The government has released further guidance on how schools and colleges must prepare for autumn exams to best protect public health. 

This is what you need to know: 

 

1. Keep students apart in safe spaces before exams …

Schools and colleges are being told to “identify a location where candidates will wait before the exam that can support social distancing between group ‘bubbles’”. 

In addition all candidates must be kept separate from other learners arriving at school or college. 

The guidance tells schools and colleges it must make sure there “is a plan to manage candidates leaving the room and site” – taking into account different exam finishing times and extra time for some students. 

These considerations also apply in private exam centres or “wherever the exams are taking place” and schools and colleges must ensure candidates maintain social distancing from other members of the public if necessary.  

 

2. … and maintain 2 metres between ‘bubbles’ in exam rooms

For students within the same group ‘bubble’, the minimum distance between candidate chairs “must” be 1.25 metres. 

However, “all other candidates, whether in different group bubbles, private candidates or those returning to school or college to take exams, should be seated 2 metres apart from each other.”

Invigilators are allowed to walk up and down aisles between desks, but “there must also be points in the room where an invigilator can stand at least 2 metres from the nearest desks and see all the candidates in the room”.

 

3. No limit on candidate numbers – but keep windows open

While there is no overall limit on the number of candidates who can sit in a room, “as long as desks are correctly spaced”, the guidance advises the opening of windows and doors for ventilation. 

It states: “Good ventilation is important and you should maximise this wherever possible”

 

4. Schools and colleegs must keep contact info for NHS Test and Trace

The guidance advises school and college leaders will need to “collect and keep” contact information for candidates and invigilators “so that you can share it with NHS Test and Trace if needed”. 

The government warns this is “particularly important for any external visitors” such as invigilators and candidates not enrolled at the school or college, with providers advised to cross reference contact details with a prepared seating plan.

 

5. Exam rooms must be cleaned after each exam

Frequently touched surfaces, including the backs of chairs where candidates pull chairs out to sit, should be cleaned after every exam. 

The guidance adds: “Rooms do not need to be left empty between exams, provided they are cleaned properly each time.”

 

6. No face coverings requirement …

According to the guidance, candidates and invigilators do not need to wear face coverings – unless they want to. 

However, they “should wear face coverings in communal areas if the exam centre is in an area of local intervention”.

 

7. … but invigilators must minimise contact with others

Invigilators are allowed to move between different schools and colleges, so should therefore “minimise contact and maintain as much distance as possible from other staff”.

Before exams are under way schools must tell invigilators what they need to do to minimise contact and maintain as much distance as possible from other staff.

In addition the guidance states “invigilators do not need to wear gloves when collecting exam scripts”. 

 

8. Stand alongside candidates rather than face to face

The government says schools and colleges “should advise invigilators and other staff to stand alongside candidates when interacting with them, rather than face to face”.

For encounters “over 15 minutes”, such as providing individual support, staff are advised to maintain a two metre distance or consider using a separate room from other candidates.

If a two metre distance cannot be maintained “they should avoid close face to face contact and minimise time spent within one metre of others.”

However, the guidance includes the caveat that “these arrangements may not be possible when working with some candidates who have complex needs, in which case these candidates’ educational support should be provided as normal during exams”.

Controversial £40 charges for the external quality assurance of apprenticeship endpoint-assessment will start being phased out as soon as October, it has been confirmed.

The fees will end as the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education hands over EQA responsibility for over 300 apprenticeship standards to Ofqual.

Federation of Awarding Bodies chief executive Tom Bewick has welcomed the news, but said the IfATE “must get better” at communicating how the transition will work so that “we avoid any further unnecessary complexity and confusion”.

In two Ofqual letters to EPA organisations seen by FE Week, 69 standards overseen by IfATE will transition “by November”, with a further 54 from January 2021 and the remaining standards by next summer.

Currently, Ofqual splits EQA duties with the IfATE and around 20 other employer bodies.

But under a new system confirmed last month, all quality assurance of apprenticeships without an intergraded degree will transfer to Ofqual and all EPA organisations will need to be “recognised” with them. The Office for Students is taking over EQA for integrated degree apprenticeships only.

The existing complex EQA system has come under heavy criticism for the variability in approaches. FE Week analysis last year found other EQA organisations were charging up to £179 per apprentice for the service, leading Bewick to liken the quality assurance market to “the Wild West”.

A spokesperson for IfATE, which runs EQA through contractor Open Awards and charges £40 for the job per apprentice, has confirmed Ofqual “will not charge for external quality assurance, so as standards transition the existing charge will be turned off”.

They added that the charge will cease for each apprenticeship standard on the day that they are transferred over to Ofqual.

The institute’s own delivery of EQA, originally conceived as a back-stop in the event of failure to secure a different organisation, is currently in use across around half of the nearly 600 standards.

The Institute must get better at communicating with the sector about how the EQA transition will be handled

The full transitioning of standards to Ofqual is planned to take two years, and those EPAOs starting with Ofqual from November have been given until the end of this month to apply to carry on doing EPA for their existing standards.

An awarding organisation being recognised by Ofqual means their qualifications can be considered for public funding to be taught in schools, colleges and other FE providers, and its certificates can carry the Ofqual logo.

Bewick, the boss of the Federation of Awarding Bodies which has many members as EPAOs, said: “I welcome the clarification about Ofqual not charging from as soon as October for the standards now in the process of migrating to them.

“However, the Institute must get better at communicating with the sector about how the EQA transition will be handled, so that we avoid any further unnecessary complexity and confusion.”

This, he added, should include the Treasury, which issues the charge, agreeing to end it all together by the end of March 2021.

Standards which are not assured by IfATE will be transferred over in the second transition year.

Ofqual has said it is “starting to engage with EPAOs who want to apply for Ofqual recognition” but, faced with a wave of applications, the watchdog has put up an advertisement for an “immediately available” financial and markets analyst to scrutinise the “financial suitability” of EPAOs.

The job, which will run on a fixed-term contract until March with a salary of up to £44,660 per year, involves analysing financial records and business proposals to “reach judgements about the overall financial suitability of applications”.

Candidates should be an “experienced analyst with a strong financial or accounting background who can review company business plans and finances from day one”.

Organisations applying to be recognised by Ofqual have to be able to prove they have “adequate financial reserves which will support the organisation through the lifecycle of a qualification” as well as accounting and financial monitoring systems either in place, or in development if it is a new awarding organisation.

Colleges should be forced to surrender their powers to decide what courses they run to new, local FE directors, a report published today from a former adviser to education ministers has said.

Think tank EDSK’s director Tom Richmond has today launched ‘Further consideration: Creating a new role, purpose and direction for the FE sector’, which says new FE directors should arrange provision “in line with local social and economic needs, as well as eliminating duplication of courses and promoting specialisation among nearby colleges”.

Colleges would retain responsibility for their day-to-day running, but would have to hand FE directors, based in every local enterprise partnership or mayoral combined authority, final say on “important strategic decisions such as the courses and specialisms that each college offers”.

The directors would also decide how the adult education budget is distributed among their colleges.

Writing for FE Week, Richmond, who is a former senior adviser to previous skills ministers Nick Boles and Matt Hancock, said: “Ultimately, this is not about what is best for colleges – it’s about what is best for learners. With this prize in mind, the loss of some autonomy for individual colleges is a step in the right direction.”

EDSK’s report has been funded by the Further Education Trust for Leadership, and a trust spokesperson said: “We think the time has come for a fresh and open discussion about the state of the sector alongside the pros and cons of college autonomy.”

It comes ahead of the FE White Paper due for publication this autumn, with one option of giving the government greater control over colleges being considered.

Other recommendations in Richmond’s report include splitting colleges into separate institutions (community, sixth-form and technology colleges) focused on different qualification levels, increasing the base rate of funding for 16 to 19-year-olds to £5,000 by 2024/25, and giving learners a new “lifetime loan limit” of £75,000 to spend on education and training.

Colleges have chosen to focus on what is best for them rather than what is best for their learners

‘Further Consideration’ seeks to build on findings and recommendations made in last year’s post-18 education Augar Review, which found examples of both over-capacity and a lack of specialism in colleges.

The review recommended the government use capital funding to create partnerships, group structures and specialisation to deliver a “national network of colleges”.

EDSK’s new report’s recommendations were drawn up after interviews with 21 academics, policy experts and stakeholders, including Hartlepool College principal Darren Hankey, HOLEX policy director Sue Pember, and Bedford College chief executive Ian Pryce.

It found that “excessive competition” among colleges has done “more harm than good”.

“Often in response to financial pressures, colleges have chosen to focus on what is best for them rather than what is best for their learners, employers and their local area,” Richmond says.

“This has resulted in duplicated courses, a lack of specialisation among colleges and unnecessary confusion for learners and employers – all of which make the sector less financially secure.”

Colleges have previously come in for high-profile criticism for how the courses they provide do not tally with their areas’ economic needs or students’ job prospects.

Earlier this year Ofsted chief inspector Amanda Spielman called out a number of colleges for “flooding a local job market with young people with low-level arts and media qualifications,” while there is a large demand for skills in areas such as green energy.

And last week, skills minister Gillian Keegan and Association of Colleges chief executive David Hughes both said colleges ought to be judged, and funded according to Hughes, on the outcomes for their learners, rather than their enrolment.

FE Week asked the AoC whether they supported the idea of final course decisions being taken by an FE director, which would result in the “loss of some autonomy for individual colleges” as Richmond says, but they dodged the question.

Instead, AoC deputy chief executive Julian Gravatt said it “isn’t that colleges should lose their autonomy to decide what courses they should run, but rather have a collective responsibility and autonomy to agree a coherent strategy across the local system”.

“This sort of collective approach allows for much more strategic interventions – which if we get right should see colleges feel empowered and able to act more freely together than they do currently alone,” he added.

One key option being considered by the government in its upcoming FE White Paper is taking back greater control over colleges, and in February it handed £2.7 million to 36 skills advisory panels to identify and tackle local skills gaps.

This intelligence, the EDSK says, will be useful for FE directors as they arrange provision to meet the needs of small and large employers.

A Department for Education spokesperson said EDSK’s report “outlines a range of interesting recommendations to achieve our aims”, and their White Paper will detail plans to “build a high-quality further education system”.