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.

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.

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.

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.