Revealed: 37 colleges and providers chosen for first wave of Taking Teaching Further funding

The first colleges to train 80 industry experts as teachers for part of the £5 million Taking Teaching Further scheme have been announced.

The programme seeks to recruit industry specialists and retrain them to work in the post-16 and FE workforce, in an attempt to bring in more “diverse experiences and skills”.

The scheme was unveiled in June, when it was announced that each provider would receive up to £20,000 to train up to five “experienced industry professionals” in a level-five diploma in education and training.

This first round will focus on “priority sectors”, including T-levels in the fields of education and childcare, digital and construction, as well as engineering and manufacturing and other STEM subjects.

On Friday, skills minister Anne Milton revealed the initial 23 providers who will take part in the programme and recruit 80 “expert” teachers, comprising 20 colleges, a county council and two independent learning providers.

Also announced were 20 providers who will split £900,000 in funding to run “innovative projects”, exploring how industry and FE can work together.

Some lucky institutions appear on both lists, and will be receiving money for both training industry experts and creating innovative projects, including Calderdale College, East Kent College, Northampton College, Petroc College, Walsall College and the Learning Skills Partnership.

“We are transforming technical education in this country with the introduction of new T-levels,” Ms Milton said. “We want staff with industry skills to pass on their expertise to the next generation.

“I’m thrilled that we have a chance to bring industry to colleges and it will be exciting to see the differences they can make to their colleges and the students they teach.”

David Russell, chief executive of the Education and Training Foundation, which is managing the programme, said it will “add significant impetus to the recruitment of world-class teachers and trainers into FE”.

“Those who have been successful in this first tranche will set a new benchmark for bringing in talent and expertise to improve technical teaching and support the development of our brilliant FE workforce.”

The next round of the Taking Teaching Further programme will open for applications in December. 

The providers hosting the first TTF teachers 

Blackpool and the Fylde College 

Bridgewater and Taunton College

Buckinghamshire College Group 

Calderdale College

Capital City College Group 

City College Norwich 

City College Plymouth 

East Kent College 

Grimsby Institute 

Kirklees College 

Lakes College

Learning Skills Partnership 

Leicester College 

Northampton College 

Northumberland County Council 

Oldham College 

Petroc College 

Reaseheath College 

St Helens Chamber

Tameside College 

Walsall College

West Suffolk College

 

Providers to run first projects

Abingdon and Witney College

Bath College

Blackburn College

Bournemouth and Poole College

Calderdale College

DN Colleges Group 

East Kent College

Genius Solutions 

Greater Manchester Learning Provider Network 

Harlow College

Learning Skills Partnership 

London South East Colleges

North Kent College

Northampton College

Petroc College

Sandwell College

The Consortium of Vocational and Educational Trainers

The Isle of Wight College 

Walsall College 

Weston College

 

 

 

Government needs to improve access to apprenticeships

This week the education select committee published a wide-ranging report on the government’s apprenticeship record. It highlighted failings in apprenticeship policy, process and delivery that we, along with sector bodies, have articulated for months – often in this newspaper. But what needs highlighting from this report is the importance not just of the apprenticeship but of the apprentice.

This is a priority that’s long overdue for this government. What is the point of the skills minister waxing lyrical about our young people’s success in world skills competitions if her department takes little notice of young apprentices? My Labour colleagues and I have repeatedly held the government to account for failing to utilise the Panel of Apprentices.

The select committee touched on the government’s consistent failure to support underrepresented groups adequately. That is why we have long-standing pledges to set targets to increase apprenticeships for people with disabilities, care leavers and veterans, and ensure greater representation of women, BAME, LGBT and people with disabilities – and tried to get them included in the Institute for Apprenticeships’ priorities when it was set up.

Improving access and participation are fine words, but how do we give them sharp edges? The report references witnesses, as diverse as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and Central YMCA, on what might be done by way of pre-apprenticeship support – establishing an apprenticeship access fund is one possibility.

That could be a useful start, but what’s equally important is encouraging young people to see the potential for their futures at a much earlier age. I have been saying we need to be engaging young people as early as nine and 10 in school about the options available via apprenticeships. That also needs hard wiring into careers advice, to go beyond the Baker clause into a more sustained holistic strategy, giving young people a taster of the variety and excitement that the apprentice route can offer.

Here again, utilising the talents of the IfA apprentices panel, alongside the National Society of Apprentices, the Industry Apprentice Council and the expanding WorldSkills champions programme, is the right way to cut through and promote the social mobility we need. In the world of the 2020s, where bespoke skills and enabling ones will have to combine in people’s lives with more traditional qualifications, that sort of early exposure will be critical.

Establishing an apprenticeship access fund is one possibility

Traineeships, or pre-apprentice training, remains the great potential lever to expand that social mobility by getting more young people to the starting line for top-quality apprenticeships. Since traineeships were announced, the government has failed miserably to put the incentives, the marketing or the resources into them, and to remove the barriers in regulations between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education that stymie them for many young people. It is good to see the committee and its witnesses, including the EEF (the manufacturers’ organisation), raising these issues again.

The report mentions the Care to Learn scheme, which gives financial support to parents under the ages of 20 who are their child’s primary carer. But what about the same cohort of people who are the primary carers for a parent or sibling? This is a huge, under-recognised issue – in my own constituency in Blackpool we have nearly a thousand teenage carers, some of whom I met recently, in that category. Don’t they deserve a chance to be supported to get on the apprenticeship ladder, to be recognised for their service as carers with aspirations too?

We also need a far stronger definition of what role there is for post-24 apprenticeships in the daunting task of retraining and reskilling millions of adults. Why can’t the money, lost in poor take- up of the government’s failing advanced-learning loans policy, stay in the DfE to fund and support some of the initiatives talked about here? Labour’s new National Education Service, along with our lifelong learning commission, will be focusing sharply on this.

Colleges Week should be a celebration with three messages for the chancellor

Having spent more than seven happy years working for a large college in South East London I have seen first-hand the vital role they play in the education ecosystem.

So the Association of Colleges is to be applauded for rallying the further education sector at short notice to celebrate the work of colleges.

It was a brave decision to announce the plan for a whole week of activities with just a month’s notice, but coming days before the budget the timing is critical.

The message to the Chancellor and everyone around him should be three-fold:

Firstly, look at the amazing things colleges do in their communities to enhance the lives of young people and adults.

Secondly, the government’s own researchers consistently find that investing in colleges is good for businesses and the economy.

Thirdly, leaving funding rates unchanged since 2013, as costs continue to rise, simply reduces the impact of the two points above.

So the solution is simple and fair: Increase the funding rates.

So Colleges Week should be a big celebration, treading that fine line between showing off and highlighting the consequences of cuts.

It should not be angry, ugly or moany.

And calling it Colleges Week, focusing exclusively on colleges, is not to diminish the role of other FE sector providers, including local authority adult education services as well as private, third sector and not-for-profit providers.

Diversity of provider type is a strength in the further education sector.

Colleges play a unique role as large education institutions rooted in their communities, delivering the widest range of courses to the most diverse cohorts of learners.

Writing this week in FE Week, the Skills Minister rightly says: “this is a chance to celebrate the role colleges play in the country’s education system and the fantastic work that they do.”

So let’s all get behind Colleges Week, and encourage everyone we know to contact their local MP and get on social media to share stories about colleges that have made a positive difference to their lives.

FE Week will be producing a special Colleges Week supplement, in partnership with NOCN, so be sure to send pictures and stories to news@feweek.co.uk

Can UTCs fit in the technical education jigsaw?

The government should think again on UTCs, and consider moving admissions to 16, says Gerard Dominguez-Reig

Technical education is prone to continual fiddling by recent governments. In the last few years we’ve seen the roll out of T-levels, significant reforms to apprenticeships, and the area reviews of further education colleges.

Emanating from government’s post-16 skills plan, these reforms come with grand ambitions: to improve the quality of training, enable progression to higher levels of education, and boost social mobility among technical-oriented students.

But how do university technical colleges fit into this new post-16 landscape, especially considering that they are 14-19 institutions?

A new report published today by the Education Policy Institute seeks to address this question. With entries at 14 struggling and key stage 4 provision not up to standard, we argue that the government should think again on UTCs, and consider moving admissions to 16.

What evidence is leading us to make these proposals?

Firstly, recruitment. UTCs are failing to draw in enough Year 10 students. Eight UTCs have closed due to low numbers, with another closure expected next year. Many are simply struggling to convince students and their families of the benefits of switching school at 14.

Three times more than the national average go on to an apprenticeship

UTCs’ key stage 4 performance is also poor. Whichever measure you judge UTCs against, they fare worse than other institutions. With the government’s performance measure (Progress 8) also looking at student progress before they join a UTC, we have therefore looked at progress made by students during their time in a UTC alone. Here, they still make three quarters of a grade less progress during key stage 4 than other students.

Of equal concern is the alarming finding that more than half of students are leaving UTCs by the time they get to age 16. With so few remaining after their first two years, clearly there are big question marks around whether students are benefiting from 14-19 education.

It’s not all bad news, however. Technical provision at UTCs improves after the age of 16, and although students have worse outcomes for level 3 academic qualifications, the picture is slightly rosier for technical and vocational qualifications. Indeed, UTC students outperform those at FE colleges, which might otherwise be their alternative place of study.

In their current form UTCs are not fully delivering for young people

A large portion of students also go on to do an apprenticeship, with one in five leavers doing an apprenticeship after the age of 18; three times more than the national average. This suggests that UTCs are successfully linking school and work, with the strong relationships UTCs have with employers bearing fruit.

The poor performance we see between 14 and 16 however, strongly suggests that in their current form UTCs are not fully delivering for young people. It would be wise to put any expansions on hold until the programme is reviewed.

With a new admission age, UTCs could become flagship level 3 technical institutions, offering existing high-quality technical qualifications and T-levels as they are phased in, catered to the needs of the local economy. This should allow them to offer students good progression routes into higher levels of education and skills in Institutes of Technology, National Colleges, and other providers.

A reformed destinations measure is required

Given that UTCs were set up to provide employers with the skills they need, a reformed destinations measure is also required which takes into account the characteristics of students, and therefore shows the impact of UTCs on students after they leave.

The government has rightly taken steps to reform our complex technical education system by focusing on clarity, quality, and equity. But UTC students should benefit from its reform agenda too. Our research points to some possible improvements that can be made to this underperforming institution.

Major subcontractor heavily criticised in ‘insufficient’ Ofsted monitoring visit report

A major subcontractor has been heavily criticised in a new apprenticeship provider Ofsted monitoring visit report that found it to be making ‘insufficient progress’ in all areas under review.

Cumbria-based NC Training started delivering levy-funded apprenticeships in July 2017, but also held eight subcontracts worth £1.6 million last year.

The verdict means it can expect to be barred from taking on new apprentices – and it could face losing its place on the register of apprenticeship training providers, according to Education and Skills Funding Agency rules.

NC Training’s managing director Nicola Cassley told FE Week she was “deeply disheartened by the comments made” but did not indicate whether she felt they were fair.

“We would like to focus on the future, which means providing our stakeholders with the best possible training and ensuring we receive a good grading at our full inspection.”

“Leaders and managers are not complying with the levy-funded apprenticeship requirements,” the report said.

Apprentices were not being recruited to programmes that “help them to develop new knowledge, skills and behaviours, or support their career advancement”.

“Too many apprentices reported to inspectors that they had been in their job roles for a number of years and that they were not learning anything new,” the report said.

Some were found to be “completing a second apprenticeship at a lower level than the first”.

Most apprentices – “particularly the most able” – were making “slow progress”, the report said.

Many were not receiving their full entitlement to off-the-job training, and “in a few instances” did not even know what it was.

Safeguarding at the provider was “not sufficiently effective”.

A “very newly appointed” safeguarding officer had “recognised quickly the need to implement more robust safeguarding arrangements” but had not yet had time to put these into place.

NC Training, founded in 2016, held subcontractors with eight prime providers in 2017/18, according to the ESFA’s most recent listed of declared subcontractors.

These were worth a combined total of £1.6 million, with the largest – for £488,091 – with college group NCG.

The ESFA confirmed in August that Ofsted would have the final say over poor-performing apprenticeship providers, following confusion over which agency was accountable for quality.

A provider found to be making ‘insufficient progress’ in one or more themes under review would be barred from taking on any new apprentices, until they have been rated at least ‘requires improvement’ following a full inspection.

Ofsted later clarified that this would take place within a year of the monitoring visit.

However, if monitoring visit uncovers concerns about safeguarding, the ESFA “reserves the right to remove an organisation from the register” – although this is only in cases where the inspectorate has “identified a significant risk to apprentices”.

FE Commissioner report reveals ‘cash crisis’ and falling achievement at Northumberland College

Northumberland College has undergone a “cash flow crisis” and could see its finances plummet further, according to an intervention report from the FE Commissioner.

The report, published today, also revealed declining learner recruitment, inadequate apprenticeship delivery, low achievement and “last minute negotiations” to defer loan repayments at the college, and warned that it may yet need to request exceptional financial support.

“After several years of growth, the college faces a substantial shortfall in income for 2017-18, which is forecast to fall short of the budget target,” it said.

“Inflationary pressures coupled with a drop in 16 to 19 classroom-based funding next academic year present a major challenge to get the budget back into balance by 2018-19 and generate sufficient cash to service the college’s debt.

“The best-case scenario for the college’s financial health is to remain satisfactory in 2017-18 and 2018-19. There is real prospect that financial health will fall to inadequate in 2017-18.”

Although the report acknowledged the “significant progress” made by the new and largely interim senior team at the college, after new principal Ian Clinton took up his position in April, it heavily criticised the previous leadership for a “major failing in financial management and oversight” and not “formally or sufficiently” challenging funding deficiencies.

This includes “wholly unrealistic targets” for new levy apprenticeships, “over-optimistic” income targets and a lack of oversight about new educational and commercial initiatives including a career college, recruitment agency, MOT and service centre and leisure learning courses, which it said “compounded an already declining financial position”.

“The college failed to identify a looming cash shortfall until January 2018, which resulted in last minute negotiations with the local authority to defer contractual repayments of loan principal and interest,” it added.

“It is not possible at this stage to rule out a requirement by the college for exceptional financial support, particularly if income forecasts fall short, cost arising from the staff restructure escalate or the college is unable to agree terms with the council and Barclays.”

The report warned that income is set to decline even further at the college in 2018-19, and the best it can hope for is to break-even. In July, the Northumberland Chronicle reported that more than 40 staff had taken voluntary redundancy after the college reduced the number of courses on offer.  

The commissioner’s report also noted that the quality of provision at Northumberland College, which is rated ‘good’ by Ofsted, has been “deteriorating” over the past few years, and it is now in a position where “approximately 50 per cent of apprenticeship provision falls below minimum standards.”

The college was said to have “largely ‘rolled over’ the previous year’s curriculum” each year, and the average size of its classes is just 10 learners. One level three engineering class had just one learner.

Money issues were identified as stemming from a shortfall in the adult education budget, apprenticeships, the European Social Fund and trading activities.

Clinton said: “Since 2017-18, the college has set out and implemented a clear strategic vision that delivers significant changes in terms of much improved leadership, quality standards, curriculum, organisational structure and local employer relations. These rigorous and highly positive changes were borne out of historical, less favourable findings, some dating back to 2015, and it is these details that are included in the recent Commissioner’s report to which the news article refers.

“It is a reflection of the past, certainly not the present, nor the future as Northumberland College is 100% committed to providing the very highest standards of learning to our students. We have undertaken a major strategic overhaul in the last year alone and whilst robust in places, the changes, in the short-term, have had an effective and extremely positive impact on learners, staff, the community and local employers. 

“This year’s students have got off to the very best start and have improved at all levels and ages in 2017-18 compared with 2016-17. Our Ofsted rating continues to be good and the likely deficit of £2.5m-£2.7m at the time of the FE Commissioners visit has, subject to an external audit later in the year, been reduced to £1.4m. These achievements are testament to the hard work and exceptional commitment of our staff and governors, and allows us to continue providing the best possible teaching standards, modern facilities and industry-driven curriculum provision to our learners.”

Northumberland College was placed in early intervention by the Education and Skills Funding Agency following an assessment of the college’s financial plan in July 2017. The report follows a diagnostic assessment visit to the college in April 2018 and a formal intervention assessment on July 18, and was sent to the college last month.

The report recommended that Northumberland considered the case for a merger, and told it to improve financial forecasts and quality assurance of apprenticeships. In September, it was announced that Northumberland College and Sunderland College would formally merge by March 2019.

 

Three cheers for the Institute for Apprenticeships!

Maritime Skills Alliance sticks up for the maligned IfA for creating two wholly new port operative apprenticeships in a complex and non-standardised industry

FE Week’s made quite a bit recently of the fact that neither Ministers, nor Sir Gerry Berragan, the Institute for Apprenticeships’ Chief Executive, can name any employers willing to offer the IfA any praise. I want to put my head over the parapet and do just that, on behalf of the Maritime Skills Alliance: we have an excellent relationship with the IfA.

Of course I’m going to qualify that, and move on to a more nuanced critique, balancing praise with criticism – but praise there certainly is.

We have been well-served by the IfA.

Let me use the experience of the ports sector to illustrate what I mean. Two separate Trailblazer groups energetically and ably led by Associated British Ports (the country’s largest ports group) have replaced a Level 2 apprenticeship for Port Operatives, and created two wholly new apprenticeships, Port Marine Operations Officer (Level 4) and Marine Pilot (Level 5).

The Marine Pilot work was the most complex of those three. Pilots are highly skilled, using their local knowledge to guide visiting ships in and out of ports. Traditionally they are former Master Mariners with two decades or more experience behind them (and the authority that goes with it), and standards are set by each Competent Harbour Authority rather than nationally. Translating that into an apprenticeship Standard, with its associated End-Point Assessment – the same approach across the whole country – was always going to be a challenge.

Our IfA Relationship Manager was with us throughout the journey. He took a lot of trouble to understand the pilot’s role and to help us consider how to interpret it for Trailblazer purposes. He was respectful of the traditional authority of pilots (some of whom hated the notion of using apprenticeships, and said so), and of the Competent Harbour Authorities which employ them, listening to their concerns and looking for ways of adapting the IfA’s requirements for our particular circumstances.

IfA have helped us open new routes into these sought-after roles

He joined us in problem-solving mode rather than merely telling us what the existing rules said (we can all read), and where he saw something that didn’t fit the rules, he went back, on our behalf, to seek a better interpretation. In my book, that’s exactly what you want from a public servant.

Numbers will always be small, but the IfA have worked with us to open up a new route into these sought-after roles, and that’s a good step forward for the maritime industry.

Has it all been plain sailing? (The maritime sector is a wonderfully rich source of apt phrases like that!). No, it hasn’t. Over the half dozen Trailblazer groups I’ve supported, working on a dozen or more Standards, we’ve certainly felt we’ve been sailing into some strong winds on occasion, and sometimes felt wholly becalmed (see what I mean?).

I was in two discussions in the early days when Trailblazers Chairs broke into the agenda to ask everyone if they really wanted to carry on. A couple of the groups have been horrified by the initial funding cap they’ve been offered. In one case, the offer was so low it would have killed the apprenticeship stone dead (both argued back successfully). And one group has been very frustrated by the nit-picking responses of a (different) relationship manager in a year-long battle (now also won) to get their EPA approved.

But the tide has turned and we now have a very good working relationship with the IfA. And, to be clear, this is not a grudging two cheers, with lots of caveats. I give them three cheers.

They have a difficult job. They’re on the front line, managing the simultaneous implementation of two quite complex changes, the Trailblazer reforms and the introduction of the Levy, with someone else making the rules. Of course they make mistakes – but so do we. The IfA are our allies in trying to make these changes work. Valued allies.

Scrap UTC 14-19 model, says former schools minister in latest damning report

A former schools minister has called for the admission age at university technical colleges to change to 16, after damning new research faulted their academic progress and ability to recruit and retain learners.

The latest report from the Education Policy Institute has laid bare the major issues at the 14-19 providers, including high drop-out rates and severely low Ofsted grades.

It follows years of FE Week investigations into the troubled UTCs, including  dramatic drops in learners, providers dropping the brand and being  forced to hand back money because of low pupil numbers, plans to switch to recruiting from age 13 and even UTC architect Michael Gove admitting the programme had failed. 

David Laws, who was schools minister when the institutions began rolling out under both Mr Gove and Nicky Morgan between 2012 and 2015, is now executive chairman of the EPI and said the government should stop funding new UTCs until a review is undertaken into how best to deliver a “sustainable and effective” programme.

However, Lord Baker, head of the Baker Dearing Trust which supports the small, technical-focused institutions, said UTCs should not be compared to a “normal” school and insisted many were “oversubscribed”.

Since 2011, the Department for Education has allocated almost £330 million of capital spending to the UTC programme. In this time, 59 UTCs have been established, although eight of these have since closed and one converted to an academy. Another, UTC@Harbourside, will close in August 2019.

UTCs have struggled with falling student numbers, with the Institute for Public Policy Research reporting that 13 failed to fill half or more of their Year 10 places in 2015-16, with 39 per cent of all Year 10 places at UTCs remaining vacant that year. In 2018, 20 open UTCs had fewer students than in the previous year.

“The reality is England has a pre- and post-16 system,” the report said. “This means that admission at age 14 is not the norm and has failed to convince enough students, parents, carers and schools of its benefits, and there is no evidence that participation in UTCs at age 14 is likely to rise significantly without more fundamental changes to the education system.”

It noted that over half of UTC students do not continue from key stage four into key stage five in the same institution, and criticised the “overall poor performance” in academic qualifications at the institutions.

Although 40 per cent of students in secondary schools enter all the components for the English baccalaureate (English, maths, sciences, geography or history and a language), just under 15 per cent of learners in UTCs do. Twenty-four per cent of secondary school pupils will achieve all components including a grade four in English and maths, but just 3.8 per cent in UTCs will.

On average, students at UTCs leave with a whole grade lower in academic qualifications than those in other institutions, according to the report.

However, UTCs do well in technical and vocational qualifications. Those studying level three technical qualifications achieve higher grades than learners elsewhere, but they are also more likely to drop out with a retention rate of 79 per cent rather than over 90 per cent.

Learners at UTCs also do “substantially better than average” at progress in maths and English GCSE retakes.

Twenty per cent of UTC learners take up apprenticeships, compared to just seven per cent of all level three students. This suggests that the close links with employers “benefit” both students and employers, according to the report.

Over half of UTCs inspected by Ofsted are rated ‘inadequate’ or ‘requires improvement’, compared to less than a quarter of all institutions. Four per cent are ‘outstanding’, compared to 22 per cent of all institutions.

Mr Laws said the “poor performance” of UTCs is “about the quality of learning and the engagement of students.

“The government should not fund further UTC expansion until a review is undertaken and steps are put in place to deliver a sustainable and effective programme.”

However, Lord Baker said UTCs have a “challenging” intake, and “Baker Dearing is proud that UTCs transform their students’ life chances.”

Julian Gravatt, deputy chief executive of the Association of Colleges, urged caution at the EPI’s recommendations, describing the 16-to-18 sector as “already a chaotic and underfunded market”.

Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said it was “worth examining” changing the admissions age.

“But it might have been a lot easier at the outset simply to have provided additional funding and places in further education colleges which already run very successful technical education programmes,” he added.

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “We have a diverse education system and University Technical Colleges are an important part of that, with the best providers teaching people the skills and knowledge that will help them secure good jobs in specialist technical sectors.”

The global skills race will be won by the country that can colonise skills systems

With the Germans exporting their entire skills model to countries in their global value chain, the UK needs to make sure it’s preparing equally well for the global skills race, says Rob May

Damian Hinds’ recent recce to Germany in search of inspiration and the accompanying hand-wringing over Britain’s place on the PIAAC league table has reignited talk of a global skills race.

As with any race, there must be an objective, so let’s assume that it’s the dual goal of economic superiority and global prosperity. If so, much depends on having a strong global supply chain that harnesses human capital. Post-Brexit, the UK will have to chart a new course in the world and create stronger trade and immigration arrangements with developing countries. We know that 90 per cent of global growth will come from outside of Europe over the next two decades, and that 60 per cent of GDP growth will come from emerging economies.

The prospect of a hard Brexit and subsequently a more outward-looking Britain is why there has been a fundamental shift in UK trade and aid policy to focus heavily on tackling the deep economic challenges in developing countries – one of which is skills.

I’ve just returned from southeast Asia, and countries which could be strong trading partners for a newly-defined global Britain are embracing this outstretched hand and are desperate to improve their human capital. Many are emerging from decades of isolation from the international community and under-investment in skills development. But these countries, often characterised by relatively young populations, are now spending heavily on education to stimulate economic growth and attract foreign investors.

The Germans are exporting their entire skills model

At the same time, UK businesses need to be able to trust in the quality and predictability of the technical skills base and management practices of countries in their value chain – outside Europe. Businesses need to have confidence in the quality regimes that ensure those skills and credentials are valid. This sounds like a hot lead for UK education companies.

But whilst Damian Hinds spent his tour looking at the wires and boxes of the German dual VET model, he may have missed a more fiendishly clever move by the Germans; that they are exporting their entire skills model to countries in their global value chain. Austria, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Mexico and around 10 other countries already use a version of the dual VET system, inspired by Germany. They are emulating not just the credentials, but the legislative framework, quality assurance mechanisms and stakeholder map.

Instantly, the machinery of skills and talent creation in Mexico look recognisable to a business in Berlin. Germany can do this because its skills system has “shape”. It is very focused.

The UK is good at exporting educational products, contributing around £19 billion to the economy each year. This is because throughout the developing world, UK education is still largely seen as the “gold standard”. Trying to export the UK skills “system” however, which would facilitate even greater exports of educational products and services – would be like trying to carry a balloon-full of water… down an icy slope… in a rainstorm.

A common international currency of credentials, as a proxy for skills reserves, is helpful in smoothing international trade and co-operation, but many of the countries that offer the most potential for UK colleges and awarding bodies are starting at a more basic level.

They are building national skills plans that have defined outcomes (not arbitrary targets!); they are implementing localised quality assurance at all levels of the system; developing legislation that mandates industry’s responsibility and accountability in achieving the national economic plan; bringing forward government regulations that shape companies’ in-house training programmes, but which also offer meaningful engagement in system design through a network of supporting intermediaries. They seem to be preparing carefully and planning for longer horizons. Should these countries look to Britain for inspiration?

It concerns me that ministerial stakeholders in some of the countries with which I do business notice the incessant tinkering with UK skills policy at a time when it would be in both the national and global interest to export a UK-centric skills model far and wide. I don’t believe that our system wasn’t in need of reform, but stability, clarity and credibility must be returned if Britain is to go the distance in the global skills race.