How to support disabled learners with sport and physical activity

For too long it has been too easy to marginalise disabled learners from the kind of sporting activity that we know they’d enjoy. Sam Perks has toured colleges in search of better practice. 

Taking part in sport helps to improve your health. It increases happiness and self-esteem, and it reduces anxiety and stress. It enhances educational outcomes: it improves attendance, behaviour and grades, and it boosts employability skills: confidence, communication and teamwork. The impact of participation in sport is even greater for those with a disability. 

One in six students in England has a disability or a learning difficulty – that’s more than half a million people. Too many of these do not take part in physical activity and sports. A new review by AoC Sport, funded by Sport England and the National Lottery, on the current landscape of physical activity and sport for disabled students has examined why this should be the case.

The four recurring barriers

I have travelled across the country consulting colleges, students and stakeholders to identify the barriers, attitudes and opportunities that help or hinder disabled students in taking part in physical activity and sport. I kept coming across four recurring barriers:

Workforce – college staff indicated they are not qualified, experienced or confident enough to deliver sport and physical activity to students with a disability. 

Time – staff time is ever decreasing and they do not have the scope to deliver more activities for disabled students. In addition, students’ timetables are at capacity and they do not have time to take part in physical activity during their curriculum.

Facilities – some colleges do not have any sporting facilities on site, while others do but they are in such demand that disabled students can never use them (especially during the exam periods).  This said, we would challenge colleges to think creatively about the use of space. Classrooms, dance studios and even corridors can be used to deliver activities to disabled students.

Attitude – sports and physical activity are seen as nice to do instead of as a necessity, so with the chronic funding and resource cuts in FE, sport is one of the first to be withdrawn.

A meaningful offer

As part of my job, I’m lucky enough to spend lots of time at colleges across England, and I see lots of ways in which they are thinking more smartly about how to deliver a meaningful sports and physical activity offer for their disabled students.

Grantham College uses the learners it has on sports-based courses to deliver activities and events for disabled students. The disabled learners benefit from additional opportunities to be active as well as mixing with their non-disabled peers, while the sport learners gain experience and volunteer hours for their courses – and staff have more time too, as they are not required to deliver the activities themselves. 

The ‘Ability counts’ ambassador programme at Newham Sixth-Form College provides the opportunity for disabled students to gain sports qualifications. Ambassadors learn core skills to help with employability, such as confidence, communication and how to lead activities. 

At Nottingham College, literacy and numeracy have been built into activities to showcase that sport and physical activity can improve their disabled learners’ education and increase its priority with their senior management team. For example, students play darts to improve their addition, subtraction and numeracy skills.

There is a growing proportion of learners with disabilities and learning difficulties in further education, and more needs to be done to ensure they stay active. As a result, AoC Sport has recently launched a new disability strategy for colleges, called ‘Active for college, work and life’.

AoC Sport wants to ensure disabled students have the same opportunities to be active as their non-disabled peers, and will support colleges and partner organisations to achieve this vision.

Colleges are an influential environment to reduce inactivity in over-16-year-olds and this is an invaluable opportunity to make a lifelong change.

If A-levels need multiple exam boards, why don’t T-levels?

The system that makes A-levels so revered would work just as effectively for the new technical exams, argues Rod Bristow

The groundbreaking Copyright Act of 1710 was in its long form entitled “an Act for the Encouragement of Learning”. The idea behind it was simple, that by protecting the intellectual property developed by authors and publishers, more works that advanced knowledge would be created. The forces against copyright feared that its ownership would limit the promulgation of knowledge. But the argument for copyright was won and Britain became a world leader in the creation of knowledge. 

Today, government proposals for the development of T-levels will not allow awarding organisations (AOs) to retain copyright over the qualifications they are asked to develop and deliver. 

Our system of qualifications, copyright ownership and competition, while not flawless, works. Teachers can select the A-level course that suits their teaching, and students benefit from the fact that AOs compete to produce the best course. Ofqual ensures that each course meets the required standard and the requirements of universities. 

And this innovation isn’t limited to the course content; it extends to the technology that underpins the assessment. In 2002, when centrally directed changes to A-levels found the system wanting, Pearson invested significantly in on-screen marking technology that helped modernise the exam system when our competitors followed suit. This modernisation wasn’t directed by the government but unleashed by competition fueled by intellectual property.

Of course, there are those who say that competition between AOs doesn’t raise standards and results in a race to the bottom. They suggest that the UK is out of step with other countries. This is not correct in two respects. First there is no system our size with only one exam board – the risks of single point of failure are simply too high. Second, we have an independent regulator which ensures that while AOs innovate, they never compete on education standards. This national system of independent regulation sets us apart from other nations. 

The government is now proposing, however, similar to a proposal it made for GCSEs a few years ago, to allow only one AO per occupational route for T-levels. These proposals are undoubtedly intended to maintain standards, but they will nevertheless overturn the same system that produces the A-levels that are so respected in this country and around the world. 

It’s not clear why the obvious risks in doing so are acceptable for technical qualifications while they appear unthinkable for the A-level ‘gold standard’. In fact, the risks are exactly the same. A single point of failure and lack of innovation are but two. Magnifying them, though, is the fact that giving each route to only one AO will strip capacity from the system. 

If one successful bidder fails, capacity in other organisations will inevitably have been lost, leaving nowhere to turn in the event of failure. There will also be advantage to incumbents in any competitive re-tender, since they will already “own” the capacity to develop and deliver. These competitive barriers to entry will over the long term limit competition on value for money. 

The current system of competing AOs may not be replicated elsewhere in the world, but there are parallels in the United States where the College Board competes with the ACT. And unlike in the US, the English system of regulation enables productive competition while centrally controlling the obvious potential for damaging competition. 

Of course it would be naive to suggest that the current system is flawless or risk-free. But the sort of changes currently proposed significantly increase risk and strip capacity from the system, just at a time when we need capacity more than ever. The government is right to be concerned about competition on standards, but it would be much better to make the system we have work effectively than to make the radical change proposed. 

It would surely be relatively easy to make the system that works for A-levels. which involves an independent body defining the curriculum content and a regulator controlling the standards, work equally well for T-levels.

Journalism bosses hit out at apprenticeship training blockage

Media bosses have criticised the “red tape” that surrounds the government’s apprenticeships register, seemingly preventing providers from training journalists.

In a letter to skills minister Anne Milton, the Society of Editors raised “serious concerns” over access to apprenticeship levy funds for media outlets.

The problem specifically relates to the way the register of apprenticeship training providers is being run and the “laborious nature” of the application process.

Most employers and providers have been denied the opportunity to win a place on RoATP since the third application window shut at the end of October and the register was placed under review.

What is a laudable scheme appears to be falling foul of immense red tape and bureaucracy

However, the Education and Skills Funding Agency did offer special treatment to initial teacher training organisations in March, by opening a secret window just for them. Thirty-six ITT providers were added, ahead of the introduction of teacher apprenticeships.

The Society is furious that journalism training providers such as the Press Association are still being blocked from joining the register. The difficulties in applying for apprenticeship funding have left apprentices, employers and trainers in “limbo”, it claims.

“Journalism training providers have been waiting since January for the RoATP window to reopen for applications,” said Ian Murray, its executive director. “This delay threatens to leave employers in this sector without a trusted provider and is slowing the recruitment of talented and diverse young people into the industry.”

RoATP was originally meant to open every quarter.

A review is expected to be completed this summer, though the next window will not open until September at the earliest, as revealed by Rory Kennedy, the Department for Education’s director of apprenticeships, at FE Week’s Annual Apprenticeship Conference in March.

However, Mr Murray insisted that the DfE has not given any “formal communication” about this, and complained the system for applying for funding and the process by which applications are approved “lack clarity and transparency”.

Urging the skills minister to alleviate the situation, he warned that demand for apprenticeships may be lost if the issues are not solved.

“The current process allows for no dialogue or feedback, beyond an exchange of messages in an e-portal,” he said.

“Where it’s considered an application question has not been addressed adequately an applicant is only told they have failed the process after that process has ended. There is no right of appeal and, as mentioned, no suggestion of when it will be possible to resubmit. There appears to be no transparency about who is making these decisions.

The current process allows for no dialogue or feedback

“There is a big demand from the industry as companies come to terms with the apprenticeship levy, and for those who haven’t done so already, seek to utilise their own funds before the deadline of April 2019.

“This demand, and with it an aspiration to create three million apprentices by 2020, cannot be met if employers can’t choose providers they trust to deliver quality training.”

Employers have used just 10 per cent of their levy funds in first 12 months since it was introduced.

Just £207 million was drawn down from apprenticeship service accounts despite a budget being set at £2.01 billion for the 2017-18 financial year.

“The experiences of our members working in the media industry who are finding difficulty in securing funds for apprentice schemes would appear to show at least some of the reasons why so little funding has been made available under the scheme”, said Mr Murray.

“What is a laudable scheme appears to be falling foul of immense red tape and bureaucracy.”

A DfE spokesperson would not directly address Mr Murray’s concerns about RoATP.

“Levy funding is already, quite rightly, fully devolved to employers – giving them direct control so they can invest in high quality training, to suit the needs of their business,” he said.

Unions write to AOC to justify 5 per cent national pay claim

Trade unions have written to the Association of Colleges to spell out exactly why they have resubmitted a claim for a raise of five per cent for the next academic year.

They originally made the request at a meeting at the start of May, but the AoC said it would not consider a claim while some colleges were still in dispute with the University and College Union.

Later that month the AoC, which represents college leadership, backed down.

“There is a unanimous acceptance among further education participants (staff, learners and leaders), stakeholders and commentators, that there is an urgent need for increased investment in FE staff pay,” representatives from UCU and Unison wrote. 

“At a time when pay settlements in the rest of the public sector are no longer subject to a one-per-cent cap, there is a real danger that FE falls further behind. 

“We call on the AoC to make an offer that meets our members’ reasonable expectation for an above inflation pay rise and catch up from a decade of real cuts in pay.”

FE staff have suffered a “staggering real-terms cut in pay” of over 25 per cent since 2009.

“In cash terms, that means a £2,484 pay-cut on the bottom point, rising to over £9,000 for experienced lecturers and more for those higher up the scale,” the letter said. “Many have suffered worse where few or no increases have been awarded over those years.”

The unions want a guaranteed minimum increase of £1,500 for the lowest-paid staff where a five-per-cent rise is lower than £1,500.

They also want colleges to pay the living wage of £8.75 (£10.20 in London) and become accredited living wage employers.

Every union representing staff working in FE, which include Unison, Unite, GMB and the National Education Union as well as UCU, previously submitted a claim for a five-per-cent raise or £1,500, whichever is higher, in May.

This has been a summer of heated industrial action, which has seen the unions record a certain degree of success.

Bosses at Capital City College Group reached a deal with staff to end a long-running pay dispute, just days after UCU members voted unanimously to escalate action nationwide if the AoC failed to meet 2018/19 pay demands.

Bosses offered staff a “modest, non-consolidated payment” and more secure contracts.

A payment of £500 per full-time member of staff came in addition to the one-per-cent increase recommended by the AoC last September.

A third wave of action at 10 colleges or campuses over the one-per-cent offer the AoC made for 2017/18 was announced early in May.

But four have now reached agreements, with Sandwell College agreeing a “sector-leading” deal worth more than six per cent over three years.

A strike over job cuts at Bradford College was called off at the last minute, after it agreed to reopen its voluntary redundancy scheme.

“Colleges have some of the most talented and dedicated staff, transforming lives across the UK every day,” said AoC boss David Hughes. “We need to do all that we can to recognise, respect and reward them, and we look forward to constructive talks with the national joint forum in July.

 “The chronic under-funding of the FE sector is damaging for staff and students – it is simply not acceptable that teachers in schools are earning on average £37,000 compared but only £30,000 in colleges. The AoC will continue to work positively with the trade unions to pressure government for proper investment in a sector supporting 2.2 million people each year in England.”

 

Post-18 education review panel will try to fix HE and FE funding imbalance

There is a funding imbalance between academic and vocational routes – and the post-18 education review panel is aiming to fix it.

Philip Augar (pictured), chair of the group, said a funding disparity “particularly” in the FE sector was a main theme found in the responses to the post-18 review consultation.

Addressing delegates on day two of the AELP’s national conference, he promised the panel will address concerns.

“Pretty much all of the replies [to the consultation] said funding was too low particularly in FE,” he said. “There was a lot of comment about the bias to the traditional academic route of tertiary education. We do believe that there is a skills gap in the country that we ought to try and address.

“We do believe that the current funding model is weighted away from non-traditional students and we do believe the overall system of funding lacks coherence.”

The panel is now trying to come up with a “set of option for the taxpayers, employers, students and indeed for providers”.

“We need to find something that provides and overarching model that will unite all of this,” he continued. “We’re looking for something that is practical, that is realistic and understandable that everyone will get but we are not in favour of change for changes sake.”

He doesn’t want the post-18 review to be “yet another of those that sits on library shelves and gathers dust” – he wants it to make a difference.

Gordon Marsden

The independent panel, led by Mr Augar alongside five other experts, was set up to work out how best to “promote a more dynamic market in education and training provision”, “ensure the post-18 education system is accessible to all”, and “encourage the development of the skills that we need as a country”.

An interim stage will be published this year before the government concludes the overall review in early 2019.

The shadow skills minister Gordon Marsden is not impressed with the slow timescale.

“The reality of the review is that it won’t be signed off by government until February 2019 and any changes that come out of it that are supported by government are unlikely to come until the October 2019 budget and the actual practical effect as of that are unlikely to be seen until 2020/21,” he told the conference.

“All I can say to that given some of the pressing areas we’ve been talking about in that time scale is not good enough.”

Staff at Lowestoft SFC out on the first of six strike days over merger

Staff at Lowestoft Sixth-Form College have walked out on the first of six days of strike action protesting a planned merger.

The industrial action involves 20 of the SFC’s 70 staff, and is being led by NASUWT. Further strikes are planned for July 2, 3, 10, 11 and 12.

A spokesperson for the teachers’ union said this was because grade two Ofsted-rated Lowestoft is “due to merge with East Coast College, which has significantly worse terms and conditions for its staff”.

“It is very disappointing that the NASUWT union feel it necessary to take this action and I hope that they will reconsider in the light of the actual terms of transfer that are being negotiated,” said David Gartland, the SFC’s principal.

“If we proceed with the merger, the terms and conditions of existing staff will not change, and they are protected”.

He insisted that all existing staff would move to the grade three East Coast College with their existing pay and holiday entitlement, and would retain their public-sector pensions.

“There are no redundancies expected as a result of a merger, due in part to the lean management structure we already have in place,” he added. “Regardless of the outcome of the proposed merger discussions, our aim is to ensure our students continue to have an outstanding sixth-form experience.”

Normal timetabled lessons at the SFC have been cancelled today and a series of non-compulsory drop-in sessions have been organised for students instead.

“These sessions will be run by non-striking teachers and pastoral tutors, support staff and careers advisors,” a spokesperson said.

The 2017 Norfolk and Suffolk area review of post-16 education and training recommended a merger between the two colleges, and they announced in April this year that “there has been significant progress towards this proposal”.

Following “careful consideration”, the SFC launched a public consultation on the proposed merger which ran from March 31 to May 4. The responses and resulting report are due to be published in early July.

A spokesperson for the SFC said a final decision “has not yet been made as to whether the merger will go ahead” and is subject to the board considering consultation responses.

If the decision is made to proceed, the merger will go through on August 1.

The union said it is striking over “transfer of contract of employment with unilateral variation to terms and conditions of service and potential job loss”.

Chris Keates, NASUWT’s general secretary, backed her striking members.

“These restructuring plans could potentially leave teachers on significantly worse pay and working conditions,” she said. “NASUWT members are not only concerned about their future careers, but also the impact that worsening terms and conditions will have on the future recruitment of teachers at the SFC, which in turn threatens the quality of learning and support for students.

“Due to the hard work and commitment of staff, Lowestoft is the top-performing sixth-form college in Suffolk and Norfolk, with a progress score rated as well above average by the DfE, placing the College in the top five per cent of schools and colleges in England.

“NASUWT members want to ensure that teachers continue to receive the pay and working conditions which will support them to maintain this excellent achievement.”  

Lowestoft SFC has 743 funded students. Most are on level three A-Level and BTEC study programmes, with others taking level two GCSE and BTEC qualifications. 

East Coast College was formed in August 2017 through the merger of Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth Colleges, and now provides further and higher education and training to over 4,000 students.

East Coast College has been approached for comment.

 

Top mandarin admits to contingency concerns over T-levels

The Department for Education should have left more time to make sure T-levels go to plan, according to its top civil servant.

Jonathan Slater was questioned by the Public Accounts Committee today about his ministerial direction, published in May, in which he asked to defer the start date from 2020 to 2021. He was overruled by his boss, the education secretary Damian Hinds.

“It’s a big change in programme, a complex set of reforms and any such programme will involve a plan with a series of challenging component parts,” the DfE permanent secretary told the MPs.

“The timetable that we have been set for implementing that works fine so long as each element of the plan goes ahead without any hiccups.

Damian Hinds

“Faced with that sort of challenge, you can either decide to stick with that plan, do your very best to  make sure that everything goes in accordance with the plan and there aren’t any hiccups – or you can buy yourself more time in case something does go wrong and you can build some contingency into it.

“My advice was to buy ourselves some more time to allow for the possibility that it wouldn’t all go according to plan.”

It was “completely legitimate” for the secretary of state to ignore his advice, he added.

“As things stand today, it will clearly be very challenging to ensure that the first three T-levels are ready to be taught from 2020 and beyond to a consistently high standard,” Mr Slater wrote in his letter to Mr Hinds, dated May 17.

In a response dated May 24, Mr Hinds wrote that he was still “convinced of the case to press ahead”.

Sir Gerry Berragan, the chief executive of the Institute for Apprenticeships, also voiced concerns about the “worryingly tight” delivery timeline for the first three routes at an Ofqual conference in March.

“The last thing we should do is start the first three on the wrong footing and give them a bad reputation,” he said.

His views are particularly significant as the IfA is taking responsibility for administering T-levels.

Sally Collier, Ofqual’s chief regulator, meanwhile discussed the “ambitious” timeframe and the “risks” it carried at the same event.

Mr Slater was asked during today’s PAC appearance about what progress is being made on finding enough employers to offer what will be a mandatory 45-day minimum work placement.

Senior figures in FE are worried that young people in rural areas will lose access to many subjects, and are doubtful that thousands of businesses can be persuaded to join in.

“Good work is being done,” said Mr Slater. “We are piloting across the country right now around the country. We have many work placements in place already, so we can test what is working and what we need to adjust before we go live with the system.

“In some areas it is a lot easier than other areas. We are increasingly funding FE colleges themselves to work with employers in their localities to reach agreement to meet that piece of the jigsaw.”

Mr Hinds was also asked about T-levels by the shadow skills minister during education questions.

“The Secretary of State might be content with T-level progress, but I am afraid that many in the sector are not,” said Gordon Marsden, who suggested that there is “no clarity” on work placements.

“Is he content just agreeing with himself, or would he be happy with a process for T-levels with the wheels coming off – a magical mystery tour for young people that risks becoming a ghost train?”

“Dear oh dear, Gordon,” replied the minister. “I do not quite know where to go with that question, because I do not recognise its premise.

“I spend a great deal of time talking to employers, providers and others throughout the sector about this programme. T-levels are fundamental to building up the country’s skills base, and I would expect to see him supporting them.”

Three quarters of providers unhappy with non-levy apprenticeship funding

Almost three quarters of training providers are unhappy with the amount of non-levy apprenticeship funding available, claiming it is “insufficient” to meet demand from small businesses.

A new AELP survey, published on the second day of its national conference in London, reveals that the apprenticeship money set aside for SMEs this year is vastly lacking.

The government has allocated up to £650 million for the 15 months between this January and the end of next March – a major fall on the £1 billion that was available to small businesses in the previous 12-month period.

And in order to get their hands on a portion of this year’s cash, providers had to endure a shambolic procurement process – which saw some defunct providers winning contracts while ‘outstanding’ ones missed out. Several small providers simply went out of business.

None of these findings come as any surprise

Seventy-three per cent of the 246 providers who responded to AELP’s survey complained the £650 million fund is “insufficient”.

There are several other serious issues to resolve in the roll-out of the government’s apprenticeship reforms.

Seventy-seven per cent still believe that employers are struggling to understand and engage with the new apprenticeship system.

Meanwhile, 72 per cent said there are not enough new apprenticeship standards in place, and 82 per cent do not think there are enough end-point assessment programmes available.

The Institute for Apprenticeships introduced its “faster and better” process for approving standards earlier this year but AELP’s survey reveals that 60 per cent of providers are still doing the bulk of their training under the old apprenticeship frameworks.

Only 27 per cent have been able to move the majority of their provision to standards.

Just 11 per cent of respondents said the apprenticeship reforms are generally going well.

“None of these findings come as any surprise as we’ve been feeding back similar anecdotal evidence for months from regional meetings to ministers and officials on why apprenticeship starts have been dropping so sharply,” said AELP boss Mark Dawe.

“But while AELP remains supportive of the apprenticeship policy, the levy itself and standards, the survey results do underline the sheer scale of the challenges and the urgent need to make changes to the way that the apprenticeship reforms have been introduced.”

Mark Dawe

Seeing these concerns borne out in black and white goes “a long way” to explain why the latest official set of apprenticeship start numbers are over 50 per cent down on a year ago, AELP believes.

Over half of providers are changing how they deliver apprenticeships in response to the reforms.

Fifty-five per cent are moving their provision across to a different sector or occupational area, while 53 per cent are seeing their delivery switch over more to the large levy-paying employers.

Additionally, 42 per cent say the reforms are prompting them to run more higher-level apprenticeship programmes in response to employer demand.

Mr Dawe said the switch to higher-level apprenticeships is “good for the programme’s reputation, but we have to get the balance of provision right from level two to levels six and seven”.

“As the recent AELP policy submission showed, it’s vital for a post-Brexit economy and social mobility that lower level provision isn’t abandoned and this means getting the way it’s funded right,” he added.

“This is why AELP is calling for an immediate suspension of employer contributions for 16- to 24-year-old apprentices at levels two and three by non-levy payers or those employers that exceed their levy.”

AELP has over 900 members who serve 380,000 employers across the country.

AELP National Conference 2018

Excitement has been building ahead of the speech from the skills minister, Anne Milton, at AELP’s annual conference.

There was a chance the speech would be used to announce a dramatic policy U-turn: scrapping non-levy employer contributions for at least some apprenticeships.

And it has been many years since I can remember an FE minister making a genuinely new announcement in a conference speech.

But any hope of announcements came to nothing. Ms Milton appeared to mostly stick to the script given to her by officials, adding reference to careers advice near the end (take note, speechwriter!)

The lengthy ministerial Q&A was welcome, with delegates keen to probe on the usual range of issues and concerns relating to apprentices.

Overall it felt very much like she is still in listening mode, but doesn’t believe the evidence is clear yet that any policy change is needed.

She talked about being “able to demonstrate causality” – so I expect a bunch more AELP surveys in the coming weeks.

And several months ago the minister said in a webinar with me – “against advice from officials” – that she didn’t expect pick-up on starts until September.

So even if Mark Dawe, AELP’s chief executive, follows through on his threat to “almost daily” remind the minister of the need for change, there is no sign of it any time soon.

As regular FE Week readers will know, I think it is far too soon to panic about apprenticeships numbers, and even Jason Holt, representing small employers, is warning that a change in direction on fees would be premature.

Another highlight that I suspect we shall return to were the warnings from Sally Collier, the chief executive from Ofqual.

Coming onto the main stage after Sir Gerry Berragan had claimed that within a few years hundreds of thousands of apprentices will be going through end-point assessments, Ms Collier wanted of a lack of potential assessors.

At the AELP conference next year I’m willing to bet the employer fees U-turn debate will feel a distant memory, and the new barrier will be to capacity in the new assessment system.

Oh, and problems with implementing AEB devolution…

See you in 2019!