T-level placement pilot only includes one independent training provider

Just one independent training provider has been included in the government’s 45-day work placement pilot for T-levels – as well as 20 colleges.

Twenty-one FE providers have been selected to test “high-level principles and models”, and work gets underway at the beginning of this term, ending next July.

The pilots are expected to determine the wrinkles providers could face when delivering this mandatory component of T-levels, which are due to be taught from 2020.

The Association of Employment and Learning Providers has supported the government’s idea of introducing substantial work placements in T-levels, but said it was shocked to find there is just one private provider involved, considering that many of the courses will be delivered by the independent sector.

“We believe that making work placements as part of T-levels is essential to make young people work ready, and that’s why work-based apprenticeships are so successful,” AELP’s boss Mark Dawe told FE Week.

“Independent training providers are largely responsible for driving the growth in apprenticeships through their excellent relationships with employers so it is a little surprising that the government has felt it necessary to include only one ITP in the pilot.”

Paul Warner, AELP’s research director, added that there should be a “spread of pilot provider types” in order to “identify what good placements should look like and identify specific challenges and ways of overcoming them”.

A DfE spokesperson did not explain the imbalance directly.

“The department worked with organisations including the Association of Colleges and the AELP in order to ensure they had the opportunity to feed in to the process,” they said.

“Successful providers were selected on the basis of their ability to deliver a robust delivery plan and overall value for money.”

Around 2,500 students currently on vocational courses across the country are involved with the pilots.

The Challenge Network is leading the work after winning a contract in February to design a framework for how good placements should look. It declined to comment on the situation.

DfE guidance suggests that it expects 180,000 work placements per year, each lasting an average length of 50 working days, in a range of 45 to 60, lasting a minimum of 315 hours.

Officials have so far been clear on their approach, insisting “no work placement, no certificate”, but many college leaders believe the rule will limit young people’s choice as it stands, and want it changed.

In an FE Week investigation into the feasibility of the rule, David Hughes, the boss of the AoC, said it would “punish” young people to make work placements mandatory.

“The danger is you limit people’s choices to what they can attend on a local basis in labour markets that are sometimes very limited in scope,” he said.

“You might not have engineering, manufacturing and creative, for example, where you live, so does that mean you can’t do any of those? That doesn’t feel right or fair.”

Exeter College comes top in FE Week’s league table – again

Exeter College reigns supreme as the best college in the country for the second year running in FE Week’s exclusive league table.

This year’s NICDEX gave 202 colleges a score of up to 40, with 10 marks available in four categories: learner satisfaction, employer satisfaction, 16-to-18 positive progression and adults into employment.

The league table was devised last year by Nick Linford, FE Week’s editor and a former director of performance at Lewisham College, based on key criteria published by the Department for Education.

Exeter College, which was led by Richard Atkins until he retired in March 2016 and become FE commissioner, topped of the leader board with an impressive score of 35, scooping a perfect 10 for employer satisfaction and nine out of 10 for both learner satisfaction and 16-to-18 positive progression.

The college’s principal and chief executive John Laramy said he was “delighted” that it was top two years running, and thanked everyone “involved with or connected to” the college for their “engagement and support”.

“Our success is not down to luck. We have amazing students, great partners, committed employers, exceptional staff and astute governors,” he said.

Second place was shared by Kendal College, Barnsley College, Petroc in Devon, and Northampton College.

All four came in just one point behind Exeter with a score of 34.

Both Kendal and Barnsley received full marks for learner and employer satisfaction, but Kendal dropped marks on 16-to-18 destinations and Barnsley on adults into employment.

Barnsley’s principal and chief executive, Christopher Webb, described the ranking as a “fantastic achievement” and “an accolade the whole college can be proud of” after it climbed from joint third in last year’s inaugural table.

“We work exceptionally hard to ensure our students enjoy their time with us and progress to higher education or employment, and we are continuing to build strong working relationships with all of our stakeholders,” he said.

“To be ranked second in the country means we are definitely doing something right.”

Kendal’s principal Graham Wilkinson said the college was “delighted” with the result, after it was also ranked joint second last year.

“We appreciate the views of both our employers and students and are very proud of our sustained destination data and our strong record of ensuring local unemployed students’ progress to long-term employment,” he said.

Petroc improved this year, after it came joint seventh in 2016, receiving a perfect score for employer satisfaction and nine out of 10 for 16-to-18 destinations.

Petroc’s principal and chief executive, Diane Dimond, said she was “delighted” to be joint second, and congratulated Exeter College, saying “we are pleased to see Devon colleges leading the way nationally”.

“At Petroc we are all absolutely committed to delivering excellent teaching and learning experience and outcomes for all of our students. It is great to see our staff team’s hard work recognised,” she added.

Northampton College received 10 points for learner satisfaction and nines in employer satisfaction and 16-to-18 destinations, but was not available for comment.

Explained: Our league table and points-based method

Nick Linford

The NICDEX is back! After a successful inaugural edition launched at the annual AoC conference last year, we return with a new and improved college league table.

The government has legislated to improve the way it reports learner destination data, and this year I’ve replaced the apprenticeship allocation score with a new DfE measure on the percentage of young learners (at key stage 5) progressing positively into further learning, an apprenticeship or work.

The overall score for each college is based on a balanced scorecard approach, covering satisfaction and progression. It was what the Framework for Excellence had been intended to be, but it lost its way as it morphed into a simple satisfaction survey through FE Choices.

For those wondering why I have chosen not to include qualification achievement rates, it is well recognised that an overall all-age, level and sector-achievement rate tells you little to nothing about how good a college is.

I’ve also chosen not to include Ofsted grades in the NICDEX because they represent a snapshot in time, and many colleges go long periods without a visit.

Click on the images below to view the tables

Principal’s reworking of Dolly Parton classic for FE is in best tradition of protest music

From Leadbelly to Woody Guthrie and Billy Bragg, there’s a proud history of protest singers drawing attention to injustice. 

Now Bedford College principal Ian Pryce deserves huge credit for the national media attention he has attracted to the funding plight faced by our sector, through his  brilliant reworking of Dolly Parton’s classic track ‘Jolene’. 

His rendition, addressing the lyrics to the education secretary Justine Greening, had us all laughing out loud in the office when he first posted the audio on Twitter. He then dropped jaws by dressing as Dolly to perform the song during our NICDEX college league table launch at the AoC  conference. 

We all think he’s a legend, and as a folk singer myself, I have nothing but respect for his singing and playing – which has helped lighten the mood during an anxious build-up to the budget.

Let’s hope his music and witty turn of phrase succeeds where so many other more sober attempts to explain the direness of the situation to ministers  and their mandarins has previously failed.

You can listen to the song here.

Best of AoC Conference 2017

Best of AoC Conference 2017 supplement | Click here to download

Colleges in spotlight like never before

The AoC annual conference, coming the week before the budget, was never going to offer anything from the government in the way of new policies or addition funding

So we will have to wait until next Wednesday to find out what the chancellor says and whether David Hughes was right to be “hopeful” (page 3).

But what really struck me over the two days of the conference (listening to speeches, attending workshops and talking to delegates) was just how many major government reforms rely on colleges to step up and deliver in ways.

This really came across in a well pitched speech from the apprenticeships and skills minister Anne Milton (page 4).

There is clearly recognition within the government that if its radical reform of post-16 vocational education (T-levels) has any chance of succeeding, then a positive partnership with colleges is desperately needed.

Colleges were also challenged (for the second year) by the ESFA’s director of funding to win more apprenticeship work from the large levy-funded employers (page 15).

Within a few years, the T-levels and the apprenticeship levy will make for £1.5 billion of additional funding per year, which is a huge opportunity for colleges.

This goes some way to explain Mr Hughes’ “reasons to be upbeat”.

Yet funding is tight right now, so at the conference there was a palpable tension between those principals being optimistic and the others complaining about funding cuts.

The chief inspector, Amanda Spielman, promised Ofsted would keep a close eye on the new apprenticeship providers (page 6).

This is to be welcomed, but has to be matched by the ESFA keeping a firm grip on the appropriate use of the money.

And our interview with the leader of the opposition (page 10) revealed that colleges may be in for a bit of a shock should Labour reach power (and I’m not talking about piles of additional cash).

Jeremy Corbyn made it clear that Labour is looking to weaken the independence of colleges, although time will tell if the plan is really to turn the clock back to pre-1993 when colleges were under local authority control.

We’ve also included on page 12 all the AoC award winners announced at the end of the conference dinner (congratulations to them all) along with lots of views and reaction throughout the two days from delegates.

We could not attend all the many and varied workshops, but across pages 13, 14 and 15 you will find some of our chosen highlights.

Many thanks to AoC for having us again as their premier media partner and for running another excellent conference.

And thank you to NOCN for sponsoring this supplement, which I hope you enjoy.

That just leaves me to finish by saying everyone at FE Week will have their fingers crossed for good budget news, which (either way) we will of course report at length in our next edition.

Nick Linford, editor

What FE needs to know about competition law

Why should the corporate world of mergers, cartels and market abuses apply to those teaching and training young people? Lindsay Draffan explains

I was rather surprised by the number of times the words “competition” and “competitors” were used at the recent FAB conference in Leicester.

I didn’t expect that. Neither did I expect references to “collaboration”, “market dynamics” or difficulties for new entrants against the relative comfort for more established players.

What was lacking, however, was any mention of competition law as a means to help a) establish a level playing field for those providing educational services and b) choice, quality and innovation, all at a reasonable price for the learner.

What does competition law have to do with FE?

In a nutshell, competition law regulates the activities of those offering services (or goods) for the benefit of the consumer. So a training provider offering an FE course for a fee must comply with competition law. To price-fix a course with a competing provider, for example, is a complete no-no.

To price-fix a course with a competing provider, for example, is a complete no-no

In exactly the same way, awarding organisations must comply when they carry out their business activities. And those with the good fortune of holding a leading market position, usually 40 per cent or more, must not try to prevent a rival from offering a competing product. That can happen through abusive behaviour in related markets, not just in the award process itself. You might think it’s a great tactic to make sure your competitors cannot get their materials to print due to a network of exclusivity with publishers, but it’s highly unlikely the competition authorities would agree!

What are the penalties for anti-competitive behaviour?

The law penalises anti-competitive agreements with fines based on annual turnover, and the severity and duration of the infringement. The maximum financial penalty is 10 per cent of worldwide turnover, not just that generated in the UK. The same goes for abusing a dominant position.

In addition to unlimited fines, the cartel offence (usually price-fixing between competitors) also carries potential criminal penalties for individuals of up to five years’ imprisonment, and 15 years’ disqualification as a director.

Competition law also includes merger control, where merging or acquiring competitors can be reviewed for approval or prohibition by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), should certain turnover or market-share thresholds be met. In the current climate of amalgamation, merger control is highly relevant, although reviews are carried out in the context of many factors, including market conditions, financial sustainability and sometimes unavoidable “direction” from local government.

How can we tell if we’re breaking the law?

It is a complex area of law with a firm economic basis that often sits outside the comfort zone of many competent professionals. Nevertheless, when I am asked questions about whether a commercial agreement or behaviour is on the right side of the law, I tend to ask whether an organisation would be happy for their agreements or behaviour (confidentiality aside) to appear in the local or national newspapers. Your gut instinct can go a long way, and so can being transparent, objective and non-discriminatory in your commercial direction and relations with others in the sector, whether they’re a competing organisation or active at a different level.

There is, however, no magic remedy other than being compliant. You can’t really ask the CMA for help – this has been a self-assessment regime since 2000. You have to make sure you understand as best you can what is and isn’t permitted (ask a friendly lawyer for assistance if need be). Compliance is also a useful exercise if you believe your competitors are not playing by the rules.

From the first foray into the price-fixing of school fees many moons ago, to the recent shaming of the Law Society which abused its position as a combined AO and training provider, the competition authorities and courts are more than capable of tackling the education sector. The time has come to educate yourself.

Lindsay Draffan is a senior associate at Bates Wells Braithwaite

Ditch job-specific apprenticeship standards

Simply put, there are too many pathways, says Rob May, and they’re more than likely too specialised to be truly useful

More than a few people in the sector believe that multiple regulators and a lack of standardisation will fundamentally undermine the apprenticeship reform programme. It’s an opinion I’ve shared in the past, but I’m now starting to reconsider.

We need an elementary reframing of what an apprenticeship actually is, and, importantly, what it isn’t. The definition varies, and the one offered on gov.uk lacks any razzmatazz: “Apprenticeships combine practical training in a job with study.” That’s true, but as an explanation it neglects the helpful, subtle distinction that separates apprenticeships from other forms of vocational learning.

An apprenticeship is when someone is learning under a master in a particular field. It describes a relationship, not an outcome. Leonardo Da Vinci served as an apprentice, and so did Benjamin Franklin, although there were no “gateways”, EPAOs or 20-per-cent off-the-job training rules in their day!

That’s because, unlike A-levels, applied generals or GCSEs, an apprenticeship is a concept, not a product.

An apprenticeship is a psychological and cultural contract, the terms of which are often implied on the basis of custom, or a tradition of usage. It’s a dynamic approach to industrial continuity and evolution.

An apprenticeship is when someone is learning under a master in a particular field. It describes a relationship, not an outcome

So, it’s not really surprising to see trailblazers, employers and trade bodies interpret apprenticeship content, assessment and regulation very differently. Industries have evolved their understanding of apprenticeships over centuries and now they’ve been asked to codify the concept as a “product”. We’ve seen an army of designers each bring divergent wisdoms about what an apprenticeship actually is and how it should be configured, but they often show no real understanding of the robotic assessment pipeline into which they stuff their reworking of the concept.

The government was right to throw open the drafting of new standards to industry, but it is now funnelling apprenticeship delivery and assessment into a market that relies heavily on consistency, coherence and cohesion to ensure public confidence in the education system.

This is a system that is used to commodified qualifications, linear progression and performance tables, and above all to reliable, comparable assessment. Equating academic levels with levels of apprenticeship only adds to the potential for the implosion of the system, and it’s not how parity of esteem is achieved. We must recognise that there are different, equally valid ways of learning, with different rules. The idea that one institution can regulate an increasingly atomised learning environment is fallacious.

Arguably, apprenticeships are not subject to the same natural laws as qualifications, but likewise, not every qualification can become an apprenticeship, as this risks stripping away the very thing which determines distinctiveness. Some trailblazers seem intent on transforming anything they touch into apprenticeships when they are clearly not.

The idea that one institution can regulate an increasingly atomised learning environment is fallacious

My dad undertook his carpentry apprenticeship in 1960. It lasted five years and led to a broad range of occupational possibilities. But some of today’s apprenticeship standards are way too job-specific; for example ‘mineral weighbridge operator’, or ‘electronic door opener’. With respect, these are not apprenticeships; they are specific jobs requiring specific, contained training. There may be transferable skills involved, but enough to become a specialist in a trade? Doubtful.

So, the answer to the question, when is an apprenticeship not an apprenticeship, is, unfortunately: most of the time.

Addressing the complexities of the vocational education system by making everything “an apprenticeship” won’t work, and dilutes the value of the concept in fields where it is a well-trodden pathway, in areas such as engineering, construction, tailoring and carpentry. To return credibility to the concept, some of these job-specific apprenticeship standards simply have to go.

In the world of apprenticeships, multiple accountabilities are unavoidable. Let’s reassess how we think of the regulation landscape, stop resisting compromise and accept the inevitable, if accidental redesign of the technical education system.

Rob May is CEO of the Association of Business Executives. Piece inspired by ‘Skilling up for a future’ at The Centre for Education Economics on 7 Nov

How can college governors impact government policy?

Dr Sue, director of policy and external relations at Holex, answers your questions on college governance, backed by her experience as principal of Canterbury College and in senior civil service posts in education and skills.

Question One: Devolution

What can governors do to reassure staff about their jobs as we move to funding devolution?

Answer: Although devolution to combined authorities doesn’t come in until 2019/20 and covers only eight areas, it amounts to half the students and half the total national adult education budget. It will touch not only all colleges and providers in the CAs, but also those who border on a CA or work nationally.

I understand why staff and managers are concerned. They know CA strategic planning really needs to happen this winter. Prospectuses for the 2019/20 academic year would normally be ready in the year before enrolment, and devolved areas need to be in a position to say what they will be commissioning in the spring of 2018. Without plans in place, staff will feel vulnerable.

The other major concern is the impact on financial viability for a whole college, provider or service. Although only the AEB is being devolved to CAs, most colleges operate a mixed model, where programmes are only viable to run if both adult and young people’s funding is available.

It is important as governors for you to ensure there is early dialogue with the relevant CAs and start to assess risk and impact immediately.

 

Question Two: Lobbying

With the current environment, it seems most of what matters is outside our control. How can we influence higher authorities to make sure we have been heard?

Answer: Setting the strategic vision is a vital for governors and to do that effectively you really need not only to understand the national policy landscape but also your local requirements.

It is your role to ensure your institution’s plan and education offer meets the needs of your locality. If there are rules in the system, or barriers to doing what is needed, they need to be flagged up to the government, either directly or through your representative bodies. If that doesn’t work, talk to your MP.

It is for you to lead the skills agenda, and advocacy should be seen as an important characteristic of a 21st century governing body.

 

Question Three: T-levels

I’m beginning to believe all T-levels will do is reduce the number of students on A-levels and displace BTECs. This might improve the technical brand image, but what’s in it for students without five good GCSEs?

Answer: I think the direct answer is not much! Many of us have been here before, but previous attempts to ensure parity between academic and vocational routes have understood the need for a proper progression route and allowed those who were failed by the secondary school system to regroup and start afresh on a level two or even a level one vocational route.

Like you, I think more work needs to be done on working out who are the client group for this award. At present, it looks like T-levels are just for those with five to eight good GCSEs including maths and English, who want an alternative to A-levels. This is fine, but really, can we afford to spread these students thinly, which will result in inefficient class sizes, and would not they not do just as well in their future careers by doing A-levels?

What I would like to see is as much energy and resource going into supporting the 40 per cent of young people who will not be eligible for T-levels. The present offer of traineeships and a transition year is not sufficiently intensive or resourced. 

Apprenticeship budget must be guaranteed

The gloomy outlook for our economy risks reduced investment via the levy in apprenticeships when we need it most, says Stephen Evans

We all have times when we wake up and know it’s going to be a tough day ahead. Theresa May has perhaps had more than most since June’s general election, and the budget is going to be another such day for the chancellor, Philip Hammond.

We know it will be tough because a range of experts, including the Bank of England and Office for Budget Responsibility, have signalled they’ve changed their mind about the potential of our economy. They’re gloomier now, and think our economic growth speed limit has permanently fallen since the 2008 financial crisis.

This has profound implications for living standards and public services: if economic growth is slower, then wages and taxes (which pay for public services) will also rise more slowly. This is a big problem for a chancellor under pressure to loosen the purse strings and to balance the books – he can’t do both. It is a bigger problem for households across the country, who will find their living standards not improving as they’d hoped.

I want to focus on the impact on the apprenticeship levy, a payroll tax on large employers that’s ring-fenced for spending on apprenticeships, specifically on the amount it will raise, rather than how it is spent.

Last year, the amount the levy was expected to raise by 2020 was revised down by £200 million. This year at the Learning and Work Institute, we think there might be a further downgrade.

We all have times when we wake up and know it’s going to be a tough day ahead. Theresa May has perhaps had more than most

The amount the levy raises is determined by how many people are employed in levy-paying firms. Employment rates are at a record high and have been stronger than many forecasters have expected. So there’s unlikely to be an issue there.

But earnings growth has consistently been weaker than expected. And a permanent downgrade to the speed limit of the economy means a permanent downgrade to potential growth in earnings.

Which means, all else being equal, a downgrade to the amount the levy will raise.

We’ve crunched the numbers and think this could mean anything from a £50 million drop (based on the most recent Bank of England forecasts) to £100 million (based on more recent earnings growth levels). Taken with the previous £200 million downgrade, this would see the levy raising almost 10 per cent less than was originally forecast by 2019/20.

We don’t have long to wait to find out the answer – the budget will reveal all. And while the revisions may get lost in the roundings this time, particularly if employment is stronger than expected, but ultimately lower earnings growth will definitely mean the levy raises less.

This points to a bigger challenge for the levy than changes in economic forecasts. The way it is set up will cut investment in apprenticeships when the economy slows, arguably when we most need to increase investment in training. This would reinforce the falls we usually see in employers investing in training during a downturn. It could also mean too little resource for non-levy-payers, and put the government’s at risk three million apprenticeship starts target.

The Learning and Work Institute has argued that the overall apprenticeship budget should be guaranteed over the economic cycle. There should also be guaranteed levels of funding for non-levy-payers, who are as important to our economy as large employers.

One way to increase the speed of our economy is to invest in skills. We should protect investment so slower growth doesn’t become a self-fulfilling prophesy. The introduction of the levy is a good thing. To make it work, we need to guarantee investment in learning and apprenticeships.

Stephen Evans is CEO of the Learning and Work Institute

Aspiring motor vehicle engineers renovate two ambulances ready for 3,000 mile trip to west Africa

Motor vehicle engineering students are helping to renovate two ambulances, which are to be driven over 3,000 miles to west Africa.

The group of 11 students from West Nottinghamshire College will prepare the vehicles for a 3,390-mile drive across France and Spain into Gibraltar, which will then cross the sea to Tangiers, traversing Morocco and entering the Gambia as part of the Aid2Gambia project.

Led by former police sergeant Mark Hammans, the project aims to provide people in the Gambia with medical supplies, books and stationery – and ambulances are next on his list.

“Once we deliver the ambulances we’re hoping that they will be self-funded and put to great use helping ladies who are in difficult labour get to a safe environment, as the mortality rate there is very poor,” he explained.

“We’ve already driven ambulances to the Gambia before, so we know it can be done. We’re really grateful for the students’ help on the vehicles.”

The ambulances were paid for with fundraising by Aid2Gambia staff, and dropped off at the college for the necessary repairs.

“It’s great to be involved in this project as it’s going to help people less fortunate. It’s something different for us to work on in the engineering workshop,” said level three student Simon Wicks.