The government has given in to pressure to widen the number of students eligible for 16 to 19 catch-up funding by including those that have already passed their English and maths GCSEs.

The change, announced today by the Education and Skills Funding Agency, means that those students who achieved a grade 4, a pass, can benefit from the extra “catch-up” sessions if their learning was disrupted by the pandemic.

The government previously said that colleges could only spend the funding on learners who had not passed the subjects.

Only those with a grade five or above in English and/or maths are now excluded from the fund.

Today’s updated guidance said: “Providers should prioritise support for students who have not achieved a grade four in English or maths.

“However, further to those students, if providers have funding available within their allocations they should consider whether any young people with a grade four also need catch up support.

“Providers should prioritise students that will benefit most from small group tuition.”

The guidance reiterated that the funding should be used to “support the tuition activity above and beyond the programmes of education already planned for 2020 to 2021”.

Association of Colleges chief executive David Hughes welcomed today’s decision.

“Really pleased that our ask for the eligibility to be extended on this has been heard,” he tweeteed.

“Gives more flexibility to colleges to meet needs for catch up with students. Well done and thanks ESFA.”

Really pleased that our ask for the eligibility to be extended on this has been heard. Gives more flexibility to colleges to meet needs for catch up with students. Well done & thanks @educationgovuk @ESFAgov https://t.co/OvW6gCcesp

— David Hughes (@AoCDavidH) September 9, 2020

 

Ministers unveiled plans for the £96 million one-off fund for 2020-21 in July, following a U-turn on their unpopular decision to exclude 16 to 19 providers from the £1 billion Covid catch-up fund for schools.

The £96 million comes from a £350 million pot originally allocated for the government’s National Tutoring Programme.

At the time, the government said the fund was to “provide small group tutoring activity for disadvantaged 16 to 19 students whose studies have been disrupted”.

Although ESFA’s initial guidance stated that funding would be allocated on the basis of the number of learners without an English or maths pass, there was no stipulation that the money be spent only on those learners.

But updated guidance issued by the ESFA in August controversially said that “although the actual tuition does not need to be for GCSE English or maths, the students supported all need to be those who had not achieved grade 4 or above in at least one of those subjects at this level by age 16”.

The change was not welcomed by college membership bodies and was branded “bureaucratic madness”.

The FE sector should judge the quality of their training programmes on the jobs that learners end up in, skills minister Gillian Keegan has said.

Her comment comes a day after Association of Colleges boss David Hughes told the education select committee that college funding should shift to be based on outcome for students, rather than getting “bums on seats”.

Both Keegan (pictured) and Hughes made their remarks after being asked what they were looking for in the upcoming FE White Paper, due for publication this autumn.

After delivering a keynote speech this afternoon during the Association of Employment and Learning Providers’ virtual conference on business recovery from Covid-19, Keegan was questioned on the role of independent training providers in the White Paper and about the importance of level 2 provision.

The minister said private providers are a “vital part of the infrastructure” of the sector, adding that there is “no limit” to what they can get involved in when it comes to technical education, but made clear that “quality is what counts”.

AELP chief policy officer Simon Ashworth pointed out that it is “important not to correlate low quality with low level”, to which Keegan hit back: “It is only you and your sector that do that. I did a level two, level four and six as part of my apprenticeship. I more than anyone know that if the first rung is not there you cannot move onto the second rung.

“There is this thing within the sector where people do sometimes equate levels with quality.

“Going to a comprehensive school I have a peak insight into what you leave school with isn’t your capability. We know there is a great unevenness in opportunity.

“I just want to make sure that when somebody does and gets a level 2 that it is valued by business. What we have seen, and this is something I have said in the past, we did see too much low level provision that didn’t actually fit a business need and that is where we need to focus and change.

“But how do we judge quality? That someone can get a decent job.”

Quality in the FE sector has traditionally been judged based on qualification achievement rates and Ofsted grades.

Ofsted chief inspector Amanda Spielman has previously criticised the sector for focusing on enrolling students rather than where they end up, saying in January a minority of colleges were trying to “fill their rolls and attract funding”, whether or not the programmes they offer “open doors for the students that take them”.

Keegan’s comments today mark the first indication from the government that a shift to an outcomes-based funding model could be on the cards in the FE White Paper.

The Greater London Authority, which controls the capital’s adult education budget, has already made plans to switch its funding model towards payment by results, rather than for the delivery of qualifications.

Speaking during yesterday’s education select committee hearing, which focussed on the FE White Paper, Hughes said colleges “are accountable for bums and seats” but not for outcomes, which the association wants them focus on, such as “are they delivering the right things to the right people to deliver the right outcomes”. 

Committee chair Robert Halfon said “surely” moving the focus to outcomes was what the government’s upcoming FE White Paper should cover, and suggested potential outcomes like: “Are the students getting good outcomes when they leave the college? Are the colleges meeting the skills needs of the nation, are they helping the socially disadvantaged?” 

Hughes said there was a whole “basket of outcomes”, but “the funding should be supporting the delivery of those outcomes, not bums on seats” which he said can deliver “good outcomes, but not always”.

The volume of apprentices who require more training due to Covid-19 interruptions is starting to “spiral steeply”, providers have warned as they make a fresh plea for extra financial support.

In a new submission to the Department for Education, the Association of Employment and Learning Providers has today called on the government to extend funded training for apprentices by three months to support a “catch-up period”.

The membership organisation, which is holding a virtual conference on business recovery from the coronavirus pandemic today and tomorrow, states that a “significant cohort” of apprentices have made slower progress than originally planned during lockdown because remote learning is “not always as effective as face-to-face” and assessments have been delayed.

As a result, a “growing number” of apprentices who were due to finish in the summer are moving past their planned end dates, becoming “unfunded” and require more than planned training.

The AELP said “many providers” have told them that the volume of apprentices out of funding is starting to “spiral steeply”.

The association believes the solution is an injection of “additional catch-up funding to support the extension to apprentices’ programmes by up to three months, with additional funding needed to cover this period of additional catch-up training”.

AELP chief policy officer Simon Ashworth told FE Week it would be “too messy” to provide the extra funding on a per apprentice basis, and instead “something sensible and pragmatic to support all those apprentices in the cohort who have had their learning disrupted” would be needed.

He added that the three-month request is based on the impact in April, May and June specifically before lockdown was eased, but recognised some apprentices might need more while some will need less.

AELP managing director Jane Hickie said: “We hear stories of training providers doing everything they can to support apprentices even when the government funding has been switched off, but the government must step in now with more support to ensure no apprentice is unfairly disadvantaged.”

The association’s Covid recovery package for skills points out that there have been “no specific measures” put in place to protect apprentices from the threat of redundancy when the furlough scheme ends.

To reduce the number of apprentices becoming unemployed, the AELP has called on government to “introduce a new wage subsidy for young apprentices aged 16 to 24 targeted specifically at those who have been on furlough and are returning to their programmes”.

Employed adult learners who are also “at risk” of redundancy or working their notice cannot continue to study in the workplace and be government funded under current rules, the AELP’s submission adds, meaning that “even if their employer is willing and wants to support their departing employee to prepare for a new role after redundancy, they cannot be funded”. 

AELP has now recommended that the Education and Skills Funding Agency should “flex the funding rules to allow employed learners at risk of redundancy on adult education budget programmes to be able to continue to study in the workplace and continue to be funded for it”.

These proposals are among seven key recommendations in AELP’s ‘Targeted Autumn Covid-19 Recovery Package for Skills’ which the association says are short-term actions they believe the government should take before the Budget and the Comprehensive Spending Review outcome expected in late November.

Other recommendations include retaining Covid-related rule flexibilities until the end of the academic year 2020-21 on how apprentices are assessed, as well as ensuring that the funding of apprentices already half-way through longer term apprenticeships of three to four years “will be safeguarded”.

Gillian Keegan, apprenticeships and skills minister, said: “I recognise Covid-19 has had a significant impact on apprentices, employers, training providers, and assessment organisations, which is why we introduced a range of flexibilities to ensure that apprenticeships could continue where possible.

“This included encouraging training providers to shift their training offer online so their students can continue their studies and so that providers are paid as normal, as well as making changes to end point assessments. We have also offered additional financial support to providers through our Provider Relief Schemes so they can continue to deliver high-quality training.

“Our Redundancy Support Service for Apprentices is  helping to make sure apprentices who have lost their jobs as a result of Covid-19 get the support they need to find a new opportunity and get on the path to a new career. We’re also considering how we can go further still to support redundant apprentices to complete their training, and will announce further detail in the coming days.”

Colleges have “nothing to fear” about being brought into public ownership, the head of their membership organisation told MPs today as he refused to give a straight answer on whether he supports the potential move.

Association of Colleges chief executive David Hughes was one of a number of witnesses to be quizzed by the education select committee this morning about the upcoming FE White Paper, which education secretary Gavin Williamson claims will be “revolutionary”.

One hot topic that led to a tense exchange between Hughes and committee chair Robert Halfon was the issue of whether colleges in England should be brought back into public ownership – an option that is being considered by the Department for Education, as revealed by FE Week in May.

After Halfon asked for a “yes or no” answer on whether he supports this option, Hughes said: “I don’t think it is a straight yes or no answer. Sorry I’m going to be a politician on this. I think what we need is the right relationship. We need the freedoms and flexibilities. We need to get them as strategic players.”

The chair insisted that this is an important issue which will make a difference to college autonomy, control and funding and that the head of the AoC “should be able to give a view on”.

Hughes insisted that he is “agnostic”, stating that this is a decision to be made “at the end of the white paper by the ONS [Office for National Statistics] not a front decision”, adding that it “might be that they [colleges] become public sector” as they are “public ethos institutions”.

The AoC boss later said that in Scotland and Northern Ireland, colleges are in the public sector and they are “thriving and doing well” so there is “nothing to fear about it”.

“The thing is about the right investment and right relationship,” he continued. “That might mean they get designated public sector, I think that is fine but what we mustn’t lose is their ability to gain investment from employers.”

Colleges were technically brought out of public ownership nine years ago by the ONS when the Education Act 2011 was introduced.

This legislation removed the need for colleges to seek consent before borrowing from banks and limited government powers to intervene where a college is being mismanaged or is performing poorly.

Other witnesses to be asked for their opinion on colleges being brought back into public ownership included Kirstie Donnelly, chief executive of the City and Guilds Group, and Bill Watkin, chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association.

Donnelly said her “stance is that they [colleges] need to be more owned by the employer…the employer has to have more say in what colleges deliver”.

Watkin said sixth form colleges, which have had the option of converting to academy status and therefore becoming publicly owned since 2015, have had a “positive experience” of the change.

But he stressed it is “good to give colleges a choice about whether to join the public sector or not because local context can be really important in the decision”.

The FE White Paper is due to be published this autumn.

 

Full exchange between Hughes and Halfon during today’s hearing:

Halfon: On the public ownership issue. I don’t feel you gave me a straight answer on it. Yes or no should FE colleges be brought back into the public sector?

 

Hughes: I don’t think it is a straight yes or no answer. Sorry I’m going to be a politician on this. I think what we need is the right relationship. We need the freedoms and flexibilities. We need to get them as strategic players.

 

Halfon: That doesn’t mean anything. It is a big thing and it is being talked about. The head of the AoC should be able to give a view on it surely.

 

Hughes: The ONS will decide whether they are public or private – the relationship is what we want to focus on and then the ONS make that decision.

I am agnostic I’m sorry. It is the end of the white paper decision by the ONS not a front decision. It might be that they become public sector. They are public ethos institutions.

 

Halfon: I don’t accept it won’t make any difference because there will be issues of autonomy and control and funding and all kinds of things.

David I have to say I don’t think you should duck this. As head of the AoC you must have a view on it either way you can’t be agnostic on something as fundamental as whether or not all colleges should be brought back into the public sector.

 

Hughes: I’ll do another political answer – in Scotland and Northern Ireland they are public sector, they are thriving and they are doing well. There is nothing to fear about it. The thing is about the right investment and right relationship. That might mean they get designated public sector, I think that is fine but what we mustn’t lose is their ability to gain investment from employers.

A lack of funding is holding colleges back from hiring “specific business innovation account managers” to help initiate an “innovation revolution”, a new survey has suggested.

The Association of Colleges has today published research into the college sector’s role in supporting the development of new and existing businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

Of the 65 colleges that responded, 78 per cent (51) said they currently offer support through “dedicated account managers who work with or offer growth support to specific local businesses and/or SMEs”.

However, half of those colleges providing account managers said the roles did not provide “specific industry sector technical level support”.

According to the survey, one college indicated that the business develop co-ordinators they employ are “not qualified or experienced enough to offer high level technical support or growth and that the salary level required for someone qualified to undertake the necessary level of consultancy would be untenable for the college when based on return on investment”.

Meanwhile, more than 90 per cent of the responding colleges said they did not offer “innovation zones” for local businesses, while 60 per cent do not provide any space for SMEs to “engage with each other and stimulate innovation and business ideas”.

When asked to consider which barriers would have to be removed in order for them to consider increasing support for business innovation, 72 per cent of colleges (47) said there was a “lack of financial support to fund specific business innovation account managers” and 75 per cent (49) cited a lack of capital funding to develop business innovation spaces.

The AoC’s report said: “Some colleges recognise that they could do more with additional sector specific, technical staff to provide direct technical support for SMEs and to support innovation and development activity. Lack of funding and limited resources impact on what can be offered.”

The association has now called on the government to “provide support in capital and revenue funding and set out a national remit for colleges to lead in this space to initiate a place-based business and skills innovation revolution”.

AoC chief executive David Hughes said: “Colleges want to do more to support SMEs to develop their innovation, business and skills strategies and help attract inward investment. Their work with businesses is a key priority and it brings important knowledge exchange to help inform curriculum and offer students real-life experiences.  With the right tailored support from the government and national recognition, colleges could do so much more in this space.

“The foundations are there to build on. With stronger partnerships and sufficient funding and time, colleges could play a greater role in providing innovation support to local businesses and SMEs.”

He added that he would “urge” the Department for Education to use the upcoming FE white paper to “make the case for business innovation and a real turning point for colleges.

“We could quickly create a system that allows colleges to lead the way in a business innovation and skills revolution as the economy recovers.”

The DfE was approached for comment.

Ofqual has ruled out the use of calculated grades to award vocational and technical qualifications (VTQs) again.

Following this year’s exams fiasco, the regulator ran a consultation on how to grade BTEC and other vocational learners next year should Covid-19 continue to disrupt normal assessments.

The outcome has been published today and states that rather than using centre-assessed grades, awarding bodies will instead be given the freedom to adapt their assessment arrangements to mitigate any impact of the pandemic.

This could include, according to Ofqual, “widening assessment windows to provide greater flexibility, streamlining assessments to free up time for teaching and learning, or changing some assessment requirements to deal with the impact of any ongoing social distancing measures, such as group performances”.

However, Ofqual has made clear that if VTQs can progress as normal, their assessments should not be adapted.

The approach announced today only applies to VTQs, not GCSEs or A-levels.

Centre-assessed grades were introduced for some VTQ learners this year to replace exams and assessments which had been cancelled owing to the Covid-19 outbreak.

Others were allowed to have their assessments adapted by, for example, using online tests, while the rest had their assessments delayed.

Dame Glenys Stacey (pictured), acting chief regulator at Ofqual, said: “In many cases, awarding organisations will be able to deliver VTQs as normal, but where this is not possible it is important that any changes continue to deliver qualifications that are a valid and reliable indication of knowledge, understanding, skills or practical competence.

“We will continue to work with awarding organisations to support their decision-making on when adaptations are necessary and what adaptations are appropriate for different qualifications. The work we are already doing to facilitate the development of common approaches across similar sectors and types of qualifications will also continue.”

Ofqual is currently working up a plan B for awarding GCSE and A-levels next year, which could include online tests if traditional exams cannot be sat.

The regulator said there was a “high level of agreement” to the proposals in its consultation for awarding VTQs in 2020/21, and that all of its recommendations (click here) will now be implemented in full.

Ofqual’s second draft extended extraordinary regulatory framework, on which it has launched a new consultation today, sets out the “regulatory arrangements and guidance with which awarding organisations must comply when adapting their qualifications”.

The regulator said it is important that schools, colleges and training providers receive information about VTQ adaptations in a “timely and consistent way” and they are working with stakeholders to “agree deadlines by when awarding organisations will provide qualification specific information to their centres”.

Principals have been urged to stop students and staff with a sore throat or headache from getting unnecessary coronavirus tests to prevent a surge in demand that could threaten the government’s testing capacity, health officials have warned.

Demand for testing in Scotland saw a “huge increase” from people without coronavirus symptoms as schools went back last month.

Schools and colleges in England, which mostly start to reopen this week, have now been told that a similar rise must be avoided to ensure testing capacity is prioritised for those with symptoms, and to avoid children and their families “self-isolating unnecessarily”.

A letter to schools and colleges from Public Health England and the NHS Test and Trace states: “Crucial to our overall support for schools and colleges is ensuring that everyone with coronavirus symptoms has access to a test as soon as they develop those symptoms.

“It is vital that we learn from the recent Scottish experience, where the return of schools saw a huge increase in demand for tests from people without coronavirus symptoms.

“We want to avoid a similar surge in test demand as England’s schools and colleges return to ensure that we continue to prioritise our testing capacity for those with symptoms and to avoid children, students and their families self-isolating unnecessarily.”

The letter states students and staff should only be tested if they develop one or more of the main coronavirus symptoms, or if instructed to by a healthcare provider. The three main symptoms are a high temperature, a new, continuous cough, or a loss of taste or smell.

There is also “no need” for full households to also have a test, unless they are also symptomatic, the guidance states.

The letter adds: “As schools and colleges across England return, pupils and students may feel unwell for example with a sore throat, stomach upset or a headache.

“These pupils and students don’t need to book a test but may need to stay off school or college and seek medical advice through their GP or pharmacist as usual. Please do communicate this to the parents of the children at your school and the students at your college; we know that they listen to you and trust your advice.”

It adds that directors of Public Health and local PHE Health Protection teams are “on hand to support you on this most vital mission to get our children and students back to school and college, learning happily and safely”.

The letters also clarifies that students and staff who were on the shielding list can now be welcomed back, unless they are in a lockdown area with specific shielding requirements, have been advised to self-isolate or have recently been advised to remain off school or college – for instance with a new serious diagnosis such as active cancer.

The letter is signed by Yvonne Doyle, director of health protection at PHE and Susan Hopkins, interim chief medical adviser of NHS Test and Trace.