the Wednesday session, where Hao Bin, director general of international affairs for China’s ministry of human resources and social security, which runs the country’s participation in WorldSkills, said he was “honoured” to participate, recalling an old Chinese saying that: “No distance can separate friends and likeminded people.”
Shanghai will be the first time China has hosted the international WorldSkills competition since it joined the organisation in 2010, and Hao Bin said that had “helped to raise our level of vocational and educational training and teaching”.
He explained that his country wanted to learn from the UK as it has been a member of the movement that became WorldSkills in 1953 and has hosted three of the international competitions.
“In light of this, there is a lot we can learn from each other.”
Bentley-Gockmann gave a pre-recorded address to the event, in which he said: “I think that this is the start of a forward-looking partnership, where we can forge deeper and closer relationships on exchanging best practice within the world’s skills network.”
A huge recruitment drive has been launched at the Department for Education to aid its response to Covid-19, with 100 jobs up for grabs.
Job adverts for the 12-month contracts contain limited detail but state that people are being sought to work in “priority roles” that have been impacted by the pandemic and will be deployed “where business needs are greatest”.
The DfE refused to shed more light on what the positions will entail or the areas that will be covered, but it appears they will be looking to poach existing civil servants from other government departments and agencies for a loan spell.
Job adverts for the roles include the line: “Existing civil servants (with manager approval) would have the option of transferring to DfE on loan.”
When Covid first struck, a “small” number of staff from the DfE’s agencies were seconded to the department, including from Ofsted, to keep inspectors busy after the watchdog’s inspection regime was suspended in March.
An FE Week investigation in May found that 20 inspectors had been deployed to the DfE to support their social care, early years and further education departments.
All those civil servants who temporarily transferred to the DfE and aided its initial Covid-19 response have since returned to their previous areas of work.
But it wouldn’t be a total surprise to see more inspectors loaned out to the DfE. Speaking at the Schools and Academies Show on Wednesday, Ofsted chief inspector Amanda Spielman ruled out an “inspection frenzy” when normal business for the watchdog is resumed (currently set for the beginning of the new year), suggesting the reintroduction of full inspections could be “gradual” and thus will not require as many staff.
Candidates to the DfE’s Covid response team are asked to apply for a range of levels.
Twenty-five will be hired as higher executive officers, who earn a salary of £29,363 and typically work across various policy areas, making “significant contributions toward decision-making”, while 39 will be employed as senior executive officers, who are paid £36,498 and often manage teams.
An additional 31 individuals will be taken on as “grade 7” employees who are “responsible for setting priorities, agreeing targets, allocating responsibilities to their team” and are “accountable for outcomes in their policy area”. They receive £49,861 a year.
Lastly, five people will be hired in “grade 6” positions which typically lead “several complex work streams” and are paid £61,014.
What’s really behind the Commission on the College of the Future’s recommendation that colleges should have a ‘legal duty’ to create networks, asks Luke Rake
This is not news, and the commission creates an opportunity for us to position ourselves prior to the FE white paper. However, it also raises huge questions about the sector’s future and its structure.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty to agree with. My work in the sector and as an independent local enterprise partnership (LEP) board member shows there are times when a lack of inter-departmental synergy in government, for example between BEIS, DEFRA, DFE and MHCLG, fails to ensure investment priorities meet the needs of communities across the country.
People travel all over the place, not according to lines on a map
The recommendation of closer working to ensure sensible and coherent strategy and the drivers of educational provision to match the needs of geographies and learners is thus a good one.
It’s also sensible to recommend greater stability of funding (although it might be better to just say “get the funding level correct”). However, this requires careful managing by ESFA and others to ensure (a) there are opportunities for growth, and (b) a three-year settlement does not allow for crises points at the end
of each period where a college requires a major negative shift in its funding position.
However, the headline already creating the most noise is the “legal duty” on colleges to create networks, which must be matched by a duty on other post-16 providers. My worry is that this grabs all the bandwidth.
Why this duty? I cannot see a sensible way to force private training providers, public sector schools and the entertainingly different “incorporated by statute but pseudo-public-sector” colleges into bodies that have legal status. We already have networks that are functional and effective, whether LEPS, local safeguarding boards, chambers of commerce, etc. So the legal duty is either not required or it’s after something else.
Control? Create large regional colleges that service whole geographies. Well, sorry, geography doesn’t work like that – people travel all over the place, not according to lines on a map.
Protectionism for colleges? PTPs are a mixed bag, but so are colleges – let the customer choose.
“Securing provision in hard-to-reach areas” – does this mean propping up poor-quality provision, or perhaps forcing those wishing to study level 3 to study miles from home? That’s not going to sell to the student in Cornwall who suddenly finds themselves forced to go 100 miles to study. They’ll just stay in school and do A-levels. Seriously, they will. Might work in a city, but let’s not forget the rural dimension here.
Larger doesn’t necessarily equate to better quality, nor does it equate to more resilient, as the massive bailouts to some very large providers show. Similarly, small does not equate to weak.
The challenges in the sector are arguably of leadership and ambition, not scale.
The principle of survival of the fittest does not say anything about size. Competition in itself is a good thing, not an evil to crush with statute. Foxes may eat rabbits, but rabbits are still here and doing very well thank you. True, they might have to run faster, as they are running for their life, not just their dinner.
However, competition has enabled both to evolve and thrive in their own niche. A well-run, locally-minded provider of any type will always work with partners. This is not vertical restraint or similar, it’s just common sense with a hefty dose of moral purpose.
So, let’s push for FE to have its place in the sun, but let’s also not kill off the small specialist, local provider in the pursuit of the Amazon model. I think people deserve more choice on their high street.
Read all sides of the argument for The Independent Commission on the College of the Future’s recommendation that colleges should be forced into local ‘networks’:
Luke Rake has been arguing AGAINST the recommendation.
The future colleges report’s call for a network strategy is eminently sensible as a corrective to failing marketisation, writes Stuart Rimmer.
This week the College of the Future report landed, with some thoughtful description of how our sector can drive place, productivity and people. There is much merit in the report, which captures discussions between some leaders over the course of many months.
It is often easy within our sector to identify the problems and reasonably straightforward to define our “future perfect”. What rarely gains consensus is how we get there.
The key recommendations appear straightforward (even at times obvious): placing colleges front and centre of a national skills revival; calling for a skills strategy; colleges to co-create with employers and provide lifelong learning opportunities backed by funding. This is important ahead of the white paper, although it’s fair to say that with a single year spending review, public finances under pressure and DfE political stock being at a low point, it may only signify a direction, rather providing the money or legislation to make it happen.
It’s time we admitted the tensions exist and the designed formal solutions
Contention only occurs where there is no consensus and the report has managed to do this under one of the key recommended elements. It suggests that government must introduce a duty on colleges to develop network strategies across economic geographies. This in many respects represents a significant departure from current policy, with accountability now prescribed to the network level and a dual mandate for governors towards institution and system.
This has been seen by some as a grab of power from the centre, a loss of institutional independence, and confusion of corporation role. It might mean that. . . and if it does… then… Good! About bloody time!
Many regions have been plagued by poor competitor behaviours by “robber baron” principals.
Quasi-markets leave a free-for-all system of small school sixth-forms, poor IAG, local colleges running aggressive campaigns and splitting markets for curriculum leading to confusion and inefficiency. Large employers often need to talk to multiple delivery partners and so find it hard to navigate separate institutions or get consistency of delivery. Area-Based Review went some way to achieving this but did not control transition or core funding to bring college leaders to heel where required.
All the report calls for is a network strategy – groups or systems of interconnected people coming together. This is hardly radical and is eminently sensible.
Where regional colleges and higher education institutions have got together in formal partnerships or mergers they have created a “micro-planned system” and they appear to be working to the greater good, with examples in the West Midlands, Manchester, and Sheffield region, to name but a few.
In other parts of the country we have larger college groups (for example, in London region) that “design out” competition through joint planning. Governments have tried through skills advisory panels and skills capital running through local enterprise partnerships to smooth out competition and create regional planning, but many are still ineffective. The report harks back to UKCES outcome area agreements – the linking of regional curriculum deliverables to funding. It is fair that publicly funded work is designed for the public good, by the public through public structures.
There is always a tension between wearing the institutional hat and the regional network hat.
It’s time we admitted these tensions exist and the designed formal solutions. The CoF report suggests one way, not necessarily the best way, of doing this.
For two reasons it is far too early to be decrying the CoF report.
Firstly, it is only some words on a page to stimulate discussions.
It highlights a plan yet to be fully debated, not a blueprint. Secondly, the detail of how this is interpreted by government and translated into policy will take a long time and will likely change. During the interim, as college leaders we should create the space to build consensus on how we will deliver these aspirations.
We can do this regionally or nationally. We can do this by further mergers or through formal collaborations. We have choice. Colleges naturally want to collaborate and many are hugely expert in this already and may not need the funding or capital incentives to do so. But to create a world-class and complete system available to everyone in every place, more structure will likely be required.
I have on many occasions called for some form of renationalisation or “un-incorporation” of our sector, based more on a philosophical and political position to provide correction to failing marketisation and to encourage, or demand, collaboration. Regional network strategies could be a step in the right direction.
Read all sides of the argument for The Independent Commission on the College of the Future’s recommendation that colleges should be forced into local ‘networks’:
Stuart Rimmer has been arguing FOR the recommendation
This week the Independent Commission on the College of the Future published their report for England – and despite all the events and consultations since they launched 20 months ago – one recommendation appears to have surprised every college leader I have spoken to.
The report recommended that the law should require “funding and accountability ultimately sit at the network level rather than individual college level”. And, the authors go on to say the “acid test” for their network model is that if the college did not agree to join the network and then agree to the network strategy, they would not receive grant or capital funding.
So what do college leaders think about giving up individual college accountability?
Luke Rake, principal of Kingston Maurward College thinks there is plenty to agree with in the report but says he cannot see a sensible way to force colleges into networks and that “competition in itself is a good thing, not an evil to crush with the statute”.
Stuart Rimmer, principal of East Coast College, on the other hand, says that if these networks mean a loss of institutional independence and a power grab from the centre, then that is: “Good! About bloody time!”
He goes on to say it would solve the problem in many regions which “have been plagued by poor competitor behaviours by ‘robber baron’ principals”.
I speak to college leaders every day, and it is very uncommon for them to have such different views on system change.
This led me to run a short online poll, to which 19 college principals replied.
Some agreed with the recommendation and said “colleges should be renationalised. Public asset and public goods” or that it would result in “better value for money in capital investment, and staff development and remuneration”.
Some looked for compromise – agreeing with the proposal for colleges to act together but adding “accountability needs to stay with the local, individual college”.
But many more college leaders feared “yet another layer of bureaucracy” or called it an “awful idea” or said, “might as well have the Local Education Authority back”.
Twelve of the 19 principals did not support the network recommendation.
The concern I’m most sympathetic to is that it “would effectively mean that colleges would no longer be independent institutions, and they would consequently be less responsive to local and regional needs”.
On the other hand, David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, says he does not want colleges to wait to be told what to do.
So colleges developing their networks, however messy when they can’t agree among themselves, could be a better way of taking accountability than risking the education secretary deciding they want to choose who is on the board.
And if giving up independence at an individual college level is the price for getting the Treasury to fund the sector adequately, then could it be a price worth paying?
Strategic or even commissioning roles could be given to the local enterprise partnership or chamber of commerce as part of a network.
This would not be comfortable for some college leaders, but can they all truthfully claim to have embraced employer engagement so far?
The report from the Independent Commission should be taken seriously as it is likely the authors have worked hard to align their thinking with the government.
So the plans in the forthcoming FE white paper should come as less of a surprise now.
The job of a responsible and mature sector is to thrash out and debate the details – something I look forward to doing with you over the coming weeks and months.
Read all sides of the argument for The Independent Commission on the College of the Future’s recommendation that colleges should be forced into local ‘networks’:
The Independent Commission on the College of the Future rightly calls on college leaders to drive forward a positive change agenda, rather than waiting for someone else to tell them what to do, says David Hughes.
The English report from the Independent Commission on the College of the Future sets out a compelling vision, one that I hope will be reflected in the upcoming FE white paper, and which I am also confident
will lay the foundations for colleges in years to come.
The independent commission reached its recommendations and proposals following engagement with people at more than 150 roundtables, with college leaders and academics, unions, businesses, cross-party politicians, stakeholders, government officials and students. They covered large swathes of complex policy and strategy, with input and agreement on the way forward from a breadth of voices within FE and beyond. The commission also consulted in November 2019 to elicit responses and ideas from a wide range of people.
The recommendations need to be considered in their totality
The vision is supported by a detailed set of recommendations that need to be considered in their totality – with a recognition that amplifying the role of colleges as key strategic partners within the education and skills ecosystem is a collective responsibility for all.
I am glad the commission has challenged us all to think about the role of colleges now and in the future – calling college leaders to drive forward a positive change agenda, rather than waiting for someone else to tell colleges what to do. At AoC we have engaged members through our policy groups, regional meetings and our board and will continue to ensure members’ feedback, through all of the channels available, informs our policy and influencing work.
The commission has achieved a consensus about the future vision and place of colleges and has set out detailed recommendations for how to achieve that. In England, it is clear from what Gavin Williamson said at our FE Summit this week, that the DfE white paper that we expect soon will help move towards
that vision.
AoC will continue to ensure members’ feedback informs our policy
I look forward to seeing the details of that and working with AoC members to respond to it at the appropriate time.
Meanwhile, the commission report will provide food for thought for every college leader, employers and
stakeholders interested in supporting colleges to deliver for people, productivity and place.
Read all sides of the argument for The Independent Commission on the College of the Future’s recommendation that colleges should be forced into local ‘networks’:
Major parts of the economy will see level 3 qualifications in their sector excluded from the new Lifetime Skills Guarantee, FE Week can reveal.
Sectors deemed a low priority with low wages include hospitality, leisure, travel, retail, media and arts, while sectors such as IT, construction and engineering will get the green light.
When the all-age first full level 3 (equivalent to two full A-levels) policy announcement was made in September by prime minister Boris Johnson the government said it would give “adults the chance to take free college courses valued by employers, supporting people to train into better jobs”.
Since then the Education and Skills Funding Agency has been working on developing a list of those qualifications that would be “valuable in the workplace” to be funded from the national skills fund, from April 2021.
It is understood, based on accounts from those involved in the process, that the ESFA has determined priority based on the 50 “sub-sector subject area” categories already assigned to the nearly 1,200 full level 3 qualifications currently eligible for legal entitlement funding for those aged 19-to-23 from the adult education budget until the end of this year.
This has led them to exclude nearly 30 (see full list right) of the 50 sector areas, accounting for around half the qualifications, as well as several hundred Access to HE qualifications, on the basis that learners who take out loans can already get them written off if they go on to complete a degree.
As a result, the full level 3 Lifetime Skills Guarantee qualifications are expected to number less than 400 – around a quarter of those 1,200 available from the adult education budget or funded from advanced learner loans.
Exclusion has prompted exasperation from sector bodies, with the chief executive for trade body UK Hospitality, Kate Nicholls, saying how “incredibly disappointing” it is to see her area barred from the guarantee, especially after hospitality has been “hammered harder than any other by the crisis and needs support to get back up to full strength and contribute to rebuilding the economy”.
She expressed hope the government would “open every possible avenue to people looking to join” the sector, adding: “It could be crucial if we want to see hospitality, and the economy, bounce back.”
Reacting to our analysis, Federation of Awarding Bodies chief executive Tom Bewick criticised the DfE for coming up with a qualifications list “without any meaningful consultation with the occupational sectors concerned.
“It is pretty shocking, and takes the idea of ‘Whitehall knows best’ to a whole new level. I can’t see how policymakers are any better at second guessing the future of the labour market than those who actually work in it.”
He said the Lifetime Skills Guarantee is “increasingly looking like a con trick”, and instead of putting “genuine lifelong learning and choice at the centre the new entitlement for adults, the government seems determined to massively limit the choices people can make by prescribing only a very few occupational routes for people to re-train in”.
Ofqual data on certificates at all levels awarded between July and September 2020, published this week, shows several of the excluded sector subject areas were in the top ten for number of certificates awarded, including sport, leisure and recreation, performing arts and media and communication.
Apprenticeships and skills minister Gillian Keegan told an FE Week roundtable last month the qualifications that will be delivered under the guarantee would have to be high quality, have the respect of business and address a “wide range” of labour shortages.
Education secretary Gavin Williamson told the Association of Colleges’ FE summit on Wednesday the guarantee would mean teaching skills “that are highly in demand”.
Sector organisations to whom FE Week have spoken have protested that their skills are much-needed. General manager of the Institute of Administrative Management Andrew Jardine said that at first they had been “delighted” about the announcement of the new level 3 entitlement. “We were, therefore, deeply saddened and frustrated, although not necessarily surprised, to learn that the government has not included administration qualifications in the new scheme,” he added.
“Administrative roles may not get the headlines in many organisations, but I don’t know of any organisation that can function efficiently and effectively without them.”
Institute of Travel and Tourism director Peter Robinson said his sector contributes around £60 billion to the economy annually, and the decision to exclude the subjects “highlights once again the failure to understand the high-level skills and knowledge attained through tourism qualifications and the long-term value that these qualified professionals add to the industry and make to the wider economy”.
Creative & Cultural Skills, which advises the arts sector on technical education, has said it is “disappointed specific creative qualifications have been omitted from the Lifetime Skills Guarantee”, but hopes the approved qualifications will help them address their need for business operational skills.
They urged the DfE to “give thought to how they’ll support adults to retrain for the many roles the creative sector will continue to need in a post-Covid world, so as to avoid further perpetuating the perception that careers across the creative industries aren’t valid”.
The arts sector has previously come under criticism from Ofsted chief inspector Amanda Spielman, who accused colleges in January of “flooding a local job market with young people with low-level arts and media qualifications”.
Prime minister Boris Johnson announced the level 3 entitlement with the Lifetime Skills Guarantee at Exeter College in September, saying the qualifications will help people “change jobs and find work in the burgeoning new sectors this country is creating”.
But the list of qualifications has suffered delays, with the DfE originally saying it would be released in October.
Keegan then told awarding organisations and sector representatives at an October roundtable her department was hoping to release the list “in the next couple of months, and hopefully by November”.
When FE Week took the sector concerns to the DfE a spokesperson said the new entitlement “is designed to help more adults to gain the skills that are valuable in the workplace and that will help them to progress.
“We are continuing to engage widely with the sector on the development of the offer and will confirm details in due course.”
An upcoming tender for the national adult education budget has been delayed – again.
The Education and Skills Funding Agency had planned to launch the re-procurement exercise, which is expected to follow the same scope as the controversial AEB tender in 2017, in July 2020 but then pushed this back until the end of the year.
But the agency has now confirmed that the tender will not get off the ground until January 2021. Contract notifications are expected to go out to successful bidders by May ahead of their start in August 2021.
The ESFA told FE Week that the budget for the procurement will be confirmed following the upcoming spending review, but the Association of Employment and Learning Providers has briefed its members that it will sit between £65 million and £70 million.
Due to the “uncertainty with devolution and the devolution white paper”, the AELP also believes the ESFA AEB contracts are likely to be an initial one-year deal with an option to extend further if required.
The last AEB procurement was run in 2017 but was significantly oversubscribed, plagued with delays and had to be completely redone after the ESFA realised it was botched.
And when the final outcomes were released most providers had their funding slashed – including one case of a 97 per cent cut.
Providers teamed up to threaten the ESFA with legal action before the agency found additional funding to top up contracts.
Those contracts have been extended several times but must now finish by the end of July 2021 and there is no provision for carry over.
The upcoming AEB tender will just be for the national budget, not for devolved combined authorities which run their own procurements.
