National Union of Students launches campaign to tackle ‘problem’ of poor FE transport

The National Union of Students is campaigning for free or subsidised travel for FE learners to tackle the “huge problem” of poor transport for students.

The ‘My FE Journey’ campaign is also asking learners to share their experiences of the struggles they face reaching their provider, particularly concerning cost or poor services, and organisers are urging union branches to meet with senior leadership and transport companies to lobby for change.

The NUS vice-president for further education, Emily Chapman, described transport as a “huge problem” for students and apprentices that presents “a significant barrier to education”.

“Students suffer from poor, unreliable services on public transport and most receive no financial support,” she said.

“Our FE Journey campaign will lobby for subsidised or free travel for post-16 learners and apprentices ensuring everybody can access and succeed in education, and transport to and from their place of learning is no longer a barrier.”

Apprentice’s travel costs have been on everyone’s lips recently.

In a draft version of the Labour manifesto, leaked in May to our sister paper FE Week, the party was planning to cover the cost of apprentice travel.

It estimated that apprentice travel costs an average of £24 a week, around a quarter of what those on the minimum wage will earn, a figure taken from the National Society of Apprentices, part of the NUS.

Shadow skills minister Gordon Marsden said the party would cover transport for 16-to-19 starts, at a cost of around £99 million, after he committed in March to funding apprenticeship travel at FE Week’s Annual Apprenticeship Conference.

However, the pledge was left out of the final version of the manifesto, and the party refused to comment on the leaked version.

The Conservatives also committed to cutting travel costs for apprentices in their manifesto with “significantly discounted bus and train travel” to encourage more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to take up the qualifications.

However, FE Week reported at the start of November that there has been no evidence so far that these discounts have been implemented in the wake of the election in June.

A spokesperson for the Department of Transport said the government was still “exploring options” and would set out plans “in due course”.

The NUS has been collecting the views of students through its ‘FE Unplugged’ campaign for the past two years, the issue of transport costs and quality crops up repeatedly around the country.

The new campaign was launched in response on November 21, asking local student unions to join forces and demand change, lobbying local transport companies to offer discounts and improve services, councils to provide funding for transport discount schemes and college leadership to improve bursary offers.

According to the NUS, the union at Mid Kent College successfully won extra bus services, better subsidies and improved transport services after petitioning the local council and inviting local politicians and transport providers to speak to students at the college.

Learners can fill in a survey online to share their transport experiences, and have the chance of winning £150.

For more information about the campaign, click here. 

Highlights from Skills Show 2017

Click Here to download

In a year of vast reforms and financial crisis for the sector, there has been one event that has allowed us to take a breather and witness FE at its best: the Skills Show.

Almost 80,000 people headed to Birmingham’s NEC for the country’s biggest careers event, which took place between November 16 and 18, to watch the crème de la crème of skills.

The finals of the national WorldSkills UK competitions were, as ever, the heart of the show, and broadcast the incredible talent that our colleges, independent learning providers and employers produce.

We start this special souvenir supplement with a sit-down interview with the man that makes this all happen, Dr Neil Bentley, the chief executive of WorldSkills UK. He discusses how he feels the sixth annual show went, what his highlights were, and what he has learned to take into 2018.

Turning over to page four, you will read about the unusual number of government ministers who descended on the NEC to help tackle what one former skills minister described as “the nightmare on skills street” that Britain currently faces.

You’ll also find the inspiring story of Kaiya Swain, who won a gold medal in beauty therapy at last month’s WorldSkills competition in Abu Dhabi. She reflects on her experience of the Skills Show, her time in Abu Dhabi and how she uses her experience to drive her business forward.

On page five, our managing director Shane Mann tours the show, meeting employers and apprentices, and finding out why they get involved in the exhibition. There you can also read about the Skills Show’s inaugural Youth Summit.

Over on pages six and seven we put inclusive skills competitions into the spotlight, where students with learning difficulties and disabilities show off their employability.

We then celebrate those who made it into Squad UK, and take stock of where we are on the road to WorldSkills Kazan in 2019, with a comment piece from Dr Bentley on the industrial strategy and the role that WorldSkills UK can play in boosting productivity.

Finally we cover a celebration from the final night: the medal ceremony which brought Skills Show 2017 to a close, with reaction from some of the medal-winners. On pages 12 to 15 you can read the full listing of winners.

 

What is Core Maths and why is funding it so important?

The chancellor has announced £600 for each additional student studying maths at level three. Paul Glaister, explains why core maths is such an important qualification

After nearly four years of much hard work to introduce a qualification that will enable far more learners to develop the mathematical, quantitative and statistical skills to be better prepared for work, life and further study, the government has provided a welcome further endorsement for core maths.

Even though it was highly recommended by Sir Adrian Smith’s independent review of 16-to-18 mathematics, core maths is still commonly less well understood than the A-level. So here’s an explainer.

What is core maths?

Core maths is a post-16/level three qualification taken alongside A-levels, or other level three qualifications, complementing a range of academic and technical programmes. It is designed for students to retain, deepen and extend their knowledge and skills from GCSE, as well as studying and applying new level three material relevant to their needs.

READ MORE: Which English and maths resits should your students take?

The primary focus is on using and applying mathematics and statistics to address authentic problems and real-life scenarios, drawn from study, work and life, with a strong emphasis on problem-solving.

Core maths has three key objectives:

  • deepen competence in the selection and use of methods and techniques
  • develop confidence in representing and analysing authentic situations and in applying mathematics to address related questions
  • build skills in mathematical thinking, reasoning and communication

Who is core maths for?

It is suitable for students who achieved a grade 4 or above (formerly a C) at GCSE, who do not wish to study AS or A-level but who do wish to develop their mathematical, statistical and quantitative skills.

There are approximately 271,000 such students each year who would not otherwise continue to study mathematics, many of whom intend to go on to further study of quantitative subjects for which core maths is hugely relevant.

Core maths for students who need to be equipped for the mathematical and quantitative demands of other courses and employment, but it is also particularly relevant for those who need to these skills to meet the demands of a range of courses in higher education. In fact, over 40 universities this year made a statement in support, and it was publically endorsed by the Russell Group of research-intensive universities.

How is core maths taught?

Key to students’ success in core maths is the commitment that:

  • they make to learning through collaboration and problem solving – both vital for future studies and work
  • their teachers make by embracing collaboration between each-other and with students, and to teaching through problem-solving.

Group work and discussion is strongly encouraged, with content studied and skills acquired through focusing on contexts, developing fluency and confidence in applying mathematical skills, even when applying known techniques and methods to new problem areas, and will include examples from economics, sociology, psychology, chemistry, geography, computing, and business and management.

Where is the CPD for it?

There is wealth of knowledge and experience in the teaching of core maths across hundreds of schools and colleges, including the highly-skilled core maths leads who provided CPD for early adopters as part of the core maths support programme. The sector will be well-served by this network of professionals.

The level three maths support programme starting in April 2018 will provide high-quality professional development, support and resources for teachers of core maths, as well as those teaching AS/A-level mathematics and further mathematics.

The STEM learning site is an excellent place to find out more and, access a rich bank of resources, including problems, activities, contexts and case studies, many of which were developed as part of the CMSP.

Why is core maths so important?

Core maths will raise the skill levels in students across the nation in using and applying maths, whatever further study, training or employment they progress to. Increasing participation in mathematics after 16 in this way is hugely important to the future productivity of the UK.

Paul Glaister is professor of mathematics and mathematics education at the University of Reading

‘Postponed’ non-levy tender results imminent

The results of the second attempted tender for funding apprenticeships with small employers (non-levy) are expected imminently, FE Week understands.

We reported last week that the ESFA had “postponed” releasing the outcomes of this procurement exercise, following extended delays and ultimately an aborted first attempt, as more time was needed to evaluate a “high volume” of applications.

The ESFA was unable at the time to say when the results of the £650 million tender round would be known, but FE Week understands their release is imminent and could come as soon as today.

“It obviously good news if the postponed non-levy tender results are announced soon, but it is frustrating that the government has not said anything publicly about this to reassure provider,” said Mark Dawe, chief of the AELP.

A spokesperson for the Department for Education said that as this remains a live procurement they are not able to comment further.

The message about the postponement sent by the ESFA on November 17 via the tendering website said the agency has been “pleased to receive” a high volume of tenders following a “very positive response to the Invitation to Tender for this procurement, and is currently finalising the evaluation process”.

It added: “In accordance with paragraph 8.2 of the Invitation to Tender, the Agency is making a change to the procurement timetable as set out in paragraph 8.1. The intention to issue award notifications to successful and unsuccessful Potential Providers is postponed, and will not now be issued on 21 November 2017.”

The postponement would have been frustrating for providers but may not have come as a surprise, as tender process was controversial for its timing, complexity and volume of information required that led to providers submitting nearly 1,000 official clarification requests.

In April, the first procurement process was paused and then scrapped for the 98 per cent of employers which are not subject to the levy as it was “markedly oversubscribed”.

The DfE announced at the time that the “new procurement bid window will close at the beginning of September 2017”, with new contracts awarded in early December, and delivery from January 1.

The new tender was launched on July 28 by skills and apprenticeships minister Anne Milton, leaving hundreds of providers disappointed.

She claimed there were several “critical differences” from the old one, including new tender-value caps and contract-award limits to “ensure greater confidence that awards are set at realistic levels”.

The cap on the old tender for large existing providers was £5 million, but this was removed to make the cap limitless.

“We recognise that we didn’t get the previous procurement exercise for apprenticeship training provision for non-levy-paying employers quite right,” Ms Milton conceded.

“Not only was it hugely oversubscribed, it did not achieve the right balance between stability of provision, promoting competition and offering choice for employers.

“We want the sector and employers to have certainty and clarity.”

Hammond, take care where you sprinkle the skills cash

With the UK’s poor economic forecast doing few favours to the skills budget, government must ensure it’s putting money into policies that will actually raise overall productivity, argues Sandra McNally

While the chancellor acknowledged the importance of education and skills in his budget speech, the bleak outlook for the economy makes it difficult for him to deploy the resources that are needed. Bad and worsening economic conditions affect FE as they do everything else. Falling tax revenue means that the government has less scope to invest in public infrastructure. And uncertainty reduces firms’ incentives to invest.

There was no increase in core funding announced for either schools or FE colleges. This means that real spending per student will continue to fall. Economic research shows that school resources affect student outcomes and the magnitude is bigger for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. The cumulative effect of lower spending over time will make it hard for educational institutions or parents to compensate. FE colleges should expect more students to turn up needing to resit GCSE exams, but they will have fewer resources to give them the remedial teaching that’s needed.

Specific measures that provide incentives for greater take-up of post-16 maths seem sensible (at least in principle), but this doesn’t seem directed at the margin of greatest need – which must surely be those who do not even get a good GCSE maths grade and repeatedly fail thereafter.

Although the policies seem to meet a clear need, they should be evaluated in terms of results

The financial help with T-level preparation is welcome but small in relation to any sensible benchmark – such as the number of level three learners, the overall size of the FE budget and, indeed, the amount announced to prepare for Brexit.

There were a number of announcements made that target specific areas such as teacher training and distance-learning courses in digital skills. Although such policies are well intended and seem to meet a clear need, they should be evaluated in terms of results.

Rigorous evaluation of government policies is a core objective of a research institution such as ours. Policies need to be evaluated according to whether they actually increase skills, lead to employment with good prospects and raise overall productivity. One hopes that the government is designing pilots or targeted policies in a way that will enable such evaluation.

In view of the decline in adult training (as documented, for example, in a recent CVER blog post), it is good to see an announcement of a retraining scheme for adults. It is also good that the apprenticeship levy will be kept under review as it is far from clear whether it will achieve its objectives of increasing skills in the most appropriate way for the economy.

In other countries, apprenticeships are a form of entry to the labour market and targeted at young people. This is not the case in England, where most apprentices are over 25. Whether this actually helps adult workers themselves (in terms of higher wages) or improves firms’ productivity is an empirical question – and another research issue for my department.

Other countries offer tax credits as incentives for firms to invest in training. This was recommended by the LSE Growth Commission but has not yet been taken up in the UK. Whereas investment in research and development is risky, investment in training is not risky for the economy, although it may be to the firm if the worker moves elsewhere. There are various ways in which this risk can be addressed in practice.

Promoting firms’ investment in training would help to overcome the barriers of affordability that prevent individuals from investing in their own training. It could cover the full distribution of firms rather than be so focused on large firms – as is the current set-up of the apprenticeship levy and associated incentives. It is particularly important that measures are in place that provide incentives for the development of low and middle skills, hence enabling investment that supports the workers most exposed to the changes in the economy expected to arise from technological advances.

Sandra McNally is director of LSE’s Centre for Vocational Education Research

CITB retains ‘outstanding’ Ofsted rating

The Construction Industry Training Board has held onto its ‘outstanding’ rating from Ofsted, in a report due to be officially published tomorrow.

The report, which looked only at its apprenticeship provision that is all run through subcontractors, returned grade ones across the board.

CITB was also rated grade one-overall in a report published January 2013.

The “exceptional” progress made by apprentices who “achieve well” was one of the areas highlighted for praise this time by inspectors.

“The proportion of apprentices who achieve their qualifications has increased and is now significantly higher than apprentices on construction programmes with similar providers,” the report said.

It noted that “almost all” apprentices continue working with their employer and, “where appropriate” most level two apprentices move on to a level three apprenticeship with the same company.

“High aspiration ensure that many progress to higher levels of learning and take on more substantial and responsible job roles”, the report added.

Arrangements for the performance management of subcontractors are particularly good

“Employers value highly the support they receive from CITB staff to make the most of these apprenticeship opportunities which benefit their businesses significantly.”

Steve Hearty, CITB’s director of apprenticeships, said the verdict was a “fantastic achievement” and “testament to of all of our colleagues’ hard work, that we have improved our offer significantly since the last inspection”.

Gillian Cain, CITB’s head of apprenticeships, added: “The consistently positive views of learners and employers from across England were brilliant to see, and a fantastic endorsement of what we do”.

CITB has an apprenticeship allocation of £28.3 million for 2017/18, according to Education and Skills Funding Agency figures.

It had 9,732 apprentices on its books at the time of inspection.

This is all delivered by a network of eight named subcontractors: NCG, Activate Learning, Leeds College of Building, Reaseheath College, York College, Askham Bryan College, Gloucestershire College, The Sheffield College.

The report said that “arrangements for the performance management of subcontractors are particularly good”.

Earlier this month the CITB announced a reform programme that will include likely job losses, and selling off its direct training provision through the National Construction College.

The move, announced last Wednesday, comes in response to a government review of the CITB and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board, published on November 6.

In addition to the sell-off, the body is also looking to outsource a number of its functions, such as HR and finance, and will also move its head office.

Questions have been raised about the future of the CITB and its levy, which it charges construction employers to support training in the industry, since the apprenticeship levy was first announced.

The CBI warned in 2015 that these employers shouldn’t be hit with a “double whammy”, but in July the skills minister Anne Milton confirmed that the government would continue to back the CITB, which is part-funded through its levy.

That announcement came ahead of the findings of the government review into the CITB and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board, which were published November 6.

The review noted industry “concern” about the CITB’s performance, and said that it shared the industry’s view that “the CITB must improve and be more accountable to the industry”.

“It must implement wide-ranging reform so that it is more focused, efficient and responsive, including to small employers,” it said.

In response, the construction body has set out its six-point agenda for change, which it said will enable to become more accountable, representative and responsive to industry’s needs.

In May the CITB announced it had sold its awarding body, CSkills Awards, to another awarding organisation, NOCN, in order to focus on its primary function as a sector skills council.

When asked why CITB was reinspected again, after shorter gap than would normally be expected after a grade one rating, Ofsted said: “While legislation prevents us for routinely inspecting outstanding providers, we do inspect some outstanding providers every year.”

 

A budget burgeoning with skills… But beware policy churn

The budget offers important steps in the right direction but, with the current policy churn in FE, we need to make all these initiatives join together in a coherent way, argues Kirstie Donnelly

If you go on numbers alone, it was a good budget for the FE sector. The word “skills” appeared 11 times in the chancellor’s statement and a further 33 times in the red book. Philip Hammond announced a series of measures designed to, as he put it, ensure “that our workforce is equipped with the skills they will need for the workplace of the future”.

It’s certainly welcome to see skills development get the focus it deserves. From Hammond’s pledge of additional funding to help teachers prepare for T-levels to the £34 million investment in construction training, these are important moves that have the potential to make a real difference. While we lack much detail, a National Retraining Scheme in partnership with the TUC and the CBI suggests to me that the government is taking the issue of skills gaps and shortages seriously. Next week the long-awaited industrial strategy will be published, hopefully providing further detail on some of these measures.

Next week the industrial strategy will hopefully provide further detail

I was pleased to see the chancellor respond to Sir Adrian Smith’s recommendation about improving access to core maths qualifications at level three, with the £600 premium for schools for every extra pupil who takes it.

No one would argue with the fact that numeracy is an essential skill both for success in the workplace and in life, but GCSE and A-level maths aren’t the only measures of competency. Yesterday’s announcement signals a welcome move away from this type of thinking, so now is the time to start promoting core maths as a real alternative. I hope that there will be equal open-mindedness about maths options at 16 to stop the wasteful cycle of GCSE retakes.

It was also positive to see the chancellor acknowledge that the apprenticeship levy is a work in progress, with his commitment to working with employers to make it “effective and flexible”. As we know, business reaction to the levy has been mixed, and figures have shown a 61-per-cent drop in apprenticeship starts year on year. This is a huge worry and we need to consider how best to ensure the levy achieves its goals. One change I hope the chancellor will consider is broadening its remit to cover funding for upskilling and reskilling existing workforces, or to provide real work experience. 

READ MORE: Budget skills funds were misdirected

Overall, the budget has important steps in the right direction. But there’s a caveat: there’s an awful lot in the pipeline on skills, from digital training to plans to tackle STEM shortages. As well as the industrial strategy, we are imminently expecting the careers strategy, along with a discussion paper as part of the response to Matthew Taylor’s review.

It’s wonderful to see so much enthusiasm for reform of provision, but we need to make sure the basics are in place and that all these initiatives join together in a coherent way. As our ‘Sense and instability’ review of 30 years of skills policy found, Britain has experienced consistent policy churn to little gain.

Policymakers have repeatedly failed to learn from history and prized short-term change over getting the skills system right in the long-term. Trying to do everything at once, without allowing changes the time to bed in, is misguided. If the measures announced this week are to achieve what they are meant to, we need collaboration and consultation with the wider delivery sector and for policymakers to think about the bigger picture, rather than rushed action across the board.

Investment in skills is smart at any time, and it’s especially critical right now, with so much uncertainty around Brexit. Let’s hope the chancellor’s plans can make the difference – so we should all work together and using our collective expertise to make sure they do make that difference and have long lasting impact.  

Kirstie Donnelly is managing director of City & Guilds

Stop trying to control colleges, Corbyn!

Politicians need to stop vying for control of FE and instead focus on accountability, writes Ali Hadawi

Last week Jeremy Corbyn uttered words that made some college principals’ hearts sink. While he was generally very supportive of the sector in his speech to the Association of Colleges’ national conference, he also harked back to pre-incorporation times, setting out his vision for a model that have colleges work more closely with local education authorities.

But the greater integration that the Labour leader is calling for already exists across the country. The colleges that are working well are already collaborating closely with their local authorities; they are sitting on boards for learner voice, employment and skills, health and wellbeing, and many others. College leaders and senior officers meet regularly to work on joint agendas as a matter of course.

In our case, for example, we work with Central Bedfordshire council and Luton borough council on their plans for job creation, inward investment, community cohesion and housing growth. We have been instrumental in bringing the two authorities together to work on skills needs and community cohesion.

It seems to me that politicians often mix up accountability and control

It may well be the case that the colleges that are working less well don’t have these kind of relationships. Nevertheless, whether it’s the creation of a National Education Service or some other bright idea from central government, more reforms are not the solution.

It seems to me that politicians often mix up accountability and control.

Improved local accountability may well be needed, but the way to achieve this is not by putting colleges back under the control of local authorities. In fact, not only would it add an unnecessary level of bureaucracy – it would be a waste of energy and expense.

I can speak from experience. When I was principal of Southend Adult Community College, we managed to do a great job despite the fact that it was part of the local authority. I was fortunate to work with a team of great people, but I was forced to spend a lot of time shielding the college from the warring councillors of opposing parties who sat on the board. Their fights were rooted in petty political allegiances and ideology, not the real business of education.

The last thing we need is more political meddling in FE, whether at local or national level. As long as education policy is in the hands of politicians, we’ll be swung this way and that, with money spent on changes that make no impact on the outcomes that really matter.

As long as politicians continue to pull the reins of control, they are barking up the wrong tree

The reason why there are still gaps in the economy is not because colleges are autonomous, it’s because, in part, we’ve got the wrong set of measures. By choosing qualifications as the proxy for skills, colleges have become qualification machines.

We should look at the impact of a college on the local economy, so rather than asking how many level two hairdressers it has produced, we ask how many young people have gone into employment. We need impact measures that reflect the business of FE, measuring, for example, community cohesion, skills gaps, aspirations, social mobility, wealth creation, productivity and mental health.

This is the way to get struggling colleges to work more closely with their local communities: change what they are measured on.

I have no allegiance to any political party. But as long as politicians continue to pull the reins of control, they are barking up the wrong tree.

My experience with politicians and senior civil servants is that they want to get it right. However, we have a vacuum at the FE sector level; there are many highly effective leaders, but we don’t have a collective voice.

The sector needs to be better at coming up with solutions to its own problems. Perhaps this is one of our leadership challenges, to start operating as a sector that recognises its value and its impact.

Politicians should expect accountability, but they need to resist the urge to control FE.

Ali Hadawi is principal and chief executive of Central Bedfordshire College

Movers and Shakers: Edition 226

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

John McNamara, Interim CEO, the Federation of Awarding Bodies

Start date: December 2017
Previous job: Managing director, Innovate Awarding
Interesting fact: John was a qualified pilot in the RAFVR at university, three years before he took his driving test.

____________________________________________

Bill Meredith, Acting principal and CEO, Bishop Burton College

Start date: October 2017
Previous job: Deputy principal, Bishop Burton College
Interesting fact: Bill is an avid collector of early 20th century commercial poster art.

____________________________________________

Daniel Sydes, Principal designate, North East Futures UTC

Start date: January 2018
Previous job: Vice principal, UTC Reading
Interesting fact: Daniel first got into computer science aged 11 – designing his own stickman version of the Legend of Zelda game in Quickbasic on his step-dad’s MS-DOS PC.

____________________________________________

Angela Foulkes, Acting chief executive and accounting officer, the Sheffield College

Start date: November 2017
Previous job: Principal, the Sheffield College
Interesting fact: Angela’s hobbies include baking – she made seven Christmas puddings in one go last weekend.

____________________________________________

David Clasen, Finance director, the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising

Start date: January 2018
Previous job: Executive director, Clasen+Co.
Interesting fact: David is fluent in French and is also a semi-professional singer.

 

If you want to let us know of any new faces at the top of your college, training provider or awarding organisation please let us know by emailing news@feweek.co.uk