Damian Hinds defends T-levels timetable to Education Committee

The education secretary has defended his decision not to delay the first T-levels, insisting the new qualifications are being introduced at a “good pace”.

Damian Hinds appeared before the education select committee just two days after his top civil servant told the Public Accounts Committee that he still has contingency planning concerns regarding the tight timetable.

“We’re doing things at a good pace,” Mr Hinds told MPs this morning.

“We’re doing the first teaching of the first three subjects in 54 colleges – this is relatively small-scale beginnings – and this is just over two years away, and we will have a gradual programme of bringing in this entire reform.”

Mr Hinds was responding to a question from James Frith, the Labour MP for Bury North, who raised concerns that T-levels would repeat mistakes from similar reforms from the past.

“I worry that your permanent secretary saw that and advised against it, and you’ve overruled him. That willing it to happen will make it so,” Mr Frith said, referring to the moment Mr Hinds denied Jonathan Slater’s request to delay the project for another year.

“No it’s not just the case of willing it to happen,” Mr Hinds insisted.

On Monday, Mr Slater, the Department for Education’s chief civil servant, told the PAC that the 2020 timetable would work “so long as each element of the plan goes ahead without any hiccups”.

Given the scale of the challenge, he had wanted to “buy ourselves some more time to allow for the possibility that it wouldn’t all go according to plan”.

As previously reported by FE Week, Mr Slater’s request was overruled by his boss in May, in the first ever ministerial direction – when a minister overrules the head of a government department – to have come from an education secretary.

Mr Frith asked Mr Hinds for some “practical evidence” that the tight turnaround would work, such as addressing some of the “practical concerns in the sector” around the availability of work placements, particularly in rural or coastal areas.

The education secretary said that the work placement pilots, currently underway at 21 providers, are intended to “make sure that it is possible to build up the availability to address some of these issues”.

He has spoken to some of the 54 providers which will be teaching the first three T-levels about how “they’re currently thinking about the industry placement”.

“There are some companies thinking about if you’ve got apprentices four days a week and they do their day a week in college, then you could do the reverse sometimes for T-level students,” he said.

Other options included smaller companies looking at how they can “club together to make those opportunities”, and combined authorities looking at “how they can convene sectors together”.

“Look, we just have to have the will, you have to have the drive to make this happen. Because if we’re going to have world-class technical and vocational education and training it has to include an industrial placement,” he said.

Spotlight on 16-year-olds as NEETs rise and level 2 apprenticeships fall

A sharp fall in the number of 16-year-olds taking up level two apprenticeships is being blamed for a startling rise in people of that age who are not in education, employment or training.

Provisional ‘participation’ figures for the year ending 2017 released by the Department for Education this morning show that the proportion of 16-year-olds that are NEET has risen (0.7 percentage points to 3.9 per cent) for the first time since the end of 2011.

It is also the first increase in this group since the government’s Raising of the Participation Age policy came into force – which means that all young people must continue in education or training to 17 from 2013 and to 18 from 2015.

The rise would appear to be directly related to the number of 16-year-olds participating in level two apprenticeships.

There were two per cent fewer 16-year-olds overall in England, but the fall in apprenticeship participation was far greater at nearly 12 per cent, from 23,700 to 20,900, of which it was an 18 per cent fall at level two (from 18,100 to 14,900).

In terms of the age 16 NEET cohort, this rose a massive 20 percent, from 19,500 to 23,400.

When FE Week showed the dramatic fall in 16-year-old apprenticeships and rise in NEETs to the AELP, its chief executive Mark Dawe said: “Once again we predicted this would happen when the government announced that we would move to the same funding rate for all ages.

“We also said that that £1,000 employer incentive for 16-18 year olds across the length of an entire programme would be insufficient for many sectors.

“The minister acknowledged at the AELP conference on Monday that Brexit has to be a consideration in the government’s thinking and sectors like care, hospitality and retail are going to be badly affected unless the entire funding system for 16- to- 24-year-old apprentices is reviewed immediately.

“The lack of action also totally undermines the government’s claims to be serious about social mobility.”

Stephen Evans, chief executive of the Learning and Work Institute, said the news was “disappointing”.

“It is disappointing to see a rise in the proportion of 16-year-old NEETs. Our research shows that young people spending a longer time NEET account for a higher proportion of the NEET figures, with particularly shocking outcomes for groups such as care leavers. We need action to make sure these figures are a one-off and not the beginning of a trend.”

He added that the fall in apprenticeship take up among 16-year-olds is “also troubling given that far fewer young people in the UK are undertaking an apprenticeship than in other countries.

“We must do better if we are to ensure that today’s young people have a strong foundation of skills and experience on which to build rewarding careers.”

A DfE spokesperson said: “Today’s data shows that the proportion of 16-17 year olds in education and apprenticeships has remained relatively stable and is now at the highest level since consistent records began.

“We have put in place a comprehensive programme of reforms, both pre- and post-16, to improve the quality of young people’s education and support them to participate.”

How to get SET for teaching success

Do you have a passion for Science, Technology and Engineering, as well as a desire to get into teaching?

If so, emfec, part of the Skills and Education Group and Blackburn College are delivering a special national Education and Training Foundation (ETF) programme that could be a great opportunity for you!

The SET for Teaching Success programme has been specifically designed to kickstart teaching careers – in Science, Technology and Engineering subjects.

Teaching as a profession can be a rewarding, exciting career choice that can be hugely beneficial to the teacher as well as to learners themselves. Science, Technology and Engineering subjects in particular have extra appeal as they have an ever increasing effect on the world around us. The 21st century has in fact seen scientific and technological innovations become more important, as we face the benefits and challenges of both globalisation and a knowledge-based economy.


What is the SET programme?

The fully funded programme, SET for Teaching Success, has been specially set up to pay for teaching qualifications for those new to teaching roles, graduates as well as employees with relevant industry experience and newly recruited staff in SET areas.

Delivered nationally by the Skills and Education Group and Blackburn College, the course will fund:

  • Teacher training course fees, achieving a minimum of a Diploma in Teaching (Level 5). These can be used to fund training for existing staff or new posts in SET subject areas

  • A £5,000 grant per trainee to contribute towards costs incurred by the provider for supporting the trainees

  • Continuing professional development for the candidates and their mentors, including technical skills knowledge
  • High quality industry placements to ensure and maintain current technical knowledge and skills in SET

  • Residential and peer support network.


How can I find out more?

If you are interested in benefiting from this fantastic and rewarding opportunity, please contact Jonathan Poxon, Head of Projects on 07805 568 448 or at jonathanp@emfec.co.uk . You can also find out more about the SET programme by visiting set.emfec.co.uk  

 

Bids reopen for £13m strategic college improvement fund

Colleges can bid for the remaining £13 million from the strategic college improvement fund using newly released guidance.

The first round of the fund was launched last year, when 14 struggling colleges shared £2 million.

Today’s announcement invites struggling colleges, supported by a stronger institution, to ask for money to help them improve in specific areas.

The fund will “enable colleges to access resources that they need to improve their provision for students, including the best practice of other colleges, while at the same time mobilising and strengthening improvement in the FE sector”.

It’s a two-stage process, and applications for stage one are due by July 27.

To be eligible, FE and sixth-form colleges must be rated grade three or four either for overall effectiveness or in any of a number of headline fields, including outcomes for learners, and leadership and management, in their most recent Ofsted inspection report.

A recently merged college will be eligible to apply if at least one of the pre-merger institutions meets this criteria.

The area of improvement must have been identified during a recent Ofsted visit, a diagnostic assessment carried out by the FE commissioner, or another commissioner intervention.

They must have a “suitable approach for addressing this need” and “have the capacity and capability to deliver the improvement activities that they’re proposing”.

The college will be expected to work with a stronger partner, which will use its expertise to bring about the changes, but they do not need to have identified a partner for stage one.

Partners could be – but do not have to be – a college headed up by one of the National Leaders of FE (NLFE).

These are a group of seven leaders from ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ colleges.

Colleges will be told by August 24 if they’ve made it through stage one.

Those that make it through to stage two will be given “support from sector experts” to develop their applications in more detail.

The deadline for stage two applications is September 21, with a final decision due by October 15.

The SCIF is one of a number of new initiatives intended to support colleges at risk of failing before they hit rock bottom.

Other measures include the NLFE programme and the FE commissioner’s diagnostic assessments which help struggling colleges identify areas where they need to improve.

The FE commissioner Richard Atkins told FE Week that his overall aim with these initiatives is to “try to avoid the catastrophe we’re seeing at the moment at one or two colleges” by supporting them at an earlier stage.

The skills minister said that the fund will “enable colleges to work together to improve standards across all colleges”.

“We want to improve the quality of education for everyone. It is vital that all further education and sixth form colleges are able to give people the skills and knowledge they need to get on in their life and succeed in the workplace,” said Anne Milton.

Mr Atkins said the fund “offers a great opportunity to harness the capacity within the sector”.

Bill Watkin, the chief executive of the Sixth-Form Colleges Association, said the fund “represents a real opportunity to benefit from a well-structured and well-resourced quality improvement programme”.

And David Corke, the Association of Colleges’ director of education and skills policy, has “long called for a peer improvement scheme for further education to match the one in schools” and is “encouraged by the opening up of the eligibility criteria to allow more colleges to apply”.

 

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.”