Schools and colleges can be confident that Ofqual and exam boards have the tools to make summer 2021 exams fair, writes Dame Glenys Stacey
Teachers, school and college leaders are working in truly exceptional circumstances with students both in college and at home, and to get them ready for GCSE, AS and A-level exams next summer. I know just how unrelenting and demanding this has been since the start of the pandemic — and still is.
The uncertainties we face are unprecedented, so I hope it will be helpful if I state some certainties, from the regulator’s perspective.
First, and as we have said publicly, we got it wrong in the summer. Like other regulators across the UK, and with the best of intentions, we worked with school and college leaders, the government and others to build a substitute for exams in the midst of this pandemic. Together we misjudged things.
It is simply not acceptable for a student to be deprived of the chance to show what they can do, and to be given instead the grades that the system thinks they warrant. We are sorry.
If anything, this summer has shown the importance, the centrality, of exams. We saw that despite every effort and good intention, other forms of assessment are likely to be more inequitable.
We know from research, for example, that non-exam assessment can be subject to bias, with the result that bright disadvantaged students, or students with special educational needs, suffer the most.
This has been a particular worry this summer and we appreciate that asking teachers to take responsibility for determining results for their students puts them in an invidious position. We are certain that examinations should run next year, and we are working with the government and exam boards on that basis.
Exams are important, not just to allow every student to show knowledge and understanding of the curriculum, but to give a fair representation of the extent of that knowledge and understanding.
The exceptional pressure on students and teachers this year has been alleviated to some extent and in some subjects by changes to the curriculum already announced. We appreciate, nevertheless, that whatever the assessment regime in place next summer, assessment choices cannot make up for lost teaching and learning. That would be akin to holding a thermometer responsible for fluctuations in temperature.
But we can take these truly exceptional circumstances into account at a national level, in the awarding process that is part and parcel of an examination series. We took a similar approach to account for dips in learning in the early years of new GCSEs. We and exam boards have the tools, and the experience.
Contingency arrangements will be required, of course, to cover all eventualities at an individual, local or national level. We are discussing potential options with the Department for Education and exam boards, and I look forward to talking options through with school and college leaders before decisions are made.
This is an exceptional time. It does not look as though we will be free from the pandemic any time soon. More than anything, we all want to make sure our young people get the best chance they can to show what they know, and what they can do, in the fairest way possible.
Teachers no doubt want certainty so that they can get on with teaching knowing what to expect. Government policy is that GCSE, AS and A-levels should be assessed predominantly by examination, as now. The regulator is of the same view.
We are working hard to make sure we take into account the effects of the pandemic, to make the best contingency arrangements we can, and to make sure the results are fair and command public confidence in this exceptional time.
If the prime minister is serious about skills, he needs to take these agreed actions from our latest roundtable, writes David Phoenix
The prime minister’s speech on further and higher education this week and the forthcoming FE white paper present a huge opportunity to grow post-16 technical education.
But growing technical education requires local and national change.
In 2019 we launched LSBU Group which is made up of two secondary schools, one FE college and one HE provider, London South Bank University (LSBU). We work closely together to deliver high-quality technical education across the group.
Our partnership offers students easier opportunities to transfer between technical, vocational and academic pathways; and we actively encourage them to take advantage of the wide range of courses run throughout the group.
On June 22, LSBU hosted a policy roundtable, chaired by former education secretary Damian Hinds, to discuss how we can strengthen post-16 technical education. We were joined by Department for Education colleagues, two universities, two FE trade bodies, six education think-tanks’ representatives, four awarding bodies, two business groups and a training-provider body.
There was wide-ranging consensus on what is needed to grow technical education.
First, we must focus the English post-16 technical system on the needs of the UK economy and students, rather than cutting and pasting a system from Germany or elsewhere.
Second, greater collaboration rather than competition is needed between post-16 education providers. In particular, the roundtable called for the reform of the deeply siloed UK education system.
This particularly affects the 60 per cent of learners who do not follow the one clearly mapped pathway – GCSEs to A-Levels to university. The funding can discourage schools from allowing pupils to transfer to other perhaps more skills-oriented provision (for example, from an academy to a UTC) and schools hold on to their “most able” pupils in sixth form, pushing them towards pre-defined routes (e.g. bachelor degrees at university). Provision needs to be much more closely knitted together, working for the benefit of students, not institutions.
Third, we must resolve the often “disputed territory” between colleges and universities over levels 4 and 5 courses. Many FE colleges have small levels 4 and 5 cohorts and face financial challenges that affect course content, quality and learner progression. Some universities fail to differentiate between standalone levels 4 and 5 and degree programmes.
We must resolve the often ‘disputed territory’ between colleges and universities over levels 4 and 5
To resolve this we need more collaboration between FE and HE institutions.
The complex quality assurance regimes at levels 4 and 5 also need simplifying. For example, a level 4 Higher National Certificate taught at universities is quality assured by the Office for Students and the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, whereas a Higher National Certificate taught at a college is quality assured by Ofqual and Ofsted. The additional cost and complexity makes this a difficult set-up for universities and colleges.
The fifth point is to make it easier for students to move between standalone level 4, level 5 and degree level. If a college delivers level 4 courses without clear local pathways to level 5 and 6, this can prevent students from progressing.
Our LSBU Group approach would not suit every institution, but it has clear benefits for learners and may provide a model for other institutions.
But we can’t do it all locally. The government must make maintenance loans available for all level 4 learners so all those studying high-quality courses at this level can receive support for living costs – not just those on a degree, but those doing a higher apprenticeship, level 4 diploma or level 4 NVQ too.
Our final, and seventh, point is there must be a government register of designated level 4 and 5 provider institutions, enabling them to apply for additional funding. This would strengthen technical education by increasing resources needed to deliver highquality personalised learning.
On Tuesday, Boris Johnson said FE colleges will “access funding on the same terms as our most famous universities”, but we need clear details on this to be published.
Billions of pounds and millions of jobs depend on growing post-16 technical education. The FE white paper is the perfect place to start.
A hotly-anticipated application process to widen the provider-base for 19 to 24 traineeships will finally be launched next week.
Details for how businesses can claim new £1,000 incentives for taking on new traineeship learners will also be published “in the coming weeks”, but it is expected that employers will be able to apply for them in late autumn and only once the learner has completed the work placement.
The news was revealed by the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s traineeships policy lead and head of traineeships during an Association of Employment and Learning Providers webinar today.
It follows chancellor Rishi Sunak’s summer statement announcement that the government is to invest £111 million to triple the number of people taking part in the pre-employment programme as part of the country’s economic recovery from Covid-19.
The procurement to deliver 19 to 24 traineeships, which are funded through the adult education budget, was supposed to run over the summer but was delayed owing to a “significant amount of due diligence” that needed to be taken, the ESFA previously said.
The notification of the tender is now due to launch on Monday 5 October with documents inviting providers to apply released 48 hours later, but the ESFA’s officials would not be drawn on how long it would be open for during today’s AELP webcast.
ESFA slide from AELP’s traineeship webinar about the upcoming procurement
For 16 to 18 traineeships, the civil servants said the agency has published guidance for in-year growth for 2020/21, and they are planning to launch a “market entry exercise” for other 16 to 18 study programme providers to start delivering traineeships.
The ESFA officials said there is concern about demand from employers for traineeships considering the various other skills programmes now available to them, such as the new cash incentives for apprentices and the kickstart programme.
To combat this, the agency has developed a “robust communications plan to engage with employers during October – December to raise their awareness and understanding of traineeships”.
Included in Sunak’s £111 million traineeships investment are £1,000 cash incentives for each trainee the employer takes on, with a cap of 10 incentive payments per employer.
The ESFA’s officials said it is “important” that the employers see the wider benefits of traineeships and not just offer work placements to receive the incentive payment.
An overview of the incentive payment process will be published in a “Traineeships Framework for Delivery” in the “coming weeks for employers and providers”, which will detail how the agency will be paying employers directly, once it has been agreed with the Treasury.
The ESFA expects employers to be able to apply for the incentive from “late autumn” and the employer can apply for the funding “once they have completed the work placement”.
ESFA slide from AELP’s traineeship webinar about the £1k employer incentives
AELP managing director Jane Hickie said: “It was good to hear at last that the procurement is going ahead because there is certainly an appetite, as last week’s FE Week story showed, among independent training providers to use traineeships to help young people affected by the pandemic’s impact to move on to apprenticeships and into employment.
“If the procurement is well designed, there is no reason why the chancellor’s £111 million support for the programme should not be fully utlised by the end of next July. In fact AELP has called for sustained funding of the programme beyond then as part of the comprehensive spending review outcome.”
In August, the ESFA introduced a number of flexibilities into the traineeship programme to make them more accessible for employers and providers, which you can read here.
The government’s forthcoming FE white paper could hand the British Chambers of Commerce key influencing powers over funding and priorities, FE Week understands.
Sources close to policy development say a gap has been created with the demise of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills in 2017, and that local enterprise partnerships have failed to impress.
Utilising the national and 53 accredited local chambers would be similar to the much lauded system in Germany.
The chambers’ strong business links are understood to be particularly desired by government as ministers look to align courses on offer closer to those “valued by employers”, as prime minister Boris Johnson said during a major speech on the future of further education on Tuesday.
Greater use of chambers of commerce is an idea favoured by Baroness Alison Wolf, who now advises Johnson on skills three days a week.
In a 2015 report, Fixing a Broken Training System, she wrote that “powerful chambers of commerce to which all local businesses must belong are one way to secure [business] participation (as in Germany)” in the skills system.
Education secretary Gavin Williamson met this year with the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), which represents the UK’s 53 accredited local chambers, to discuss “further education and apprenticeships”, according to the latest government disclosures of Williamson’s meetings.
This was after the minister promised last year’s Conservative Party conference to “overtake Germany in the opportunities we offer to those studying technical routes by 2029”.
Williamson laid out the groundwork for handing chambers greater powers at a major speech on FE reform in July 2020 where he quoted the BCC’s director general Adam Marshall, saying: “Unless we improve the transition from the world of education to the world of work in the United Kingdom, we will not fix our long-standing issues around productivity.”
The BCC told FE Week their members are “open” to exploring how “to use their knowledge, experience and convening power to contribute to the future development of the skills system”. It also confirmed that it is speaking regularly with the DfE on the skills agenda because skills are “of fundamental importance to businesses and local economies in the wake of the pandemic”.
A Department for Education spokesperson said it has had a “number of conversations” with a “wide variety of groups about the future skills system,” ahead of the white paper.
The spokesperson added that involving employers and local business groups, such as the chambers, will be “crucial” for that work, so that “we can make sure we are delivering the skills local communities and our economy need to thrive”. They said more details would come out “in due course”.
Chambers of commerce, the BCC said, would want to work “collaboratively” with FE colleges and providers, employers and communities if they are given a greater role in provision, but already have “long had a role in the skills systems, shaping local strategies”. This has included, for example, organising local skills forums, contributing to the local Skills Advisory Panels, submitting evidence to parliamentary select committees, overseeing links between businesses and education providers, helping develop university technical colleges, and supporting young people with careers activities.
The BCC is also itself involved in the new Kickstart scheme, getting young people on to work placements that can then lead on to apprenticeships or other training, as a gateway provider, which allows employers who have fewer than 30 placements to take part.
The chambers are groups of local businesses, with varying levels of staff, which can offer their members opportunities at networking as well as advice on legal matters, health and safety, and tax.
Because they charge membership fees, chambers do not receive much in the way of public funding, although they have competed for government tenders, the BCC said.
More closely integrating chambers with the FE and skills system in their area would bring England closer to Germany’s “world-class” system, which relies on local chambers to approve the trainer, known as a meister (German for master), that every company needs to have apprentices.
Membership of organisations like the chambers are compulsory for firms in Germany and they have to pay fees.
Tom Bewick
Federation of Awarding Bodies chief executive Tom Bewick who has worked and written extensively on international
apprenticeship systems, said adopting a
similar approach here would come down to
the capacity of England’s chambers.
Germany’s are built upon decades of
prestige, Bewick says, and as businesses
have to pay into the chambers, they are much more focused on its outcomes: “You always feel a little more anxious when it’s your money going out the door.”
English chambers, meanwhile, suffer from vast gaps in capability, Bewick said: “When you talk about the London chamber of commerce, it’s quite a substantial organisation, got quite a lot of staff, quite a bit of money coming through the door.
“But in other parts of the country, the chambers are no more than one man and a dog, with retired Colonel Blimp who used to run a corner shop.
“We just haven’t got the level of capacity in our chamber movement. If it’s just a series of talking shops, why would active employers, other than out of the goodness of the heart, get involved?”
Whereas German chambers see themselves as the “paymasters for the apprenticeships system”, in England, people look to government as the paymasters, even though the apprenticeship system is funded by employers.
Professor Ewart Keep from the Centre on Skills, Knowledge & Organisational Performance at Oxford University said the compulsory membership element of German chambers renders them “fundamentally different”, as they are “embedded” in the local business structure, and the structure of apprenticeships.
“When people talk about copying the German system, I always laugh a bit because it’s not really that easy. It’s deeply embedded in the structure of their country and the cultural expectations of parents, young people, employers and so on.”
But neither Bewick nor Keep believe chambers taking a beefed-up role in FE and skills is impossible.
Bewick thinks if the government does give chambers more power it will be because policymakers have realised “the system has gone too far in the direction of being a technocratic-led system, as opposed to an employer-responsive one”.
“Employers are engaged quite a lot, but I don’t think it’s the same as having employer-owned bodies independent of government and bureaucracy that then have some say over how provision is organised and paid for.
“So, I suspect that will be the crux of what they’re trying to work through with the chambers.”
While it is “not beyond the wit of man” to award those powers to chambers, it would turn them “into quasi-local authorities”, and although he is not involved in the chamber movement, “I don’t know to what extent there is an appetite to take on that statutory role,” Bewick added.
Keep said that in most developed countries there is some kind of local employer-led body that deals with training, which England does not have and “sooner or later we are going to have to tackle that”, so the chambers “might be a runner” for fulfilling that role.
Any announcement on the role of the chambers is highly likely to be dependent on a successful DfE bid to the Treasury in the forthcoming spending review.
Thousands of apprentices are “stuck in limbo” as awarding bodies struggle to adapt their functional skills assessments in the face of Covid-19, training providers have warned.
Leaders of providers, who say they cannot physically visit some of their work-based learners to invigilate their tests especially in the care and health sectors, have described the situation as “heart-breaking” and a “kick in the teeth” for those who are waiting for the exam in order to complete their programme.
Calls have been made for Ofqual to revert to centre-assessed grades for these qualifications but the regulator has rejected the plea and stressed that it is down to awarding bodies to come up with a solution.
One apprentice told FE Week that she feels “frustrated” and “disadvantaged” by the bureaucracy, while another said the delay is causing him “additional stress”.
The Federation of Awarding Bodies has defended its members, insisting that “we need to remember the unprecedented summer just gone” before criticising exam boards.
After this summer’s exam series was cancelled in March due to the pandemic, Ofqual moved to a system of teacher-calculated grades for functional skills qualifications.
But since August 1, 2020, the regulator has banned the use of centre-assessed grades for all vocational and technical qualifications, including functional skills.
All functional skills exams must now either be sat in the traditional manner, or awarding bodies must adapt their assessment arrangements to mitigate any impact of the pandemic.
But coming up with an adapted assessment solution for all affected learners has become an issue for some awarding bodies. Many apprentices are being instructed to work from home in line with government guidelines and are being instructed not to travel to centres for exams due to risk of spreading Covid-19.
Some workplaces that are open will not allow assessors to visit as their employees are having to use all available space which is restricted because of social distancing and safety measures.
The Association of Employment and Learning Providers estimates that tens of thousands of functional skills exams, mostly for apprentices but also for some learners funded by the adult education budget, could be delayed from now until Christmas as a result.
In her update to members this week, AELP managing director Jane Hickie said the delays are “due to a lack of access to workplace settings, learners working from home and some awarding organisations being behind the curve on being able to provide a technology solution, including a lack of proctoring”.
She added that with a “fresh lockdown coming, this is just going to squeeze access and deliverability even more”.
Jane Hickie
‘I feel frustrated and disadvantaged’
Jill Whittaker, the managing director of independent provider HIT Training, told FE Week that she has 360 apprentices who cannot achieve by the end of October as planned, and another 560 who will not be able to achieve by the end of the calendar year owing to these issues.
The majority are in hospitality, care, early years and NHS settings which Whittaker says are all “unable to facilitate being completed in the workplace due to social distancing, and the potential spread of Covid causing a risk to staff, customers, care users”.
Both of the awarding bodies that HIT Training work with to deliver functional skills do not “have a solution in place right now”, Whittaker said, adding that this is “damaging to progression, confidence and achievement”.
She also warned: “Ultimately without an extension to flexibilities, learners will leave the programme, not achieve and it will unnecessarily damage their future prospects at a time when the job market is fragile to say the least.”
Max Turton (pictured top left with his manager Josh Bird) is training towards a level 2 food and beverage service apprenticeship with HIT at The Eagle and Child Inn in Bury but has had his functional skills exam delayed for over a month now.
“It’s causing me additional stress,” he told FE Week. “My trainer Andy has been really supportive and is helping to keep me motivated but things feel like they are starting to drag on a lot further as I don’t know when I can go through my gateway.”
Jacqui Oughton, managing director of charitable provider Ixion Holdings, part of the Shaw Trust, said she has almost 250 learners waiting to sit their functional skills exams in sectors such as health and social care and construction.
One of them is Lisa Jones, a level 3 lead adult care worker apprentice at The Oaks Residential Care Home in Upminster, Essex.
She told FE Week: “I feel frustrated and disadvantaged that I am being held up in completing my functional skills qualifications because of bureaucracy. I understand we are not letting people into the home but surely there are alternative solutions that can be used to allow me to complete my functional skills exams.”
Oughton said it is “essential that all contributory bodies recognise the impact this is having and they need to put themselves in the shoes of those learners who are trying to progress and listen to the frustrations and tears that we are getting from people who are trying to secure their futures”.
Nichola Hay, chief executive of Estio Training, joined Whittaker, Oughton and the AELP in calling on Ofqual to return to centre-assessed grades for functional skills, warning that the response from awarding bodies and government “has not been quick enough”.
Jacqui Oughton
‘We are working as hard and as quickly as possible to get this resolved’
An Ofqual spokesperson said that since August, awarding organisations have provided functional skills assessments “as normal” for the “majority of learners” and that over 17,000 “live” assessments have taken place.
While a spokesperson confirmed that the regulator is “aware that some learners are facing challenges in taking assessments in their work setting due to coronavirus”, they do “not intend to extend the earlier provision of calculated results for functional skills qualifications”.
Awarding organisations are “working with training providers to put in place arrangements for those learners to access alternative venues or undertake remote assessments,” Ofqual added.
One of those awarding bodies is City & Guilds, which had announced they were set to roll out functional skills tests to be sat at home prior to lockdown.
But the organisation was forced to divert its resource into dealing with the exams fiasco throughout the summer. The at-home tests are still being worked on, but there is no date for their rollout.
David Phillips, City & Guilds’ managing director, said his organisation is “working hard to find additional delivery options as quickly as possible and are currently testing a number of remote invigilation options”.
“We are also assessing the possibility of opening some functional skills test centres across the country,” he added. “We understand completely how frustrating this is for learners and apprentices who are affected, and I would like to assure them all we are working as hard and as quickly as possible to get this resolved.”
Phillips stressed that despite some learners being affected, “many learners and apprentices are still able to take their functional skills qualifications as usual, using a range of methods, including online E-volve tests, remote assessment of speaking, listening and communicating and by taking tests at their employer’s premises if their workplace is accessible”.
Pearson has also been able to offer adapted online assessment for some of its functional skills learners. For those where this has not been possible, the awarding body is currently working on other options to offer individual centres, including an “online proctoring solution” and scheduling socially distanced exams.
A spokesperson for NCFE said it has amended its assessment variation process to allow for additional and adapted delivery arrangements, which are already available for their paper-based and online offer. The awarding body is also working on a “remote invigilation solution” which they hope to launch at the end of October.
Tom Bewick, chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies, said: “Before people start criticising awarding organisations, we need to remember the unprecedented summer just gone. The government’s U-turn on the A-level algorithm and the eleventh-hour decision to use centre-assessed grades placed a massive resource load on an already stretched system.
“Staff worked night and day to get results out so learners could progress. Inevitably, along with Covid restrictions, this issue has caused some difficult knock-on effects, including a short-term challenge around the issuing of functional skills results.
“Awarding organisations continue to innovate by moving assessments online, for example, by adopting a model of secure remote invigilation. What we need from the regulator is flexibility and pragmatism as we look to ensure that no functional skills learner is disadvantaged.”
This week the Department for Education was thrown in to the back seat as the prime minister grabbed the steering wheel and pushed his foot hard on the FE reform accelerator.
A press release from Number 10 confidently announced a new “lifetime skills guarantee” would launch for courses starting next April, just six months from now.
And in a move that looked deliberately designed to lock the doors and make the DfE buckle up for a rocky ride, the “notes to editors” section said: “We will set out details of [eligible] courses next month.”
The guarantee would include free full level 3 courses for adults over the age of 23, to be funded from some of the £600 million per year National Skills Fund, first promised in the Conservative Party manifesto 11 months ago.
This would implement the Augar review recommendation made 15 months ago.
All adults, no longer just those aged 19 to 23, will be eligible for a fully funded (free) first full level 3 qualification.
As an aside, many of us in the sector pointed out that this is not a new policy. Unemployed adults aged 24 and over were eligible to these fully funded A-level or equivalent qualifications until seven years ago, when the coalition government, under David Cameron’s premiership, significantly cut the budget and introduced advanced learner loans.
The lifetime skills guarantee makes adults aged 24 and over eligible again, but this time from a shiny new National Skills Fund, instead of from the devolved or national adult education budget.
But undoing the damage is being made far from easy, if not impossible by April, for two reasons.
Firstly, if a national skills fund is to be launched for course starts in April, then that is a mammoth task that raises all sorts of questions that simply won’t be answered in six months. There is the formula, the rates, the rules, provider access, data collection, payment mechanisms, audit regime and more to sort. And that’s before the complexity and duplication issues with existing devolved and national funding regimes will need to be ironed out.
Secondly, behind the scenes it seems clear that it is Baroness Alison Wolf (who co-authored the Augar review and works in Number 10 three days a week as an adviser) demanding that only “courses which are shown to be valued by employers, supporting people to train into better jobs” will be eligible for the lifetime skills guarantee.
And Number 10 has said the DfE’s executive agency, the Education and Skills Funding Agency, will need to decide and publish the list of courses that meet this definition before the end of October.
The complexity of the task makes it a deadline they will almost certainly miss, but they do have a head start. The ESFA’s online “list of qualifications approved for funding”, can be downloaded from gov.uk and contains 13,628 qualifications.
Of these, 4,321 are at level 3 and of these, 1,249 are eligible for the legal entitlement, making them already fully fundable for 19- to 23-year-olds via the adult education budget.
From this list of 1,249 qualifications, the ESFA is presented with some immediate dilemmas in order to satisfy Wolf’s employability demands.
Do they include any or all of the 537 Access to HE qualifications?
Do they include any or all of the 259 AS and A-level qualifications, and if so, do they stipulate the adult must study at least four AS qualifications or two full A-levels (the definition of ‘full’ at level 3)?
Do they include any of the 55 applied general qualifications, such as the Certificate in Applied Science or the more substantial Extended Diploma in Applied Science?
And of the remaining 347 ‘vocationally related’ and 52 ‘occupational’ qualifications, how do you define which ones are actually “valued by employers”?
These decisions are highly controversial, and the commercial awarding organisations offering the qualifications won’t be afraid to question the legalities in terms of due process, transparency and consultation – none of which can be done quickly.
Number 10 definitely grabbed the wheel and raced forward this week, but in the coming weeks it will be the DfE and ESFA civil servants back in the front seat, and I fear the wheels will inevitably fall off.
T Levels will be an option for adults of any age to study as part of the government’s new lifetime skills guarantee, the education secretary has surprisingly claimed.
Gavin Williamson’s promise, made in the House of Commons today, comes despite Department for Education rules that T Levels can only be taken by 16 to 19 year olds.
The education secretary this afternoon took questions from MPs on prime minister Boris Johnson’s new “lifetime skills guarantee”, which involves offering all adults in England a full level 3 qualification for free from April if they do not already hold one.
A full list of available level 3 courses for this entitlement will be set out next month, but the government has said the qualifications will need to provide “skills valued by employers”.
Peter Aldous, the MP for Waveney, said in the Commons today that this new guarantee is “extremely welcome as it should help boost Covid recovery”, before asking: “So that those adults who will take up the guarantee can realise their full potential, can my right honourable friend confirm that the new gold standard T Levels will be available to them?”
Williamson replied: “I can absolutely guarantee that. I had the great opportunity to see so many youngsters at college, taking on the T Level.
“It has been incredibly warmly welcomed because what the real difference is, is to so many other past attempts in terms of reform of qualifications in this sector has been very much based on the needs of employers to ensure that as the T Levels are being developed that they actually take young people into work or onto further education or apprenticeship.”
Williamson’s claim has baffled the sector, considering that only those up to the age of 19 are currently allowed to study for T Levels.
In response, Labour’s shadow skills minister Toby Perkins tweeted: “Incredible, and if indeed he is saying T Levels will be available to all adult by April 2021 he’s got less idea what’s happening out there than I thought.”
The DfE later claimed that Williamson only meant that T Levels could possibly be made available to adults in the future, not by April when the level 3 entitlement and lifetime skills guarantee kicks in.
T Levels for adults are not expected to be made available until all T Levels are rolled out and embedded into the skills system, the DfE added.
The first three T Levels were rolled out in September, with 22 others due to follow from next year until 2023.
‘Outstanding’ schools, colleges and training providers are set to be inspected again when Ofsted inspections resume next year – but it will now take up to six years to get through them all.
The government has published its response to the consultation on removing the inspection exemption for the top-rated providers.
It was introduced by former education secretary Michael Gove in 2011. But a previous FE Week investigation revealed how some colleges had been ignored by Ofsted for over a decade.
The government will now seek Parliamentary approval to remove the exemption, and pending that will reintroduce inspections for ‘outstanding’ schools and colleges alongside the restart of routine inspections – slated for January. However this date is being kept under review.
The document says 90 per cent of over 3,700 respondents agreed that the exemption should be removed.
But, because of the coronavirus pandemic, the government said “a longer window is needed to complete the required inspections”.
It means all formerly exempt schools, colleges and other organisations must now receive an initial full inspection or short inspection within six years, rather than the original five.
Providers that have gone the longest since their last inspection will be prioritised, starting with those that have not been inspected for a decade or longer.
FE colleges and providers inspected before September 2015 will receive an initial full inspection, while those last inspected after this date will normally receive an initial short inspection.
But where an initial short inspection indicates that outstanding performance may not have been maintained, Ofsted will extend the inspection to a ‘full’ inspection within 15 working days.
Ofsted will also aim to organise scheduling so that “as far as possible” schools and FE colleges and providers that were last inspected since 2015 receive an initial inspection within six of seven years of their previous inspection.
