A Birmingham college principal has been chosen as the next president of the Association of Colleges.
Pat Carvalho has been the CEO and principal of Birmingham Metropolitan College since 2021 and has been working in the FE sector for over three decades.
She will succeed Corrienne Peasgood, who has served as AoC president since September 2022, on October 16.
“I am delighted to be the next AoC president and I hope I can do as good a job representing our great sector as my predecessors,” she said.
Before entering FE, Carvalho’s first career was in the NHS as a medical secretary after training at a local Birmingham college, before going on to university as a mature student.
She led Harrow College as principal for over eight years before the college merged to become Harrow and Uxbridge Colleges (HCUC) in 2017. She was then principal and deputy CEO of HCUC for another three years before moving to Birmingham.
AoC presidents are elected by the membership body’s college members. Their term of office runs for a maximum two-year tenure.
The president acts as an ambassador for the membership organisation and the further education sector.
Peasgood said: “It has been an honour to serve as the AoC President for two years, and it’s given me the privilege of seeing our sector from another perspective
She added: “AoC colleagues, staff, leaders and the board have been incredibly supportive, and I’d like to thank them for that. It’s time to hand over the reins now though and I’m thrilled that Pat Carvalho is our new president. It’s a fantastic role, and I wish Pat all the best.”
David Hughes, chief executive of AoC, said Carvalho is “inspiring and passionate about FE and brings a wealth of experience with her from the sector”.
He added: “I also want to say a huge thanks to Corrienne for her hard work over the past two years. She has worked tirelessly in her role as AoC president and has had an immense impact on our influencing and engaging work in particular.”
The Treasury has drawn up plans to extend generous public pensions to college staff who are compulsorily transferred to private sector companies.
The director of public spending at the Treasury wrote to FE sector bodies earlier this month to float a proposal to open up its New Fair Deal (NFD) to colleges.
The Association of Colleges, the Sixth Form Colleges Association and Trades Union Congress have until October 8 to consult members and respond as officials plan to make a final decision “as soon as possible”.
The application of the New Fair Deal, a non-statutory policy, would mean private companies that take on college contracts for services such as cleaning, catering, facilities management or IT would have to honour some of the country’s most generous pension contributions to college staff transferred to them.
Gary Delderfield, partner and head of public sector pensions at Eversheds Sutherland, told FE Week this would mean that the contractor “pays the contributions into the pension fund and the employees have continuous membership of the scheme, so their pension benefits stay exactly the same as if they were still employed by the college”.
Nick Donlevy, the Treasury’s director of public spending, asked college representative bodies to provide their views on the impact of the extension on the workforce, recruitment implications and future outsourcing decisions.
The Association of Colleges (AoC) deputy chief executive Julian Gravatt told members in a briefing last week that he plans to tell the government the change will make it “harder” for colleges because contract prices could be negotiated upward or disincentivise suppliers from bidding altogether.
In its recent budget submission to the Treasury, the AoC said a New Fair Deal extension could create “new complexities” for college leaders, who spend 10 per cent of income on employer contributions to the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS) or Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) – an estimated annual £450 million and £250 million on each.
“A new requirement to maintain precisely similar terms and conditions in outsourcing cases would create new complexities for college leaders, new costs and a risk of reduced numbers of bids to run services in what is already a complex sector,” the membership body said.
Most of the affected staff, such as cleaners, are likely to be part of the LGPS. Experts say the Treasury’s plans could be a challenge for contractors as the scheme has 80-odd funds of which the contribution rate differs across the country.
The LGPS employer contribution rate averaged around 21 per cent at its last triennial valuation in 2022, while the TPS employer contribution rate stands at 28.68 per cent.
“The cost of outsourcing the service will become more expensive because the contractor will now have to price in whatever the contribution rate is,” Delderfield added.
Gravatt said the proposal “reinforces” the case for the Department for Education to guarantee LGPS liabilities as it did with academy trusts in 2013, which assures that outstanding pension liabilities will be paid to the pension fund in the event of insolvency by an institution.
The guarantee would have covered St Mary’s College in Blackburn, the country’s smallest sixth form college, which went insolvent in 2022 and owed most of its £8.2 million debt – £5 million – to the LGPS.
Reform ‘now appropriate’ for FE
The Fair Deal was introduced in 1999 to protect government employees’ pension provision when they were outsourced out of the sector.
Their new employer was originally obliged to offer public sector staff a pension scheme that was “broadly comparable” to the public pension until 2013, when the policy was reformed.
The New Fair Deal allowed members of a public service pension – such as the TPS or LGPS – to remain eligible for the generous pension schemes when they are transferred to independent providers delivering public services.
But, in 2014, the government under David Cameron refused to extend the New Fair Deal to FE institutions “because they were private sector bodies and because it would not be consistent with the government’s policy at that time of increasing the level of autonomy they enjoy”.
Since the Office of National Statistics reclassification of colleges in 2022 as public sector bodies, the Treasury now believes it is “appropriate” to extend the non-statutory policy to FE colleges.
Donlevy said: “HM Treasury believes that the current justification for the exclusions of these bodies from NFD no longer applies and that it would therefore be appropriate to extend NFD to FE colleges.”
Paul Bridge, head of further education at the University and College Union, said the policy U-turn will be one of Labour’s “first big tests” after it was elected to deliver a fair deal for working people.
He added: “FE staff working for an FE corporation (college) have been government employees since the ONS reclassification in 2022. However, their public sector pensions have not been given the same level of protection as staff that work in other parts of the public sector. Where is the fairness in that?”
“The non-application of New Fair Deal is a political choice aided and abetted by employers who want to save on their pay bill rather than treat their staff with fairness and respect.
“Pensions are deferred pay and our members work in very challenging environments and deserve the same levels of pay and reward when in work, and dignity when they retire.”
A spokesperson for the Sixth Form Colleges Association said: “It is important to ensure that staff in colleges are not disadvantaged if they are compulsorily transferred to a private sector employer.
“We will be consulting our members on the proposal to extend the New Fair Deal to colleges and will share our view with Treasury officials in the coming weeks.”
Tributes have been paid to a “respected and selfless” former principal of East Durham College who has died after a short illness aged 53.
Mother-of-two Suzanne Duncan led the college for 12 years until her retirement in August this year.
East Durham College said it “owes a lot” to Duncan for growing its curriculum offer, working with the local community and overseeing significant investment across college campuses.
A spokesperson said: “Suzanne was a respected and selfless leader who fundamentally cared about learners and the transformational difference FE can make to their lives.
“She always challenged herself and her team to ensure that learners were always at the heart of all decision-making.
“The college cannot emphasise enough how much we owe to her as a great champion for this college, the FE sector and the North East.”
Suzanne leaves behind husband Steve and two children, Benjamin and Lucas.
Brenda McLeish, a friend for 20 years and chief executive of Learning Curve Group, said the two met at East Durham College two decades ago, when Duncan taught travel and tourism.
“She taught me everything I know about quality and curriculum and was a driving force around creating the best quality experiences for learners,” McLeish said.
“She was a formidable leader who knew the sector inside out.
“We quickly became friends. She was funny, intelligent, caring, supportive and the biggest cheerleader always in my corner.”
A friend, Gail Crossman, said Duncan was a “vivacious character” who left a positive impact on everyone she met.
She added: “Her passion for quality and education was so influential and it certainly shone a light on a path I was destined to take.
“After meeting over 20 years ago and thinking, ‘who is this person with a big smile, fabulous shoes and a handbag collection like no other?’ we became the very best of friends.
“I will miss you my darling and I promise you, Suzanne, I will never put my designer handbag on the floor.”
Chris Nicholls, area director for the North East and Yorkshire and Humber at the Association of Colleges, said Duncan was a “committed” leader.
He added: “Her drive and enthusiasm for the region was clear for all to see.
“Suzanne’s passing is a huge loss and she will be greatly missed. Her legacy will live on through the colleges that she served.”
Training for public sector workforces such as the NHS and local councils will be “devastated” if the government imposes a blanket ban on funding level 7 apprenticeships through the levy, ministers have been warned.
University finances also face being plunged deeper into the red by the move, experts fear, with almost 100 of the higher education providers currently generating revenue from the programmes.
The government has been urged not to “throw the baby out with the bath water” by former skills minister Robert Halfon, who expressed fears the policy could “set a precedent” and lead to the removal of degree apprenticeships at level 6 in the future.
But other sector leaders have praised the decision as it removes so-called “deadweight” costs – paying for training that would have happened anyway in the absence of the levy.
Keir the contradictor
Prime minister Sir Keir Starmer was accused of a “contradiction in terms” this week after he told the Labour party conference that “we’ve got to give businesses more flexibility to adapt to real training needs” before using the Department for Education to announce restrictions on level 7 apprenticeships.
The move is part of the government’s attempts to “rebalance funding in our training system back to young people” amid soaring levels of people over the age of 25 being put onto apprenticeships.
So far, the DfE has only said: “This will involve businesses funding more of their level 7 apprenticeships – equivalent to a master’s degree and often accessed by older or already well qualified employees – outside of the levy.”
New quango Skills England, which hopes to be fully up and running from April 1, 2025, will be tasked with deciding which level 7 apprenticeships get the axe, FE Week understands.
Level 7 apprenticeship starts are dominated by the accountancy or taxation professional and senior leader standards. But other popular programmes include advanced clinical practitioner, solicitor, academic professional, chartered town planner, district nurse and community nurse specialist practitioner.
Employers in both the private and public sector, as well as training providers and universities that deliver their apprenticeship training, are concerned about the possible implications.
Crystal Oldman, chief executive of the Queen’s Nursing Institute, said: “If level 7 apprenticeships are to be removed from district nursing – and other post qualifying advanced practice roles – this will be devastating for the nursing workforce and would seem to go against the government policy to have more care delivered in peoples’ homes and communities.”
Dan Lally, group director of business, enterprise, skills and employability at Sheffield Hallam University, said level 7 restrictions will “disproportionately impact on public services”.
He added: “We are meeting vital skill gaps in disciplines such as advanced clinical practitioner and town planning. I just don’t recognise the narrative of ‘already well paid, well qualified employees’.
“These are NHS workers, civil servants and local authority employees. A high number of our level 7 apprentices have prior attainment below level 4 and come from the areas of highest deprivation.”
Ministers celebrated the development of a level 7 apprenticeship for doctors just two years ago, with the first apprentices starting on this programme this month.
Professor John Alcolado, a medical school adviser who sat on the national implementation group for the apprenticeship, said the medical schools that have “worked hard” with NHS trusts have been “a bit blind-sided” by this week’s announcement.
FE Week understands that civil servants will urge Skills England to keep some level 7 apprenticeships in scope of levy funding, namely those for healthcare professionals, but the decision ultimately lies with the new arm’s-length body.
The government told FE Week that the Department for Health and Social Care and NHS England will “work closely with Skills England to ensure that the NHS has access to the skilled workforce patients need”.
So why remove level 7?
The apprenticeship levy was launched in 2017 and forces employers with wage bills over £3 million to pay into the levy at a rate of 0.5 per cent per year.
England’s current apprenticeship budget is at breaking point and is forecast soon to be overspent, largely due to the rise in higher level apprenticeships which are the most expensive to deliver.
FE Week previously revealed that combined spending on level 6 and 7 apprenticeships soared from £44 million in 2017/18 to £506 million in 2021/22 – hitting £1.325 billion in total over that period.
Figures for more recent years are not available, but the programmes now account for over a fifth of England’s annual apprenticeship budget.
Spending on level 7 apprenticeships alone rose from £11 million in 2017/18 to £216 million in 2021/22 – totalling £588 million over that period.
Meanwhile, spending on level 2 apprenticeships dropped by a third over that period, from £622 million to £421 million.
Labour is currently turning the apprenticeship levy into a “growth and skills levy”, which will allow employers to spend some of their contributions on some yet-to-be-decided non-apprenticeship training. The government therefore needs to find room in the current budget, assuming chancellor Rachel Reeves does not add significant investment to it anytime soon.
Government officials have been weighing up restrictions by apprenticeship level and age for at least a year, as revealed by FE Week in November 2023.
Level 7 axe is ‘avoidable’
Tom Richmond, a former government adviser, said removing level 7 from the levy was “always one of the easiest ways to release more funding for younger learners and lower-level apprenticeships”, but added there was likely to be a “furious reaction from many employers who have been told for the last nine years it was their money to spend”.
Richmond said he has “no time for fake apprenticeships such as the level 7 senior leader programme and the accountancy/taxation professional, which should never have been approved” but recognised the policy could have “unintended consequences for schools, charities, the NHS etc who use the apprenticeships to develop staff”.
Association of Colleges chief executive David Hughes said that, where employers “truly value” those level 7 apprenticeships, then they should “invest their own money in them, showing that they provide a good return on investment”.
The Association of Employers and Learning Providers insisted the level 7 axe could have been avoided if the £800 million gap between the amount taken in by the apprenticeship levy and the actual programme budget was plugged.
The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that £4 billion will be raised in apprenticeship levy receipts by UK companies in 2024-25.
Yet the DfE’s ring-fenced budget to fund apprenticeships in England is £2.729 billion, while the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland receive around £500 million between them.
‘The decision is retrograde’
Most concern over level 7 apprenticeships stems from the senior leader programme that initially included an MBA until ministers stepped in and removed this component in 2020.
Mandy Crawford-Lee, chief executive of the University Vocational Awards Council (UVAC), suspects this week’s announcement “is reflective of the long-standing rhetoric that has been critical of management apprenticeships”.
She told FE Week: “The caricature of the investment banker, or well-paid FTSE executive using levy funds to pay for an MBA has, even very recently, featured in the debate on apprenticeships despite the removal of the master’s degree from funding in 2020. The reality has, however, always been different.”
Crawford-Lee said that around 60 per cent of senior leader apprenticeships are undertaken in the public sector, with the NHS being the biggest investor. Schools also widely make use of the course.
She added: “The decision is retrograde, made even more frustrating by some commentators who support and perpetuate a variety of myths and opinions on the grounds that level 7 apprenticeships are not ‘proper’ apprenticeships.
“Consider what that might mean to those apprentices who have completed their training in advanced clinical practice, clinical pharmacology, town planning, clinical psychology or professional economists.”
More than 100 training providers and colleges, as well as almost 100 universities, currently deliver level 7 apprenticeships.
Kaplan Financial is the highest-earning training provider in the apprenticeship levy thanks to its delivery of the accountancy or taxation professional course to employers including Microsoft, Cisco and HSBC. It raked in over £45 million from big levy-paying businesses in 2021/22, according to latest available data.
Kathy Walton, CEO of Kaplan Financial, said restricting funding for higher level apprenticeships is “extremely disappointing and counter-intuitive”, adding that this is a “blunt instrument that will have unintended consequences for the economy and for young people”.
She claimed that most level 7 apprentices are “under 25 years old and come from many different backgrounds, some progressing through lower-level apprenticeships to reach the point of qualification”.
Several other large level 7 apprenticeship providers, including Cranfield University, First Intuition, and the Devon and Cornwall Training Providers Network that represents employers both large and small in this space, echoed Kaplan’s concern.
The Chartered Management Institute (CMI) is another organisation that has seen turnover soar thanks to management apprenticeships including the level 7 senior leader, for which the company does end-point assessment.
Ann Francke, CEO of the CMI, said: “We are concerned that this decision may negatively impact three of the five government missions – grow the economy, reform the public sector and provide opportunity for all.”
Halfon, who was skills minister until the general election in July, told FE Week he fears that the new government is using a “sledgehammer to crack a nut”.
He said he was concerned about universities considering recent reports about their existing financial struggles including restrictions on international students.
“Are they throwing the baby out with the bathwater?” Halfon asked. “You’ve got some incredibly prestigious level 7 apprenticeships that people put everything into, from architecture down to nursing. Are they going to destroy the degree apprenticeship model by going for level 6 next? That’s my worry.”
Rather than “mess with the levy”, he said the government should introduce a skills tax credit, similar to research and development credits.
A review of English and maths functional skills rules in apprenticeships is underway, according to the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP).
The government announced a series of apprenticeship reforms following the prime minister’s speech at the Labour party conference this week.
On the cards are apprenticeships shorter than 12 months, foundation apprenticeships and the end of some level 7 funding through the levy.
But there was no announcement from the Department for Education on the future of functional skills requirements, which are constantly flagged as among the biggest barriers for apprentices completing their programme.
Under current rules, apprentices must achieve level 1 English and maths functional skills qualifications if they are on a level 2 apprenticeship and did not pass the qualifications at GCSE. And, if a similar learner is on a level 3 or higher apprenticeship, they must achieve functional skills at level 2.
In its response to this week’s announcements, the AELP said that, as part of government apprenticeship reforms, officials are “reviewing the maths and English requirements”. FE Week understands this message was communicated to the training provider membership body through a separate DfE briefing.
Former Labour shadow skills minister Toby Perkins did commit to such a review back in March 2023.
There are hopes among training providers that the DfE will relax functional skills rules to some degree in the coming months.
The DfE told FE Week: “As with all government policy, we continue to keep this policy under review to ensure it is striking the right balance and supports all apprentices to develop their skills.”
I was delighted when the new government asked Professor Becky Francis to review the curriculum. She is knowledgeable, thoughtful and has ministers’ confidence. This could be a landmark review.
Let me let you into an (open) secret: further education is key to this report. I say this not to butter up my readers, but because it is true.
The 16-19 age group is mentioned first – in the first paragraph of the Review’s terms of reference. Other stages don’t get mentioned until the third paragraph – and even then, only to be told to wait their turn.
So now is the sector’s chance to have its say. Of course, the AOC, unions and other big players will have theirs, but Francis and the DfE know what they think already.
The point of a consultation is really to reach people who don’t usually get heard. That means, above all, the frontline (mainly staff, but also former and current students).
So that is you, dear reader. And if you don’t speak up, you can’t be heard.
I spent a decade in government and read many, many responses to many, many consultations. I personally read almost 2,000 on secondary school accountability, for example. Here is my advice on how to be influential.
Read the preamble
Some of it, inevitably, is blather. That includes phrases like ensuring “meaningful, rigorous and high-value pathways for all”. Everyone wants that, so it doesn’t add anything.
I was struck by three things.
First, the terms of reference talk about supporting people in their “life and work”. The inclusion of the word work seems significant to me; if your ideas contribute to employability, say so loud and clear.
Second, Francis says in the press release that “it’s particularly important to me to consider how any changes could contribute to staff workload and to avoid unintended consequences”. Keep workload at the front of your mind.
Finally, we’re told the review and its recommendations will be “driven by evidence”. Now evidence can mean many things. For sure, it can mean the sorts of randomised controlled trials that Francis oversees in her role at the Education Endowment Foundation.
But it can also mean frontline observation. Send those in as well, particularly if you can contrast two different experiences and draw lessons from them.
Who are you?
Consultations usually ask for your details at the start, but my advice is to repeat the essence at the start of every substantive answer.
“I have taught maths at such-and-such college for 22 years. In that time I have observed… This leads me to conclude that the curriculum should…” That short biographical line gives your point credibility.
Click ‘next’
Inversely, Ignore questions on which you have nothing meaningful to say. Don’t waste your time or the readers’. Just move on to the next question.
Be clear
It is no good saying “the government should consider”. What do you want to happen? Say it loud and clear, without ambiguity.
Keep to the brief
Do not give advice on other matters. This is a curriculum review. It is not a review on workload (except when caused by curriculum). It is not a review about salaries or resources.
Raising these issues is at best pointless, and risks crowding out the points you have to make.
Be courteous and respectful
I was amazed at how many people began by being rude about the then secretary of state. That may be therapeutic, but it is not a route to influence.
Be concise
I am an experienced writer, and can write to length. But each and every one of my articles is improved by FE Week’s excellent editors. Ask a friend to help; a fresh pair of eyes always improves a piece of text.
Spell-check
I shall never forget the person (an early years educator) who responded to a consultation by accusing the government of failing to respect their expertise and of “dumming down learning”.
It was hard to take the rest of their submission seriously.
Above all, do it
Say one thing, and say it clearly. I can’t promise that you, individually, will change history. You might, but together we certainly can.
Five months ago, the people of the region elected me the Mayor of the West Midlands. It’s a role with significant powers and influence, and I’m committed to using it to create lasting change. Education and skills are at the heart of my plans to do that.
I’ve now set out a plan for the West Midlands to be the best place to live, learn, work and do business. This means bringing together key players across the region to focus on four priorities: jobs, housing, growth and transport.
To make this happen, I’m establishing a ‘council of experts’: four taskforces with proven expertise to drive progress in each of these critical areas.
Our region, with its large youth population, faces a significant challenge: youth unemployment here is double the national average. Around 25,000 of our 18-24-year-olds are out of work and relying on unemployment-related benefits. That’s simply not good enough.
Our vision is for the West Midlands to be a place where every young person has the support and opportunities they need to start their careers with confidence. In July, I launched my Youth Plan with a clear priority: reducing youth unemployment. But we can’t wait until young people are 19. That’s often too late.
Many young people feel they lack the skills, qualifications and networks to step into good jobs. They aren’t sure the opportunities are there for them, and they doubt that employers are willing to give them a chance.
This was reinforced by the recent GCSE results, where our region was the worst-performing in the country. Only 53 per cent of our students achieved a grade 4+ in maths, and 56.7 per cent in English.
Too many young people are leaving school without the qualifications they need to move forward, whether that’s into further education, a good job or an apprenticeship.
We know that meaningful work experience plays a huge role in employability. A report by Youth Future Foundations recently confirmed that lack of training, skills or work experience is one of the biggest barriers young people face when trying to find work.
We need a stronger link between post-16 and the local job market
That’s why I’ve been meeting with senior representatives from some of the region’s largest employers – including Severn Trent Water, Rigby Group, HSBC UK, AtkinsRéalis, the NHS and more – to create 20,000 work experience and training opportunities.
They’re on board with the plan, and we’ve agreed to work together to make sure these placements equip young people with the skills for industries like engineering, green skills and digital technology.
I’ve also been visiting local skills providers and speaking directly to young people. I want to understand what’s working and how we can do better. Every young person, no matter their background, should have access to the right opportunities.
Take Josh Davis, a young man I recently met. His story is nothing short of inspirational. Despite facing challenges and living with autism, Josh accessed the support he needed to secure his dream job. Through a supported internship with GMI Construction Group, he’s developed communication skills in a real work environment and is now working towards his Level 3 Business Administration apprenticeship.
Josh’s journey is a powerful example of what can be achieved when we give young people the right support. I’m determined that every young person in the West Midlands gets the same chance to reach their full potential.
We already offer high-quality work experience through our careers programme, but if we’re serious about making this the best region for young people to start their careers, we need to intervene earlier.
That’s why I’m asking the government for a strategic role in shaping the technical education offer for 16-19-year-olds, particularly at level 2. We need a stronger link between post-16 education and the local job market.
And as part of this, we want to work with the government on piloting new approaches to improving English and maths attainment after the age of 16.
I’m optimistic that by working together – as a region and with government – we can make the West Midlands a place where young people thrive, and where businesses and communities grow together.
What did you want to be when you were 14? I quite fancied being a translator, though I wasn’t sure how to get there. How much harder it is for today’s young people. As technology transforms the world of work, their perfect job might be one they’ve never heard of. Here in Greater Manchester, we’ve found a creative solution to that challenge.
Last week, we launched a new online tool – the Beeline – to give our young people a clear line of sight to high-quality jobs in our city region’s growing economy.
Named after the worker bee that symbolises Manchester’s spirit, the Beeline is part of our mission to raise the status and profile of technical education through the Greater Manchester Baccalaureate, or MBacc.
As regular readers know, this is an important year for the MBacc, our pioneering alternative to the university route. In July, 200 business and education leaders came together to help us develop our plans for the MBacc and in the coming academic year, schools and colleges will work with us to shape it further.
Unlike other education routes, the MBacc uses local labour market data to guide learners towards the subjects most valued by employers. It does this through seven gateways linked to sectors that are growing in the Greater Manchester economy – from financial and professional to construction and the green economy.
At the end of each gateway are jobs. Some, like corporate solicitor or rail engineer, may be familiar. Others, like retrofit co-ordinator or wind turbine technician, are less so. Talking to young people as we developed the MBacc, we realised that they needed help to visualise potential jobs and plan for their future.
It’s all very well showing them the steps to take to become a data analyst, broadcast technician or software developer. But what do those jobs involve day to day? How common are they in their city region? And crucially, what do they earn?
This is where the Beeline comes in. It’s the first tool of its kind to give young people real-time information about the jobs available in their region right now – including how in-demand those roles are.
It may sound simple – but it’s clear this is a gamechanger
We launched Beeline last week at Rayner Stephens High School in Dukinfield. A room of excited Year 10 and 11 students tested it out via out our careers website, GMACS.
By clicking on an MBacc gateway, they were shown the relevant courses and qualifications on offer at 14, 16 and 18 in Greater Manchester. They then zoned in on individual jobs in that sector and clicked through to real job adverts on the Adzuna jobs website, including (in most cases) salary details.
It may sound simple, but listening to the reactions in that classroom, it’s clear Beeline is a gamechanger. Every student I spoke to said the tool had opened their eyes to jobs and career routes they had not considered.
One hadn’t realised he could earn a good wage at 18 or work in engineering without a degree. Another, who’d been worried about the cost of university, was excited by the idea of a degree apprenticeship in finance management.
I’ve always said that, for the MBacc to succeed, it must be an equally prestigious alternative to the university route. Beeline proves you don’t have to go to university to get a well-paid job. And by proving the earning power of a technical education, it also helps make the economic case for why it shouldn’t be treated as second-class when it comes to education budgets.
I know there’s a lot of uncertainty and anxiety right now as the government conducts its one-year pause and review of level 3 defunding. Here in Greater Manchester, we also worried that thousands of young people don’t know what their post-16 options will be next September.
Despite these challenges, I’m optimistic about the future of technical education. With the right signposting, teaching and funding, I believe it can broaden horizons and transform life chances every bit as much as university
And by unleashing young people’s full potential, it can also help our new government in its mission to grow the economy.
The prime minister signalled the undoing of controversial reforms that saw vocational subjects score ‘no value’ in the 14-19 curriculum. Starmer also called time on the failed apprenticeship changes of 2017 which caused the number of young people getting on the careers ladder to plummet by one-third.
The curriculum review, led by professor Becky Francis, should recommend new ways of breathing life into our rigid Edwardian-style syllabus. For too long, young people have missed out on music, dance, drama and vocational courses, mainly because of outdated dogma like the Wolf Review.
The last Tory government enforced unwanted segregation in upper secondary education with the roll-out of T levels. Labour is remaining tight-lipped about the precise future of these qualifications.
No amount of money or political manipulation, however, should get in the way of a quality comprehensive education for every student up until they reach nineteen.
Government telling parents of teenagers that they must study either A levels or T levels, is rooted in a discredited notion that people are innately endowed with two types of brain — academic or technical. This kind of social class engineering was defeated by the great socialist education secretary, Anthony Crosland in the 1960s, when he got rid of the 11-plus.
Bridget Philipson, if she remains true to Labour’s once proud traditions, should have nothing to do with such a blatant form of educational apartheid. If T levels are to have any future, they must be reduced to the equivalent of one A level or a single Applied General Qualification (AGQ).
This way, 14-19 year olds will be able to ‘mix and match’ academic and vocational subjects via an integrated and comprehensive education offer. For work-based options, the policy focus should shift towards paid foundation apprenticeships for 16–19-year-olds, reversing a staggering 70-per-cent decline in young apprentices since 2015/16.
The money saved on slimmed downed T levels, perhaps without the need for expensive 45-day industry placements, can be directed towards state-of-the-art apprentice training instead.
FE has been reduced to a local delivery arm of the state
In the 1960s and 70s, FE colleges delivered day release and evening courses to more than a million younger workers. Technical colleges were invented to meet the needs of local industries. It’s bizarre that FE has been reduced to a local delivery arm of the state. No wonder staff morale and pay is so far behind more autonomous universities.
With the inaugural report of Skills England, the starting gun has gone off on repairing the country’s broken skills and labour market. For too long, policy makers have shrugged their shoulders or idly stood by as the apprenticeship levy was abused by corporate bosses.
Instead of providing apprentice opportunities to 900,000 under-24-year-olds that were NEET, senior managers helped themselves to MBAs, all fully funded by the taxpayer.
To add to the problem, many employers have failed to invest adequately in the workforce. Training volumes have slumped by half since 1997. Multinationals relied on importing cheap labour instead of investing in domestic skills and paying a proper living wage.
The biggest headache for Labour now is avoiding the trap of ‘Whitehall knows best’. Policy documents being drafted by officials haven’t changed for forty years. They all promise more of the same: bureaucratic market centralisation.
Labour say they want to see a decade of national renewal. Skills England will be easily replaced by the next government unless ministers seriously engage in skills reforms that become irreversible.
The way to achieve this is through what I call triple decentralisation.
First, by devolving all education programme spending to post-18-year-olds, including HE funding, via individual learning accounts.
Second, by devolving all capital funding (on a needs formula basis), including decisions about the (re)organisation of 16-19 and adult provision, to locally elected mayors.
And third, by bringing all employers within scope of a national workforce investment fund. Every firm should be obligated to pay something into the levy pot.
For too long the skills bureaucracy has been content to muddle through. And many employers have got away without paying for training. It’s time for real change.
