Scrap GCSEs and A-levels in favour of ‘holistic baccalaureate’ says education committee chair

GCSEs and A-levels should be scrapped and replaced with one “holistic baccalaureate” for 18-year-olds which recognises academic and technical skills and personal development, a senior Conservative MP has said.

Robert Halfon, a former skills minister who chairs the parliamentary education committee, wants to mimic the international baccalaureate, which requires students to sit subjects from six different groups and a “core” curriculum comprising elements like knowledge and creativity.

But a union leader warned of “significant practical problems which we would need to overcome” if GCSEs were to be abandoned.

College funding has been salami sliced year on year making their task almost impossible

There have been growing calls for GCSEs to be scrapped since the participation age for education and training was raised to 18 in 2015, meaning far more students stay in full-time education beyond the age of 16.

In a speech to the Edge Foundation on “a 21st century education system”, Mr Halfon will say that “dry rote learning for exams is not the way forward and GCSEs have had their day”.

He said an IB-style qualification for 18-year-olds in England would “act as a genuine and trusted signal to employers and universities of a young person’s rounded skills and abilities”.

“Schools would then be measured on two things – completion of the baccalaureate at 18 and the destinations of their pupils in the years after leaving, with apprenticeships explicitly counted as a gold standard destination,” he will say.

The speech will coincide with the release of new polling by YouGov, which shows 73 per cent of parents in England and Wales believe there is too much emphasis on exam grades achieved at secondary school.

“We must remember that since 2015 all young people have been required to participate in some form of education and training up to 18,” Mr Halfon will say.

“Yet GCSEs remain just as much the high stakes tests that they were when many young people finished their education at this age.”

He will add that the “crucial role” of FE has “been largely overlooked” as the sector has been “subjected to decades of ‘initiativitis’ leaving it without a clear direction, meanwhile funding has been salami sliced year on year making their task almost impossible”.

Mr Halfon will call on the government to “take the opportunity to fundamentally reimagine this phase of education”, and carry out a simple data-led “progress check” at 16, instead of high-stakes exams that “drive so much perverse behaviour”.

Under the international baccalaureate diploma programme, 16 to 19-year-olds follow a curriculum made up of six subject groups; language and literature, language acquisition, individuals and societies, sciences, mathematics and the arts.

The programme, currently used in just 112 schools in the UK, also has three core elements; theory of knowledge, creativity, activity and service, or “CAS”, and an extended essay.

Scrapping GCSEs would clearly constitute a significant change

Geoff Barton, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said there was “a lot of merit to the idea of scrapping GCSEs and having a single set of exams for 18-year-olds”, but warned of “significant practical problems which we would need to overcome”.

“GCSEs are a product of a different era when many young people left education at the age of 16, but this is no longer the case, and young people are now expected to remain in full-time education or training until the age of 18.

“It would therefore make a great deal of sense to replace GCSEs with some sort of light-touch assessment which would help determine post-16 routes rather than persisting with high-stakes GCSEs. Young people could then take qualifications at 18 tailored around their onward progression into higher education, apprenticeships and careers, and which could include a mixture of technical and academic subjects.”

Mr Barton said GCSEs placed students under “a great deal of pressure”, and said Mr Halfon was right to ask questions about “whether there is a better way”.

“Scrapping GCSEs would clearly constitute a significant change, and many practical issues would have to be addressed around any new system for progression between schools, sixth forms and colleges, but he is right to initiate the debate.”

DfE admits lack of action to enforce Baker clause in schools

The Baker clause has been labelled a “law without teeth” after it emerged the government did not take any action against schools for non-compliance in the first year of its existence.

The Department for Education also admitted it only wrote to half of the trusts it originally claimed to have contacted in relation to non-compliance. Around two-thirds of secondary schools are thought to be breaking the law.

 Introduced last January, the so-called Baker clause requires schools to publish a policy statement online to show how they ensure providers can access pupils to talk about technical education and apprenticeships, and details of their career programmes.

 In response to a freedom of information request from FE Week, the DfE confirmed “no action was taken against schools in England that failed to comply with the Baker clause” between January 2 2018 and January 2 2019.

It has also emerged that letters were sent to just five of the largest trusts last month to remind them of their duty, despite a claim by the DfE last month that skills minister Anne Milton would be writing to the 10 largest non-compliant trusts.

The department has now admitted this was an error, and only five were contacted.

Although “appropriate action” can include direct intervention in schools, a spokesperson was unable to confirm what this involves. Last month, the DfE said the letters were classed as a “reminder” rather than an intervention.

Charles Parker, pictured, executive director of the Baker Dearing Educational Trust, said there “doesn’t seem to be much point in passing a law if you don’t follow it up” and called the clause a “law without teeth”.

“I’m afraid I don’t think they can do much more. The law is pretty toothless. There isn’t a sanction built into the way it’s drafted,” he said.

 “The best we can hope for, frankly, is to get the government’s weight behind its own law.”

He added that the government should write to every local authority and trust about their obligations, before sending “crisply worded letters” to those who do not comply.

A report from the Institute for Public Policy Research warned last month that two-thirds of secondary schools are still not compliant.

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 270

Your weekly guide to who’s new and who’s leaving.

Olivia Morton, Corporate Communications and Events Manager for The Bedford College Group

Start date: 21 January 2019

Previous job: Business Development Coordinator, GSSArchitecture

Interesting fact: At eight-years-old Olivia introduced 80s punk rock band New Model Army to an audience of over 8,000 fans in Birmingham.

Gareth Jones, Relationship Manager- Adult Education Budget, Liverpool City Region Combined Authority

Start date. January 2019

Previous job. Apprenticeship Programme Manager at Royal Mail Group

Interesting fact: He watched over 120 sporting fixtures in 2018.

Adrian Sugden, Principal, Henshaws Specialist College

Start date: January 2019

Previous job: Interim Principal at a school for children with Social Emotional and Mental Health difficulties (SEMH)

Interesting fact: He trained as a cabinet maker and still enjoys woodwork and making furniture as a hobby.

David McVean, Chair, Moulton College

Start date: February 2019

Previous job: Education management consultant (he remains in post)

Interesting fact: He used to drive an ice cream van for a living.

How to get the best out of a college merger

A merger can be a trying and testing time, says Mike Hopkins. But do it right and you can be left with a leaner, more financially efficient operation with the same pool of students

During my 12 years as principal, South and City College Birmingham has been through two mergers: the first between the former South Birmingham College and City College Birmingham, and most recently with Bournville College.

Both mergers were model “B” – we took over the other colleges – and came about following financial difficulty within both.

Neither college could continue as they were, as technically they were insolvent. Neither was performing well and both were in bad shape educationally. They required serious improvement and there were no other realistic solutions.

Before our most recent merger, Bournville had become a failing college and was in Education Skills Funding Agency intervention. Now, just 15 months later, both South & City College Birmingham (now incorporating Bournville College) have been awarded a grade 2 Ofsted inspection result, achieving a “good” across all areas.

I’m proud to be at the forefront of this, and I believe the experience makes me able to understand fully how to bring about and get the best out of a college merger. They can be a trying and testing time for any institution, but with the right preparation and know-how, a merger can be a real success.

If done right, an institution can combine the best departments of each college and be left with a leaner, more financially efficient operation with the same pool of students, but without the need to build new facilities.

A merger can also offer a significant and positive cultural change, with happier staff and students.

The biggest issues I found were the significant government bureaucracy, financing and the major cost and time commitment involved. We have planned, managed and undertaken each merger ourselves, but it is still a drain on resource to do so.

Any underlying problems will inevitably come out of the woodwork

You have to consider a lot of things at the same time. You’re bringing a lot of assets and a lot of staff together. Any underlying problems will inevitably come out of the woodwork so it is vital to address them early. A principal must fully understand their own facility, as well as having thorough research into the institution that they are merging with.

Consider the drivers for your merger, carefully observe the financial state of the college you intend to partner with and think about the considerable amount of time and commitment that you need to invest. This will mean you will be involved in a lot more than just the day-to-day running of the institution. Importantly, remember that colleges are people organisations and the focus on staff and the implications for them will be critical to success.

With our second merger we knew exactly what needed to be done and the processes that were involved, so we were able to do things a lot more rapidly. All preparation for the merger was done in-house and we planned everything down to the last detail.

There is no right or wrong merger model. We can provide evidence from our latest inspection report that we are here to provide for students from many different backgrounds. We believe that if we get the student and staff parts right, everything else follows.

However, a merger may not be the best strategy for every institution. The key reason is that a college is having serious difficulties, either financially, educationally or both, with little capacity to resolve this in the long term. Importantly, the merger has to be able to provide benefit to both colleges and their students.

If your college is considering a merger, make sure you fully understand what you are undertaking and what it will mean for the colleges and the local area.

In our experience the mergers needed to happen for the greater good of the people living in and around the city, and to improve the overall educational and skills attainment picture for the local area and for our local economy.

Let’s embrace a four nations approach to skills

The new Four Nations College Alliance will help colleges go beyond their borders to learn more about best practice and common issues, says Ewart Keep

Last month FE Week covered the launch of the joint report by the UK’s four college associations – Developing a Four Nations College Blueprint for a post-Brexit economy. The report is important because it results from partnership working and co-production by college leaders from across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in response to what are perceived as shared challenges.

As the case studies demonstrate, there is much that colleges in each country can learn from one another in terms of best practice and approaches to common issues, such as how to further excellence in vocational education and training (E&T).

Moreover, the report marks a decision by the national college associations to create a Four Nations College Alliance that will develop thinking on the future development of vocational education and its closer integration with industrial policy, economic development and innovation. The alliance will also seek to lead public debate on the role, funding and governance of colleges.

This is a timely development. Although E&T policy is now fully devolved and each country is empowered to do its own thing, there are good reasons for colleges across the UK seeking to learn from and influence policy development beyond their own borders. For instance, the UK government sometimes acts unilaterally on E&T issues in ways that directly impact on the other three nations. Examples include the decision to stop funding the sector skills councils (SSCs), the abolition of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, university funding and tuition fee policies (which have knock-on effects in the other jurisdictions), and the apprenticeship levy, which was treated as tax measure by HM Treasury and therefore an undevolved matter.

Plus we now possess (by accident rather than design) the opportunities afforded by a policy learning laboratory, where the UK nations share an integrated economy, a set of large national and multinational firms, and a common labour market and employment regulation framework. As skills policies diverge between the four, a close comparison of policy performance is possible because other structural factors are broadly held constant and in common.

As skills policies diverge between the four, a close comparison of policy performance is possible

For example, policy learning can embrace the relative performance of a market-based versus a systems-based approach to delivering E&T. England has favoured a marketplace in schooling, higher education, apprenticeship and further education.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have remained wedded to a systems approach. Scotland has also introduced a joined-up policy framework that embraces economic development, business support and improvement, job quality and fair wages, skills and innovation. This policy model may be of interest to some English combined authorities.

Scotland has also created an over-arching board to superintend the work of the two skills agencies (Scottish Funding Council and Skills Development Scotland) and the economic development agencies (Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise). In Wales, the existing higher education funding council will be abolished and a new tertiary education body created to fund HE, FE and ultimately school sixth forms.

In all four countries, FE and the college sector face major challenges, but the kind of tumult and turmoil that now regularly fills the news pages of FE Week as colleges’ finances collapse, large independent training providers go to the wall due to fraudulent behaviour, and providers cry foul as competitive funding bidding systems deliver unexpected and unwanted outcomes are largely confined to the English marketplace. Comparing the relative costs and benefits of system and market across the UK nations will be an interesting exercise that is liable to gather pace as more data becomes available.

The Four Nations Alliance will soon be launching a commission to review and advise on the long-term role of colleges. The aim is create a vision for the development of colleges across the UK over the next decade.

If it works for apprentices and employers, it works for Ofsted

Over a six-year period, our college rating for apprenticeships improved from ‘inadequate’ to ‘outstanding’ – and we weren’t even focusing on inspections, says Jacqui Canton. Do the right things for the right reasons and good results will follow

It’s not often that I gain management inspiration from cult films of the 1990s, but Ofsted definitely makes me think of the Brad Pitt classic, Fight Club, although perhaps not for the reasons you might think. The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club. And, for me, the first rule of becoming ‘outstanding’ is: you do not talk about Ofsted.

Preparing for Ofsted feels much like pushing a heavy boulder up a steep mountain, and it is all too easy to get bogged down in folders of evidence, examples of impact and reams of data. We know inspectors don’t want to see folders of evidence now, but I’m sure many of us keep our own files anyway, if only to organise our thoughts. Using the common inspection framework (CIF) criteria as a checklist can feel like a security blanket (and you should probably take more than a cursory glance at the criteria every now and then), but, honestly, don’t focus too much on Ofsted.

Abingdon and Witney College was graded inadequate for apprenticeships in 2011. Six years later we had grown exponentially, engaged with hundreds of amazing employers and positively changed the lives of hundreds of apprentices. We had delivered the highest general further education college timely achievement rates in England for 16-18s in 2013/14, and the second highest in England for all apprentices in 2016/17. We had won numerous awards and our apprentices had been recognised nationally. Ofsted agreed that we were outstanding.

We did this by doing the right things, for the right reasons. We weren’t seduced by big-name employers, by potential gaps in the market or by national contracts. We designed programmes that worked for local employers, and that gave apprentices the skills they needed. We used initial assessments to make sensible decisions about whether programmes were right for applicants. We tracked and monitored progress well, and worked hard to improve the quality of teaching, learning and assessment on and off the job, and in and out of the classroom. We were obsessive about paperwork and admin (we all should love our Management Information System teams a little more than we do), and adapted college systems where they didn’t work for apprenticeships. We invested in expertise through a stand-alone apprenticeship unit and ensured senior team commitment for apprenticeships was clear. And, despite aiming for growth, we didn’t take on employers who weren’t committed to training or applicants who weren’t ready for an apprenticeship. We didn’t talk a lot about Ofsted.

We weren’t seduced by big-name employers or national contracts

But, we ticked the Ofsted boxes anyway. Amazing provision that works for apprentices, employers and the teams delivering the provision, also works for Ofsted. It certainly did under the CIF, and I am sure will work even more so under the proposed new Education Inspection Framework (EIF). The key drivers of intent, implementation and impact that are central to the EIF are, I think, in keeping with my (admittedly less sophisticated) description of “doing the right things, for the right reasons”.

Of course, you have to keep doing the right things, for the right reasons. If you’ve pushed that boulder to the top of the mountain and achieved outstanding, the hard work doesn’t stop. No one wants a quick trip down the slippery slope on the other side of the mountain. We had a celebratory debrief the morning after the inspection, and, only five minutes in, my team started talking about the areas that they still wanted to improve. It’s that truly embedded (slightly obsessive) culture of continuous improvement that ensures they continue to deliver outstanding outcomes. We don’t get it right all the time and are far from perfect, but we always strive to do better for our apprentices, employers, ourselves and the college. If your team can do that then, we can all follow Tyler Durden’s lead in Fight Club: stop talking about Ofsted and just be outstanding.

ESFA delays European Social Fund tender contracting for second time after ‘error’

A fresh 10-day standstill period has been issued by the Education and Skills Funding Agency for European Social Fund contracts in some areas after it admitted to making an “error” in its tender.

FE Week revealed last week that multiple providers alleged that the government broke tender rules in the procurement that is worth £282 million in total.

The original date for handing out ESF contracts to the winners was January 29, but the ESFA delayed this while it handled the complaints which mainly protested about the exclusion of the “track record” section in bids which led to providers like Serco Limited winning big despite an Ofsted grade three and financial losses of £29.5 million in 2017.

I’m not sure how they can legally commit to awarding contracts when they acknowledged an error has been made

Now, the ESFA has told providers who bid the areas that Serco won in that a new standstill period will begin on February 11 following an “error” with its name in its tender.

“It has come to our attention that the standstill letter incorrectly named the successful tenderer as ‘Serco Regional Services Limited’,” said an update to an ESF bidding provider, sent by the ESFA yesterday and seen by FE Week.

“In fact, the successful tenderer was ‘Serco Limited’. This occurred as a result of an error in using the ESFA’s e-tendering system, Bravo.

“However, the ESFA confirms that a valid tender was submitted by Serco Limited and that the selection questions, the tender evaluation and due diligence were all completed on this basis.”

It continues: “In view of this error, the ESFA will be issuing fresh Standstill Letters on Monday 11 February 2019 and observing a fresh 10 day Standstill Period.

“We regret any inconvenience caused, but stand by the outcome of the tender.”

The ESFA told FE Week that the new standstill period will only apply to those providers that bid in an area where Serco won.

“This is unprecedented,” said one provider that lost out to Serco but wished to remain anonymous.

“I’m not sure how they can legally commit to awarding contracts when they have acknowledged that an error has been made, especially when it involves something so critically fundamental as a company’s name.

“They are insisting that an error was made by ‘Serco Regional Services Limited’ being listed as the successful bidder. How did they even know about the existence of ‘Serco Regional Services’?”

Prior to the first delay FE Week asked Serco if it did bid as Serco Regional Services but a spokesperson denied this: “We bid for this work as Serco Ltd not Serco Regional Services.”

We regret any inconvenience caused, but stand by the outcome of the tender

Documents about the ESF winners, seen by FE Week, show that Serco won contracts in at least six different regions totalling more than £37 million.

These included the Black Country, Stoke on Trent and Staffordshire, Coventry and Warwickshire, Derby and Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, and Leicester and Leicestershire.

The ESF is funding that the UK received, as a member state of the EU, to increase job opportunities and help people to improve their skill levels, particularly those who find it difficult to get work.

The current funding round is worth about €3 billion (£2.3 billion) across England over the period from 2014 to 2020.

England’s fund is administered through the Education and Skills Funding Agency, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Big Lottery Fund, which each provide match funding.

Ofsted watch: Another positive week for providers

It has been another positive week for new apprenticeship providers, with many scoring encouraging results in their early monitoring visits from Ofsted, while a university technical college was rated ‘good’ in its first inspection.

The only poor report came in for Bishop Auckland College which fell from a grade two to a three.

UTC South Durham, which opened in 2016, received grade twos across the board.

Ofsted reported that learners attained “above-average” standards in vocational subjects, and last year over half of the 80 learners on 16-19 programmes secured places on apprenticeships and two-thirds went into STEM-related careers when they left.

Brooke House Sixth Form College made good progress in its latest monitoring visit, making ‘significant progress’ in two out of three areas after receiving a grade three last year.

A new principal and senior management team have been appointed, the latter of which has established a long-term financial plan for the college.

Employer provider Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust received three ‘reasonable progress’ findings from their first monitoring visit since it opened.

The inspector wrote: “Leaders, managers and governors have an ambitious vision for apprenticeships at the trust.

“As part of the trust’s ambitious vision for apprenticeships, the number of apprentices has been increased to meet the challenges of an aging workforce increasing staff numbers in areas of shortage.”

First time pass rates are “high”, and apprentices who are falling behind are identified and appropriate measures are put in place to get them back on track.

Ntg Training Ltd scored three ‘reasonable’ ratings from its monitoring visit, with the inspector reporting it has good relationships with subcontractors and employers.

But the report highlights tutors do not give enough attention to making sure learners understand questions and answer them effectively and overlook the importance of grammar, spelling and punctuation.

Personal Track Safety Limited also made reasonable progress in all three areas according to the report from Ofsted’s last monitoring visit.

All its apprentices are employed in and go through a 10-week comprehensive skills, knowledge and behaviour programme to secure a Ministry of Justice licence to practice.

This programme prepares them “well” for the role of prison or custody officer, the inspector reports.

Uniper Technologies Limited made significant progress in all three areas of its monitoring visit, with inspectors reporting how apprentices are “effusive” about the high quality of teaching and support they receive, making them well-motivated and curious to both learn and achieve.

All the learners who need to achieve a functional skills accreditation in English and maths are successful on the first try.

Boom Training Limited made reasonable progress in all three areas of a monitoring visit.

The apprentices benefit from well-planned training sessions, both on an individual basis and in groups.

LRTT Limited received two significant progress ratings and a reasonable rating from its recent monitoring visit.

Instructors use their industry experience to share real experiences so apprentices remember important details, so to illustrate health and safety in the workshop, instructors discussed the injuries that can be caused if engineers get their wedding rings trapped in machinery.

Construction Gateway Limited made ‘reasonable progress’ in the one area inspected during a recent monitoring visit.

At a full inspection, Bishop Auckland College went from a grade two to a grade three as the proportion of apprentices successfully completing their courses has been too low for the past three years.

Leaders have been too slow to take effective action against this, inspectors found, and there are variances in how the staff use the quality monitoring and improvement activities to identify and address weaknesses quickly.

Teachers do not take enough account of the skills and experience that learners on study programmes and apprentices already have when they are planning and providing their lessons, according to the report.

Not enough learners achieve their full potential on study programmes, but learners do develop good employability skills.

GFE Colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Bishop Auckland College 13/11/2018 04/02/2019 3 2

 

Sixth Form Colleges (inc 16-19 academies) Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Brooke House 15/01/2019 06/02/2019 M 3

 

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Ntg Training Ltd 15/01/2019 08/02/2019 M N/A
Personal Track Safety Ltd 23/01/2019 08/02/2019 M N/A
Uniper Technologies Limited 09/01/2019 07/02/2019 M N/A
Boom Training Limited 08/01/2019 07/02/2019 M N/A
LRTT Limited 08/01/2019 08/02/2019 M N/A
Construction Gateway Limited 08/01/2019 07/02/2019 M III

 

Employer providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust 15/01/2019 08/02/2019 M N/A

 

Other (including UTCs) Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
UTC South Durham 09/01/2019 04/02/2019 2 N/A

Why are providers charging the maximum apprenticeship price?

The apprenticeship levy brought with it a radical overhaul of provider funding, dispensing with fixed rates set by the funding agency.

Instead, the ESFA listed maximum values for apprenticeship frameworks and standards, up to £27,000, but “expected to see employers and providers negotiating on price below the funding band upper limit”.

But, as FE Week reported last March, nearly all providers are charging the maximum rate and failing to do any negotiation.

Claiming more funding than is always necessary would not be a big problem if it were not for the fact that apprenticeship funding is public money.

An experienced manager needs less training than someone new to the role, so the funding should be reduced accordingly.

The ESFA appears to have realised this and beefed up the prior learning section within their 2018/19 funding rules, threatening to take funding back from providers overcharging by failing to account for existing knowledge, skills and behaviours.

And, as we report today, the DfE has commissioned research into “If and how providers and employers are adapting training and the associated costs to take into account the prior learning.”

Providers should pay particular attention to the new prior attainment section within the funding rules, as auditors will be sharpening their pencils.

Increased scrutiny from Ofsted in apprenticeship monitoring reports has also identified providers failing to identify and or make adjustments for prior learning, particularly for existing employees.

Consider this: if all apprentices are funded at the cap it must mean none of them had any relevant existing knowledge, skills and behaviours at the start of the course. Sound plausible?

As if drawing down excessive public funding was not bad enough, consider the impact on the overall budget and those that will miss out.

Apprenticeships for young people and those at the lower levels with no prior learning is shrinking yet the unstoppable rise of existing employees on management apprenticeships continues.

The IfATE has already warned of budget pressures and is pushing down many of the maximum caps.

The ESFA has recently said there is unlikely to be any additional funding for small employers in the coming year.

So it will be an uncomfortable message for many, but providers charging at the cap, with no consideration for prior learning, will only have themselves to blame when the money runs out and the auditors come knocking.