The opportunity for artificial intelligence-backed virtual reality to revolutionise technical and vocational education and training is upon us, says Ali Hadawi

There is a distinct opportunity for the FE sector to lead the change in delivering truly inspirational learning and training using present-day technology. Machine learning, or artificial intelligence, moves the boundary into a domain where computers learn, adapt and change in response to the way a learner is responding. Better yet, the computers don’t get bored, they don’t have favourite times and they don’t mind repetition.

When this technology is coupled with an immersive or virtual reality environment, we can create training that works well in the technical and vocational sphere. It collects analytics to enable the trainee and the trainer to see which elements of a routine – for example, changing a part on a machine – are taking longer than they should or which routine – such as dealing with an elderly person in a health and social care setting – is performed hesitantly. The possibilities are limitless.

The time is now, and technical and vocational education has the right mix of expertise and skill to make use of technology to advance its approach and deliver amazing training. At Central Bedfordshire College, we have been experimenting for the last 12 months in partnership with a leading global technology company, and this week we launched an immersive training initiative. We are happy to share our experience and findings with colleagues across the sector.

Noting that most of our learners are more technology-savvy than us, we are moving the learning and training into a domain that is even less familiar to many of us than to our learners – even though it might mean we have catching up to do.

Many business leaders tell me that they have two main concerns: the availability of skilled people to take jobs, and trainees who arrive at a business with the right mix of social and work ethics in addition to their technical abilities.

Using the AI-VR will allow colleges to work creatively with teachers, trainers and lecturers to reimagine and reconfigure their teaching approach, and hence the time they spend with learners on developing the kind of traits and skills that machines can’t teach.

Most of our learners are more technology-savvy than us

Staff have so much more to give to their learners than the technical elements – some of which will still need to be trained by a human. For example, the nuances of a specific industry, how to approach a certain situation, how to deal with colleagues, how to respond to a manager… the list is endless.

FE can and should lead the way in reconfiguring the role of the teacher/trainer, to focus on what needs to be done by a human. We have the trainer expertise (central to AI), we have the links with employers, we understand the employment market well, we understand qualifications and the accreditation process, and we understand the communities we serve like no other to make a success of this development.

One note of caution: this is not a cost-reduction proposition.

This proposition is to enable UK TVET to achieve two things: deliver truly inspiring and engaging world-class training and secondly, and arguably more importantly, enable teachers to spend more time developing citizens, socialising learning and enhancing the communities we serve. AI-VR has the potential to enable colleges to improve without increasing the cost of running their operations.

To this end, we need four key actions:

• Policy makers must trust and back the sector to lead the AI-VR revolution into TVET.
• The TVET sector should embrace this agenda and not to wait to be told what to do.
• Ofsted needs to start thinking about how to adapt its inspection model to fit with the new world of TVET.
• Awarding organisations should embrace change and focus on what matters to our economy.

Ali Hadawi CBE is the principal and chief executive of Central Bedfordshire College

If we want to get our NEETs back into work, says Dr Fiona Aldridge, we need to speak more plainly

Last week, in partnership with the Department for Education, L&W hosted a conference entitled Traineeships: Why they work to provide practical insight into effective and innovative ways in which traineeships can be delivered to secure positive outcomes for young people, employers and local areas.

Ensuring young people get a firm first step on the career ladder must be a priority for us all; there is clear evidence that being unemployed while young can have a permanent scarring effect on long-term pay and job prospects.

It was in the context of particularly high levels of youth unemployment that traineeships were launched in 2013, to provide a focused pathway for young people to gain the skills and experience needed to get an apprenticeship or a job. Comprising work experience, work preparation training and support with English and maths, the programme has engaged over 50,000 young people in its first three years.

Although youth unemployment is now falling, far too many young people are still locked out of opportunities to enter and progress in the labour market. At 12.5 per cent, the youth unemployment rate is almost three times higher than the overall unemployment rate of 4.6 per cent. Our research shows growing numbers of young people spend more than a year not in education, employment or training (NEET) – storing up longer-term trouble for the 800,000 young people in this position. Now is not the time to take our foot off the pedal.

Perhaps branding is not always as important as we think it is

The overriding theme of the day was that the strength of the traineeship programme is in its flexibility – creating opportunities for providers, employers and others to develop new approaches that best meet the needs of their particular context and learners. But while flexibility is certainly a strength, it can also create challenges, not least in how best to describe and promote the programme.

Our DfE speaker assured the audience that they have heard the message that low awareness of the ‘traineeship’ brand is hindering providers’ success – and plan to take action. This will be welcome news for many.

However, others were keen to point out that the “traineeship” label rarely plays a prominent role in their engagement of young people or employers.

Instead, they find it much more effective to focus on what young people and employers are looking to achieve, and create an offer that supports this from the flexibilities offered by the programme. As one provider said: “We’ve stopped marketing traineeships; we’ve started marketing careers advice”.

So perhaps branding is not always quite as important as we think it is – and certainly in relation to traineeships, developing clear and concise messages for employers, young people and their parents about what the programme includes is an issue. While we want to build confidence in the quality and effectiveness of provision on offer, we should also remember that sometimes the best way of engaging people in learning is to take a step outside of the language that is familiar to us within the sector, and focus instead on connecting with the aspirations and ambitions of those we are seeking to engage. (If you’re interested in great examples of what works, take a look at the case study videos on our website.)

Most young people want to work – but many of these will not be motivated by a traineeship – they rarely approach a provider or a Jobcentre Plus work coach asking about the programme. But they do want to earn money, support themselves and build their future. It is crucial therefore that we give our young people a clear line of sight to work and deliver focused support through creative and engaging programmes. Providers such as Millwall Community Trust, NACRO, Harlow College and Qube, all of whom contributed to our conference last week, are leading the way in doing just this.

Fiona Aldridge is assistant director of the learning and work institute

The AELP wants the government to pay for all level two apprenticeships, but this is not the answer, argues Adrian Anderson

The two drivers behind the apprenticeship reforms are to increase productivity and enhance social mobility. From a productivity and economic perspective, if the UK is to prosper and succeed we need to develop a high-skill economy and apprenticeships that deliver the skills employers need to increase productivity.

The call from AELP to prioritise funding for level two apprenticeship provision and pay for such a proposal by increasing employer co-investment for apprenticeships at levels four to seven, on a sliding scale from 20 to 50 per cent is fundamentally flawed. Is their argument really that priority should be given to level two apprenticeships in business administration and customer service, rather than to STEM apprenticeships in vital technical-level roles, or to level six apprenticeships in digital and engineering occupations?

The argument that prioritising level two provision supports social mobility also only goes so far. Certainly, apprenticeships at level two support young people entering the workforce. That’s great, but then what? And why prioritise level two apprenticeships for adults including those in employment?

Apprenticeships at level two support young people entering the workforce. That’s great, but then what?

To maximise social mobility, don’t we need to use apprenticeships as the basis for work-based progression routes to open pathways for new types of learner cohorts to well-paid technical, associate professional, professional and managerial occupations? To disincentivise employer spending on high-level apprenticeships, as AELP proposes, reduces opportunities for those completing level two and level three apprenticeships to move through work-based learning programmes to technical-level and senior managerial occupations.

AELP argues that removing the 10-per-cent co-investment requirement would lead to a dramatic increase in the number of level two apprenticeships.

Perhaps, but surely if an employer will not even pay 10 per cent of the cost of an apprenticeship, they don’t exactly value the programme or see it delivering benefits to their business. The answer is for training providers to focus on new standards and deliver value to employers, so they decide to invest in higher-level apprenticeships.

So, where does UVAC stand as the organisation representing higher education providers?

Firstly, it is essential that the 10-per-cent employer co-investment requirement is retained for apprenticeships at all levels. The contribution will ensure the market is driven by employers and that they invest in meaningful apprenticeships.

Secondly, the funding system should be used to incentivise non-levy-paying employers to use apprenticeships to support a post-Brexit economy, as businesses will need to compete internationally, or to support individuals acquire the skills to deliver vital public services. This could be achieved by raising the employer contribution required for apprenticeships in occupational areas such as business administration and customer care at level two to, say, 25 per cent. The savings could then – if there were issues of affordability – be used for more STEM apprenticeships, to increase technician apprenticeships at below bachelor’s degree level, or to increase funding bands for high-cost apprenticeship provision needed by the UK economy.

Thirdly, shouldn’t the funding system reward employers who do the most to support the learning, development and progression of their staff?

Perhaps the funding system could incentivise the development of progression pathways from apprenticeships to technical, managerial, associate professional and professional job roles. For entry into apprenticeships at levels three to seven, the funding system could perhaps reward employers who recruit from under-represented groups, tackle gender imbalance or low level BEM participation.

Wouldn’t we rather have this than yet more “free” training that adds little to the government’s twin priorities of increased productivity and social mobility?

Adrian Anderson is chief executive of the University Vocational Awards Council