We still have some way to go before we will be on a par with other European countries – we must look past the podium to see what we can learn from their skills systems, says Ben Blackledge

It’s no coincidence that Switzerland and Austria were in first and second place respectively at the last EuroSkills competition in Gothenburg, Sweden in 2016. Both countries have technical programmes that enable them to punch above their industrial weight and produce skilled competitors ready to deliver on the international stage. That is why it was hugely pleasing that in 2016, Team UK was able to compete so well against technical systems across Europe and place seventh in the WorldSkills Europe rankings.

There is always more to learn, however. As we look forward to this year’s EuroSkills in Budapest, we aim to retain a top ten place. We are also hugely encouraged to see that – against the backdrop of the introduction of the apprenticeship levy and falling apprenticeship numbers – 64 per cent of Team UK will be apprentices. This has increased from Gothenburg 2016 (58 per cent) and is a good indicator that despite significant change in the apprenticeship programme, the quality of apprentices in the UK is really strong.

But we are the first to admit that we still have some way to go before we will be on a par with Switzerland and other European countries. This is not surprising, when you consider the value that is placed on apprenticeships in these countries, with its accompanying investment.

The vastly differing approaches to apprenticeships in Europe, is why EuroSkills is more than just a competition. Yes, medals are important, but we must also look past the podium to see what we can learn from our European neighbours. The event provides us with the very tangible opportunity to re-visit the role skills competitions play in developing world-class apprenticeships and apprentices. This is a chance not only to raise the profile and prestige of apprenticeships in the UK, but also to bring back the learning from these international competitions to make the UK education system truly world class.

The levy can be used to offset the costs of a skills competition

Employers have told us that WorldSkills UK competitions provide a form of accelerated development in which apprentices achieve greater technical excellence in their skill. But more than that, the training they undertake to prepare for international competition develops high-level transferable skills. My counterparts across Europe tell me employers in their countries feel the same.

However, I am aware some organisations have been deterred from entering their apprentices because of a perceived time-cost and complexity. This may come as surprise to many, but because skills competitions have been recognised to contribute to that individual’s development in achieving their apprenticeship, the levy can be used to support their involvement.

The levy can be used by colleges and training providers in agreement with employers to offset the costs associated with taking part in a skills competition. One employer that has benefited from embedding skills competition activity in their internal apprenticeship training programme is Toyota. The manufacturer has had significant presence in Team UK, with two apprentices in this year’s team and their apprentices winning the bronze medal in Mechatronics in 2016. For Toyota, being part of WorldSkills UK competitions is not a “nice to do”, but is central to them benchmarking and driving up the quality of skills.

Members of Team UK for Budapest 2018 will also play an important role as ambassadors for WorldSkills UK – and it is their personal stories that will inspire more young people to consider taking up an apprenticeship. With the support of colleges and training providers, we want employers to pledge to use part of their levy to support their apprentices in competition. It is this combination of inspiring role models and investment from the sector that will create greater access for the next generation of skilled apprentices, and it is those apprentices that will continue Team UK’s success in EuroSkills Graz 2020 and beyond.

As the Education Secretary tours the German technical education system, what might he learn that would be relevant to the UK? Ewart Keep explains

England has been worrying about the superior performance of overseas vocational education and training (VET) systems since the Great Exhibition of 1851. Overseas study visits have been one device used to explore what we could learn from abroad. Switzerland and its apprenticeship system have recently been popular, but now we are back with Germany as a source of envy and angst.

What might such visits achieve? National education systems operate as such – as a set of interconnected and mutually supportive institutions, incentives, and attitudes. Trying to copy isolated elements of a system and transpose them to another country mean that the copied element lacks the wider supportive infrastructure that allowed it to thrive back home. The key is to think in terms of policy learning, not policy borrowing. In essence, what makes the German set-up tick so successfully and can we learn from these design principles?

The starting point is that Germany has a system. It is conceived of and understood as such by all who contribute to it. We have created a set of VET marketplaces, including one for levy-paying firms’ apprenticeship, and another for non-levy firms.

The German system is stable, and is sometimes criticised for being too slow to adapt to new skill requirements. Our apprenticeship marketplace is, and has been since the mid-1990s, subject to ceaseless, rapid change, all of which has been engineered by government rather than employers and their representatives, and/or the social partners. As a result, our apprenticeships have been seen by many firms as a government scheme.

The German system is stable, and is sometimes criticised for being too slow

In Germany, apprenticeship is an exercise in co-production between government, vocational schooling, and employers and trade unions. This system belongs to its stakeholders, not to government. Reform must be negotiated and agreed by all parties. The change by ministerial fiat that has marked UK VET reform for the last 35 years is not merely alien to the German system, it is impossible within it.

The German VET system, besides covering vocational colleges and dual apprenticeship provision, also incorporates a supportive institutional infrastructure. One key element are the chambers of commerce and handicrafts, membership if which is compulsory for firms; and another is the large, long-established and well-resourced federal vocational education and training institute (BiBB).

Unlike here, German apprenticeship is genuinely employer-led, in that firms or employer organisations undertake the vast bulk of the on-the-job training, and firms need to have an appropriately qualified trainer on their staff and to have been been approved as a trainer by the local chamber of commerce. They take quality control seriously.

In England, employers are used to heavy subsidy from the state, with many firms in the past not paying anything for apprenticeships beyond the apprentices’ wages. In Germany, the only direct state support is for the off-the-job element of the training. For the rest, the employer pays. Germans would also be puzzled by the large proportion of adult apprentices that we have and the idea that an employee of several years standing could become an adult apprentice. In Germany, apprenticeship is for relatively young entrants to the workforce, including some for recent graduates, rather than experienced and established adult workers.

Unlike here, German apprenticeship is genuinely employer-led

Finally, German apprenticeships aim to create a broad occupational identity, contain an element of enterprise education (equipping people to become self-employed or to set up their own business one day), have a healthy chunk of general education, and are normally set at the equivalent of our level 3. Germans would be perplexed by some of our entry level job-specific apprenticeships (e.g. dual fuel smart reader installer).

Besides the emphasis on a system-led approach, the main point to take away from Germany is that finding ways to help and support employers to act collectively in relation to the co-design of, co-investment in, and co-production of VET is critical to success. Given our recent policy history, this is not an easy lesson for us to learn.

What’s the future of applied general qualifications – should they stay or go? Lee Hunt shares his thoughts on which ones, post-T-level, are doomed for the scrap heap

In the context of the new T-levels, there’s a legitimate debate around the future of applied general qualifications. Rather than asking whether they will stay or go, however, I think the more relevant question is, ‘Which ones should stay, and which should go?’

Like many in the sector, I have been studying the progression and development of T-levels. I have researched numerous government documents and policies, taken part in workshops, webinars and seminars – and discussed my thinking with colleagues, other providers, awarding bodies, employers and consultants as well as government officials. This has included working with AoC, DfE and more recently, the Gatsby Foundation.

I believe the ethos of the new T-level is not to replace vocational pathways but to enhance them. It is to ensure that employers are clear on the skills, knowledge and attributes their future workforce are obtaining, and to give parents and children a clear perspective on what they can achieve outside of the classroom environment. It’s an evolutionary process with a modern approach, and one that is for the good of us all. Based on this thinking, I believe there are AGQs that have life in them still, those that are in a grey area, and those that have run their course.

So what are you delivering that fits in the category of, stay, grey or go? I have taken three current BTECs that are flagship level 3 main qualifications at Havant & South Downs College and looked at their validity compared to a T-level. This is only a snapshot, but I believe it illustrates that not all AGQs are fit for purpose and if we do not remove them, we undermine the T-level ethos.

Not all AGQs are fit for purpose

HSDC BTEC level 3 extended diploma in sports science. This course is currently supporting learners who are looking for a pathway through a university programme – as shown by our 90 per cent HE destination rate from this course. There is currently no clear T-level route or pathway that offers an alternative.

HSDC BTEC level 3 extended diploma in public services. This course is currently supporting diverse learner aspirations, which include university, as well as the armed and emergency services. Approximately 30 per cent move into a service and 40 per cent into HE. There is a planned protective service route (but only as an apprenticeship). Most uniformed public services support their own apprenticeship delivery and there is always the argument that leavers cannot really enter the police or fire service until they are mature enough to do so (normally 21) and therefore are more prone to look to universities to enhance their employability and life experience, alongside their academic attainment. Work experience is really challenging for this course due to the requirements of the sector and the potential hazards the learners may encounter within the working environment. It doesn’t seem that this could easily be replaced by a T-level.

HSDC BTEC level 3 extended diploma in IT. At the end of last year, over 60 per cent of leavers from this course were looking for employment, 18 per cent were unsure as to what they wanted to do, and the remainder moved onto HE. We have worked with several employers who support the work experience and outcome, all of whom are positive about accepting our students into the workplace and developing their career pathway from there. Apprenticeships are challenging in this sector and, despite our best efforts, hard to source and support. This qualification could be discontinued and replaced by the digital T-level route.

A statement was made by FE Week’s editor at the recent T-levels debate in parliament, calling for the government to be honest about their plans for T-levels. I feel that we as a sector should also be honest, and the starting point is to admit which AGQs are no longer fit for purpose, in line with the government’s industrial and career strategies.

The T-level placement is an awkward length and requires new thinking, says Jenny Taylor, who is involved in designing the new programme for IBM

The recent FE Week and Pearson-sponsored great debate in the House of Commons on T-levels – the incoming technical alternatives to A-levels – proved a lively and interesting event. From an employer perspective, my attention inevitably focused on the proposed work experience placement element, which will require students to undertake a placement lasting between 45 and 60 days, covering a minimum of 315 hours.

IBM is participating in T-level development as a leader of one of the digital panels defining the curriculum and we’ve volunteered to take our first T-level students in a pilot running in 2019. We already run successful graduate, intern, apprenticeship and traineeship programmes, so are tackling the challenge from a base of wide experience in this area.

We’ve started to consider the practical considerations to be taken into account for T-level student placements, asking questions such as: Is a bespoke project required? Should they have IBM employee status? Who will manage the programme and/or liaise with the learning provider? What are the productivity and infrastructure costs for IBM? Other concerns include:

• Safeguarding for under 18s
• Equipment (laptops/phones)
• Security
• Access to our systems
• Employability readiness of students
• Pastoral care
• Student travel

Our working environment is mobile, client-facing and agile. It’s not the traditional five days a week in a fixed office location with fixed equipment. Everyone uses IBM specifically set up laptops and mobiles: desk phones, equipment and permanent desks are a thing of the past. Systems access is required for email and our intranet: the basic tools for doing any job-related task.

We’ve looked at our current programmes to see where we can reuse intellectual capital and here we find some differences. All the work placements we offer (school leaver and undergraduate) are 12 months in duration because in that time, an intern can perform a full-time tangible role, add value to the business and gain significant business, technical and employability skills to take forward in their future careers.

We don’t offer short-term placements for a good reason: it’s hard to get up and running in a company like IBM and then make a tangible contribution in a short space of time. Work shadowing is fine as a taster for a few days, but not for few weeks.

Clearly, we want any T-level students to have a great experience and to assimilate valuable skills during their work placement. So how to achieve this?

To do this properly, we conclude that we need to set up another “programme” for T-levels. It needs a dedicated manager from our early professionals’ team, task managers who can both be on site and take time out from their day jobs to supervise the students, a bespoke induction, provision of IBM equipment to enable the students to operate in our working environment plus a support system of pastoral care.

Work shadowing is fine for a few days, but not for few weeks

Do we need to create a bespoke project for them to study or can we find tangible business-related work for them in what is such a relatively short period of time? We want to help them actively build their skills and knowledge – how do we do this? How are they assessed and how do we contribute to this process? How do we know what level they are now in order to provide a placement which matches their needs? In fact, the list of requirements goes on and on, and that’s before the students set foot in the building.

A recent CIPD report – Reforming technical education: Employers’ views of T-levels discovered that 40 per cent of the more than 2,000 employers questioned were unaware of T-levels prior to being surveyed. Employer participation is crucial to the success of the new programme, so bearing in mind all the preparation activities and investment needed before T-level students arrive on the doorstep, planning definitely needs to start now! This is the only way to provide them all with appropriate high-quality placements to kick start their careers and give them with the skills needed for the jobs of the future.

Further education has an important role supporting the economy, says Chris Todd, but the government sees it as an easy target for funding cuts

“16–18 education has been a big loser from education spending changes over the last 25 years”. This was a stark, and hugely worrying, headline from the recent annual report on education spending in England from the Institute of Fiscal Studies.

Spending per student in higher education has risen by nearly 60 per cent since 1997. Spending on early years education stands at almost £3bn in 2017/18 from virtually nothing in the early 1990s. Yet an education system designed to keep students within it until the age of 18 sees funding levels in further education similar to that of 2006/07, and one of the few areas to see cuts since 2010.

We are at a crossroads where things simply must change, and quickly

It is simply wrong that the government continues to expect colleges to deliver high quality education and training within the current funding envelope. And I say this not just as a college principal, but also as a parent.

As a principal I know further education colleges are efficient and commercially minded organisations, exactly what you would expect a good public sector organisation to be. Colleges have done everything they can over the last ten years to absorb these continued cuts in funding despite many pressures coming our way. There is only so much you can trim and still deliver a quality service to students. As a parent it worries me hugely the impact the current funding arrangement could have on those who choose college as their route to a post-16 education.

The playing field simply isn’t level

The playing field simply isn’t level, and nor has it been for some time now. The government sees colleges as an easy target for financial savings and the poor relations in the educational sector. The recently published IFS report follows the DfE announcement in July that school teaching staff were to receive a 3.5 per cent pay rise, taking the pay gap to £7,000 between college and school teaching staff. We are at a crossroads where things simply must change, and quickly.

I, as do all of my staff at Derwentside College, care passionately about the impact a strong further education sector provides. We see the value in it every day in terms of our learner achievements and the positive uplift in their confidence and self-esteem. I want to see colleges admired for the hugely valuable work they do, and funded appropriately. I am confident that if this were to be the case, we would make an even bigger impact on the regional and national economies.

The skills agenda is so important to the future of our country and colleges play an integral role in this. What we urgently need is a long-term funding strategy for further education that recognises this, providing the resources and certainty colleges need to plan ahead with confidence and to focus on what is important: the skills of our future workforce.