The principal of Prospects College of Advanced Technology is set to retire, after guiding it through becoming the first new FE college in more than 20 years.
Neil Bates (pictured above) will step down at the end of this academic year and said today it has been an “enormous privilege” to have led the college for more than three decades.
Under his leadership, the Essex-based charity, formerly an independent training provider known as Prospects Learning Foundation, legally reclassified as an FE college back in 2014 – the first time this had been allowed by the government since 1993.
Speaking to FE Week about his decision to retire, Mr Bates said: “For me the most satisfying and rewarding part of the job has been witnessing how education and training transforms the life chances of young people often lifting them out of generational disadvantage and poverty.”
He added that while he has decided to step down from PROCAT, he is “certainly not retiring from the sector which I love”.
“I am going to have a holiday and a break to think about what I might do next,” he added.
Following PROCAT’s transfer to college status, the provider underwent an £11.5 million expansion of its main Basildon training base and now has around 2,000 learners.
In its first ever Ofsted report in February this year, Mr Bates led the college to a ‘good’ grade.
Speaking today, Mr Bates also said: “We are at last seeing some recognition of the importance of technical professional education and we are rightly giving employers greater ownership of the skills system alongside an expectation that they will share the costs as well as the benefits of an investment in developing their workforce.
“My driving ambition is to make a difference and to champion technical professional education so that it has the status and prestige that it deserves.”
As well as leading PROCAT for the last three decades, Mr Bates has held a number of other roles both locally and nationally.
He was the founding chairman of the organisations that became the Association of Employment and Learning Providers and Group Training Associations England.
He was also the chair of the National Training Federation, vice chair of the Learning and Skills Improvement Service, chair of an Education Action Zone and a governor at a secondary school, a university technical college and a special school.
He is currently a board member of the Edge Foundation and recently chaired a yearlong commission of enquiry into innovation within the FE sector.
Mr Bates has also been an advisor to the government on the formation of Institutes of Technology.
David Sherlock, chair of PROCAT, said: “Neil’s departure at the end of September will mark the end of an era. He has been the seminal influence on the college’s direction and successful approach to employer-led learning.
“It is now up to us to honour that legacy by taking PROCAT to still greater international success in the new age of the levy and Brexit.”
A spokesperson for PROCAT told FE Week that plans are currently being drawn up to recruit a successor to Mr Bates and an announcement on this “will follow in due course”.
There’s no sign that the non-levy allocations farrago will be solved any time soon – and now higher education leaders are issuing dire warnings about the future of degree-level apprenticeships.
The FE sector reacted in horror after the Education and Skills Funding Agency announced in April that it would pause the procurement process for providers delivering apprenticeships to smaller non-levy paying employers, and would extend existing contracts instead.
To compound the sector’s woes, many universities have now been ruled out of delivering new degree-level apprenticeships to small employers from September, as these cannot be funded through the extended contracts.
It’s a situation that risks the “future growth of degree apprenticeships”, according to Nicola Dandridge, the chief executive of Universities UK, the representative body for higher education leaders.
“Employers want degree apprentices to address key skills needs and to drive growth,” she said, adding that “any region that has many non-levy paying employers, such as the south-west, will see very few degree apprenticeships supported from this procurement, regardless of employer demand or local enterprise partnership strategy”.
The big problem is that providers’ non-levy allocations for existing contracts were worked out on the basis of their previous delivery, a situation which will apply for the eight months between May to December.
As most degree apprenticeships are new programmes starting in September, they cannot be funded by existing contracts.
The pause therefore means that these new degree apprenticeships can only be funded through levy-paying large employers, until December at least.
25 HE institutions – many of them modern universities, those that won their status after 1992 – and 20 FE colleges received funding through phase one of the Higher Education Funding Council for England’s degree apprenticeship development fund.
The cash, which totalled £4.5 million across 18 projects, was awarded in November with the specific aim of developing “new provision to support up to 5,200 new degree apprenticeships” from this autumn.
Alan Palmer, head of policy and research at Million Plus, which represents modern universities, said the procurement pause “puts at risk” this commitment.
He said that modern universities had “been at the forefront of developing degree apprenticeships” and the procurement pause would “impact on the ability of universities to play a full part” in government skills policy.
“This demonstrates the importance for the ESFA to better understand the needs of universities, and ensure that the system of apprenticeships works for all providers,” he said.
The University of the West of England received £350,000 through the fund, in partnership with Weston College, City of Bristol College, Gloucestershire College and Bridgwater College, to develop new degree apprenticeships in nine subjects, including digital technology, aerospace and electronics.
Dr John Lanham, its assistant vice chancellor, said the situation was “frustrating”.
The university, which successfully applied to the register of apprenticeship training providers, had been planning to deliver the new apprenticeships to both large, levy-paying employers and smaller companies.
“But we’ve now been told you can’t talk to that bit of the community [non-levy payers], and that’s the biggest bit of the community in the long term if you’re looking at where the future growth is,” he said.
Kerry Featherstone, director of the University of Sheffield’s Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre Training Centre, said the “lack of funding for non-levy employers is a concern and could lead to disadvantaging some employers and learners”.
The university received £160,495 through the DADF to develop engineering degree apprenticeships in partnership with its neighbour, Sheffield Hallam University, with the aim of having 90 starts in September 2017.
The University of Wolverhampton was another institution to have received cash through the fund, working in partnership with Walsall College, City of Wolverhampton College, and Birmingham Metropolitan College.
Jackie Dunne, its deputy vice-chancellor for access and lifelong learning, said the university had “spent considerable time and effort raising awareness of degree apprenticeships among levy and non-levy payers” and had evidence of “clear demand” for the programmes.
“Following the recent announcement, there is a concern that the university may not have sufficient funding in place, to provide the levels of support it has been promoting as part of government’s drive to grow degree apprenticeships,” she said.
Jane Lowe, the University of Derby’s acting head of apprenticeships, told FE Week that it was still “assessing the full impact of the allocation”.
“The scale of what we had hoped to deliver will not be possible, although we are working to adapt our plans in the short term,” she added.
FE Week asked the ESFA and HEFCE to comment on the concerns, but neither could respond due to the period of purdah in the run up to the general election.
What is the degree apprenticeship development fund?
The £8.5 million fund, first announced by the former Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in March 2016 and managed by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, is designed to increase the number of degree apprenticeships on offer.
These are apprenticeships at levels six and seven, and they were launched in September 2015.
The DADF’s aims include supporting HE providers to establish new degree apprenticeship programmes, and working with employers to establish their skills need to ensure that degree apprenticeships meet their requirements.
The first phase, announced in November, awarded £4.5 million to fund 18 projects, while applications for the second phase, worth £4 million, close June 6.
Case study: University of the West of England
The University of the West of England secured £350,000 through the degree apprenticeship development fund, alongside its four college partners, to develop new programmes in nine subject areas.
Dr John Lanham, its assistant vice-chancellor, told FE Week that the university had a “portfolio of about a dozen programmes” launching in the autumn.
He described the new apprenticeships – the first the university will offer – as “an important part of our development”.
Although “levy payers are the key focus, they’re the conversations we’ve been having”, the university “would have been looking to offer to some SMEs” as well, he said.
Dr John Lanham, University of the West of England
But because the university doesn’t have an existing apprenticeship contract to be extended with the Education and Skills Funding Agency, it will not be able to offer degree apprenticeships to non-levy employers from September – a situation Dr Lanham described as “frustrating”.
“As a university we work with large and small businesses in the city region; we’ve got a range of products and services, and everything else we offer is available to everybody,” he explained.
“We’re launching this new set of products [degree apprenticeships], and we’ve now been told you can’t talk to that bit of the community [SMEs], and that’s the biggest bit of the community in the long term if you’re looking at where the future growth is,” Dr Lanham said.
Having received funding through HEFCE to develop the programmes, he said the university “had the added conundrum that we’ve been given a chunk of money in the right hand and then the left hand is telling us no, you can’t use it”.
“Effectively the ESFA ruling is looking backwards,” Dr Lanham said.
“It’s based on past performance, past qualifications, so the very thing they’re trying to say they’re doing, their own practice, is not following through on the policy.”
Website support for non-levy payers
The Department for Education updated its Find an Apprenticeship website at the beginning of May to include a feature that allows employers to select whether they are levy-paying or not.
This hides the providers without an allocation from non-levy paying employers, so they know which providers are currently able to work with them.
The ‘find an apprenticeship’ system was launched in December 2014, with the aim of giving users a more effective way to search and apply.
People using the old apprenticeship vacancy system were redirected to the new site from May 2015 and encouraged to create a new account.
A college in the north-east has used public funds to pay its students cash bonuses for completing online short courses.
Middlesbrough College advertised a £50 “cash bonus” on its website for anyone who took up free distance learning courses in the health and care, business and customer service industries – in a move that’s previously unheard-of in FE.
Enrolment has now closed for the courses, which initially required an upfront administration fee of £50, though the site said “this will be refunded along with a further £50 bonus if you enrol onto the course before June 1”.
It added: “So we will actually pay you £50 for doing the course, how good is that a qualification and a cash bonus as well.”
The small print said that online courses must be completed by July 31 this year, meaning that all government funding would be drawn down from the current academic year.
Zoe Lewis, the college’s principal (pictured right), did not comment directly on whether the move had been designed to use up any outstanding funding from its adult education budget allocation, but said the incentive had been introduced “to expand our portfolio and to develop our own capacity and capability to serve employers and learners at more flexible times, to suit their work and home lives”.
She added: “This is a small amount of development cost, given our plans for distance learning going forward and the benefits that these courses will deliver to our employers, learners and economic community.”
After the college acquired the NECC Training company in 2016, it established its employer facing arm – the Northern Skills Group – which, she said, led to the decision to develop a “distance-learning capacity”.
“We are looking to launch this fully in the next academic year, but wanted to test our systems, processes and procedures this year, hence our decision to launch 10 courses in May this year.
“The incentive payment was for a short period, was time limited and will amount to less than £2,000 – which was funded through our course development budget,” she claimed.
Example course description from Middlesbrough College website as FE Week went to press
“No incentive is currently in place, nor will be in the future.”
The choice to hand public money out in this way could be seen as controversial, at a time when independent learning providers are unsure whether they will receive funding from the adult education budget because of delays to a new procurement process.
Mark Dawe, the chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning providers, admitted he hadn’t seen incentives like these in FE before.
“Until the full 1.5 billion adult budget is properly tendered and targeted at real need, we will continue to see these perverse workarounds in an attempt to mop up unused but valuable allocations,” he said.
Bob Harrison, a former college principal and an expert in online and digital learning, told FE Week: “This is the first cash bonus scheme for free online courses I’ve heard of and am concerned about the use of public money in this way.
Description of promotion on Middlesbrough College website, which they removed after being asked about it by FE Week
“A free course combined with a cash reward at the end looks a dubious practice at best. At worst it is simply a way to sign-up people more interested in the financial gain than a need for training or a qualification.”
Shortly after our enquiries, FE Week received notification from Middlesbrough College that the reference to the £50 “cash bonus” had been removed from its free distance learning courses offer online.
Blue pill is tough to swallow
Editorial by Nick Linford
Since the snap election was called by the Conservatives seven weeks ago, it has been interesting to see the reaction to their handling of the media
The overriding theme has been one of avoidance: stories of the press being locked out of events, only being allowed to ask pre-vetted questions and of ministers darting in and out of back doors have been frequent.
And even when interviews have been granted, journalists have been left complaining of questions going unanswered and replaced with “strong and stable” sound bites.
Most recently, Jeremy Corbyn changed his mind and decided to participate in the TV leadership debate, but Theresa May stayed away.
This prompted a cartoon in The Times in which our prime minister hides behind the sofa.
We’ve drawn up our own version, in which she is seen completing an online course in media management from the safety of her breakfast table.
And we now know, seven weeks after we first asked an answer, that the Conservatives are determined to keep FE Week away from the apprenticeships minister Robert Halfon.
The lack of opportunity to scrutinise the manifesto commitments weakens the democratic process.
Would you choose to buy a medicine from a pharmacy that refused to even make itself available to ask about potential side effects?
I’m not going to endorse one party over another, but the best way to change the behaviour of a salesperson is to refuse to buy their product.
A chef from The Ritz and a car painter who works for a national crash repair company have been announced as the final two members of Team UK for WorldSkills Abu Dhabi.
Ruth Hansom, 22, and Daryl Head, 20, will now join up with the 32 other members of Team UK, announced in April, for the global competition that will take place in the Middle East in October.
Ruth Hansom
They will all be competing against young people from 76 countries, in more than 50 different skills, ranging from 3D Game Design and mechanical engineering, through to hairdressing and landscape gardening.
Like their teammates, Ruth and Daryl have gone through a two-year qualification battle with the best this country has to offer in each discipline, giving up most of their weekends and evenings to hone their skills.
They will now undergo a rigorous regime of Olympic-style training in preparation for the most intense week of competition imaginable, at an event dubbed the “Olympics of skills”.
Ruth, who will compete in cooking, is from London and trained at Westminster Kingsway College before going to work for The Ritz hotel.
Daryl Head
Daryl, who will compete in car painting, is from Swindon and trained at Thatcham Apprentice Academy and now works for Nationwide Crash Repair.
Speaking about the upcoming global competition, Neil Bentley, chief executive of WorldSkills UK, said: “The WorldSkills Finals in Abu Dhabi are more important than international sporting fixtures spurring on competitors to achieve the highest international standards to inspire more and more young people to get into apprenticeships and technical careers, getting them off to the best start in work and life.
“Team UK represents the very future success of our economy and what they represent will help determine whether we thrive or fail post Brexit.”
At the last WorldSkills in Sao Paulo in 2015, Team UK finished overall seventh in the medal table, ahead of favourites France and Germany – bringing home three golds, four silvers, two bronzes and 23 medallions of excellence.
This year’s WorldSkills event will take place between October 14 and 19.
Conservative manifesto pledge: Double the Immigration Skills Charge to £2,000 to reinvest in FE and skills
Alex Balch argues AGAINST
Barely a month after the Immigration Skills Charge (ISC) has come into effect (April 2017), the Conservative Party have said as part of their manifesto that they will double the charge from £1000 to £2000. The ISC was brought in following advice by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) – an independent panel of economists – last year. The amount is levied annually on organisations that employ high-skilled non-EEA immigrants, although there are reduced charges for charities and small businesses.
Most of the public scrutiny of the ISC has centred on the ways it will significantly increase costs for the NHS, something politically sensitive. But how will the charge improve funding for FE and skills?
According to the MAC’s analysis the original £1000 charge would raise over £200m, so £2000 could bring in significantly more, but of course these are estimates, and it is difficult to factor in all variables (Brexit? recession? exemptions? non-compliance?). This means the actual amount at the higher charge will likely be much lower than £400m. The Conservative manifesto promises it will be invested in ‘higher level skills training for workers in the UK’. Beyond this there has been little detail about how it would be ring-fenced or precisely where it would be spent.
Even if all the funds it (may) raise were allocated to training, this would not be enough to solve the country’s skills problem. This really is a case of the Emperor’s new clothes for FE. The sector has lost out comparatively to schools and higher education for decades, and the idea this could be redressed by a charge on immigration of high-skilled workers is frankly absurd. The underlying gap in funding was laid bare by a 2017 IFS report which showed that spending per pupil in sixth forms and FE remains at 1990 levels, while for schools it has gradually increased over the last 30 years and is now at least 70% higher.
Moreover, the ISC will only have a limited effect on reducing immigration levels – the other aim of the policy. The cost is probably not high enough to change employer behaviour significantly, especially at the high-wage end of the labour market. So why did the MAC recommend it? And why is the government so keen to present it as a solution to the skills problem? It appeals to the MAC’s economists, who break down everything into a cost-benefit analysis and see the charge as a neat way of punishing certain behaviours (recruiting immigrants) and incentivising others (investing in skills of British workers).
This really is a case of the Emperor’s new clothes for FE
For the government, using the immigration rules to deal with the skills problem is a useful way to signal something else: that immigration is to blame. It is like a re-run of the 2015 election when debates over welfare largely consisted of a race between all the political parties to raise the number of years they would remove rights to benefits for EU workers (who account for a small percentage of claimants).
Immigration is not the reason the UK has a skills problem, just as it has not made welfare or our public health system unsustainable. It does exactly the opposite. The evidence is that immigration makes a massive contribution to the UK’s fiscal wellbeing.
The government chooses to ignore this when there should be a public debate about how to spend the macro-economic dividend. Instead the Conservative Party cynically take advantage of misconceptions about immigration’s costs to scapegoat immigrants, blaming them for what is actually chronic underinvestment, while charging them (and their employers) even more into the bargain.
The MAC was originally set up to bring greater levels of rational thinking, improve the evidence base for immigration policymaking, and limit the damage done by politicisation. As is normal in the way that the MAC operates, it did not propose the policy; the government instead asked how it could be implemented. However, it has allowed itself to become party to a fallacy: that immigration causes the UK’s skills problem and offers the best way to solve it.
Alex Balch is a Senior Lecturer in International Politics and European Integration at the University of Liverpool
Conservative manifesto pledge: Double the Immigration Skills Charge to £2,000 to reinvest in FE and skills
Steven Woolfe argues FOR
I welcome the Conservative pledge to double the Immigration Skills Charge (ISC) to £2,000 per applicant.
In many respects, our immigration policy has been filling in the gaps for many flaws within our education system. For far too long, net immigration has been running at levels which are simply unsustainable. There are many complex reasons for this, but one factor is that we have been over reliant on oversees labour for far too long.
It doesn’t have to be like this. Nothing within our immigration system is unchangeable. Brexit presents a golden opportunity to implement further policy changes on immigration.
With this opportunity, I passionately believe that not only do we need a change of policy on immigration, but also a change of philosophy and thinking.
And part of that means accepting that continuing to be reliant on foreign labour is not sustainable for the UK or its future workforce.
This is why I support the proposed doubling of the ISC in the Conservative manifesto for those who enter under a Tier 2 (skilled) visa.
This proposal was first suggested by the Migration Advisory Committee last year, which is made up not of politicians like me, but independent appointees working towards a remit set by the government of the day. It suggested an initial fee of £1,000 which was introduced earlier this year.
It’s important to note that this does not stop the right of UK companies to hire migrants from abroad, but it provides an incentive to recruit directly from talent pools in the UK.
This charge will not stop doctors or nurses coming to the UK, nor workers from some other skill sectors where we have a short-term shortage, but it will ensure that a company has to explore every avenue before deciding to employ someone from abroad. It will also encourage companies to recruit and possibly train native workers into the role, which in some cases will be cheaper than paying the ISC.
The introduction of the ISC marks a significant turning point and shift in immigration policy for the long term.
The reality is, our education system in many respects is failing to create a workforce for the UK in the 21st century. This needs to change and reinvesting the funds from this charge into more skills training is a good start (although the manifesto pledge gives little detail specifically on where and how the money will be spent).
Net immigration has been running at levels which are simply unsustainable
Let’s have a look at the numbers to see how much potential revenue could be raised from a £2,000 skills charge. Last year, the UK accepted just under 94,000 Tier 2 level visas. If this level stayed the same, a £2,000 visa charge could raise £188 million per annum to reinvest in skills and education.
However, this number could be considerably different depending on when the £2,000 charge is implemented. If the charge is levied after the UK has left the European Union (and the Single Market), the sort of immigration system the UK adopts post Brexit in relation to EU countries will determine levels of Tier 2 visas in the future.
Broadly speaking, I imagine EU migrants post Brexit will be treated under the same set of rules as non-EU, meaning Tier 2 is likely to be higher in the short term. However (and especially if the ISC increases over time) Tier 2 visas may decrease organically as more companies employ and train native workers in the long term.
Those that want a complete open border are just as wrong as those that want to pull up the drawbridge. Both of those options are simply not feasible or even desirable for the UK on all levels. I want to see an immigration system that strikes the right balance and that incentivises businesses to employ home-reared talent.
Steven Woolfe is an Independent Member of European Parliament for North West England, a former barrister and author of ‘Fair, Flexible, Forward Thinking Immigration Policy’. You can find him on Twitter at @Steven_Woolfe
Labour manifesto pledge: Abandon plans for new technical colleges and use funding for more teachers
Sue Pember argues AGAINST
The Conservative and Labour manifestos both advocate investing more in the future of young people and both embrace the concept of lifelong learning, which is to be applauded. However, the way they suggest this can be achieved is different and one of the main variations is around Institutes of Technology. Conservatives would make them degree level institutes and Labour would not create them at all but invest in more teachers instead.
From my experience, there is nothing more fulfilling than working in an environment that is dedicated to a single discipline, where the teachers and students are immersed in the subject. Creativity and innovation flourish and those who are new progress quickly when they can see the accomplishments of those further along. Therefore there is a role for Institutes of Technology but whether they are separate institutions or they share buildings and backroom support with other programmes is a secondary matter.
There have been discussions about Institutes of Technology for a number of years and, although there has been some confusion over scope, most have accepted the definition described in the area review guidance and the Industrial Strategy green paper, which also confirmed the previous announcement of £170m capital funding to support their creation.
However, the Conservatives now seem to have re-interpreted the policy and instead of building on that previously published – which was to establish a new network of prestigious Institutes of Technology and national colleges to deliver high standard provision at levels 3, 4 and 5 – they now state in their manifesto that they will establish new Institutes of Technology, backed by employers and linked to leading universities, in every major city in England. They say these “Institutes of Technology will provide courses at degree level and above, specialising in technical disciplines, such as STEM, whilst also providing higher-level apprenticeships and bespoke courses for employers. They will enjoy the freedoms that make our universities great, including eligibility for public funding for productivity and skills research, and access to loans and grants for their students.”
I am not sure this change will help the goal of ensuring more people have high skills in technology. The previous remit is still required, there is still a need for a progression route and new investment focused on level 3, 4 and 5 will be essential.
While Conservative party manifesto drafters were redefining Institutes of Technology, the Labour party drafters were building on a UCU call from earlier in the year saying: “If government wants to support technical education it should invest in our further education colleges who desperately need thousands more teachers, rather than another set of gimmicks.”
If government wants to support technical education it should invest in our further education colleges
To support this approach, Labour in their manifesto state they would abandon Conservative plans to once again reinvent the wheel by building new technical colleges, redirecting the money to increase teacher numbers in the FE sector.
However, whether we rebadge all or part of HE or FE institutions to become Institutes of Technology or create new ones is not the immediate issue; the important part of this discussion and set of proposals is that both political parties recognise that as a country we need more technically qualified people.
To fulfil that commitment, they will need to support expansion, they will have to invest in physical resources to make that possible and also increase the number of teachers. In doing so, they will also need to consider the requirements of T levels and increasing student hours to 900 a year. Again, this will increase the number of teachers needed. The priority will be to find them, recruit them and ensure these teachers have the advanced skills needed to teach at these levels and have industry relevant experience. And any new proposals must also cover the costs of teacher development and retraining.
Sue Pember is director of policy and external relations at HOLEX
The think tank says that while the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats are all proposing to spend more on this age group over the course of the next parliament, only Labour’s spending plans will result in a real-terms increase.
The other two parties would, meanwhile, do enough to keep per-pupil spending for 16 to 18-year-olds constant in real terms.
And the IFS also says that although the Labour and Conservative proposals for sixth form funding “would represent larger increases” than their commitments on schools spending, “all would leave spending per 16 to 18 year-old pupils around 10 per cent lower than the parties’ respective proposals for secondary schools”.
The IFS said: “The Conservative manifesto.. would effectively result in a real-terms freeze in 16-18 spending per pupil over the next parliament.
“This has a similar effect to the Liberal Democrats’ proposal to protect per pupil funding of schools and colleges in real terms.”
However, the IFS added, these plans would still leave spending per pupil on 16 to 18 year olds in 2021-22 around 14 per cent below its peak in 2011-12.
It added: “In the case of the Conservatives, because plans for 16-18 education are slightly more generous than those for schools, the gap between 16-18 education and secondary school spending per student would shrink slightly from its current level of 13 per cent to around 10 per cent in 2021–22.”
Labour’s proposals would, according to the IFS, increase 16-18 spending per pupil to £5,800, a real increase of 8 per cent over the parliament.
But “this would still leave spending per student in 16-18 education about 11 per cent below that for secondary schools in 2021–22”.
According to the IFS, spending on 16 to 18-year-olds has “fared substantially worse” than other areas of education funding.
Spending per 16 to 18-year-old pupil in 1990-91 was more than 50 per cent higher than spending per secondary school pupil, but by 2017–18 it was 13 per cent lower. This decline was the result of deeper cuts in the 1990s, slower growth in the 2000s, and being one of the only areas of education spending to be cut under the coalition government, the IFS says.
It said: “In Budget 2017, the Conservative government committed to following the recommendations of the Sainsbury review for post-16 education.
“These reforms would introduce ‘T-levels’ for technical education – slimming down the thousands of vocational qualifications currently on offer to 15 different lines of learning – and increase the number of teaching hours on some technical routes by more than 50 per cent.”
It recognised that the Conservative government committed £420 million of additional investment in 2021-22 for the implementation of these reforms.
The spokesperson added “If, after the Spending Review period, spending per pupil would – excluding the additional £420 million – have been frozen in cash terms between 2019-20 and 2021-22 (as was the case between 2010-11 and 2019-20), then total spending per pupil including the extra £420 millon would be about the same real-terms level in 2021-22 as it is today.”
Labour manifesto pledge: Abandon plans for new technical colleges and use funding for more teachers
Mick Fletcher argues FOR
If there is one thing that almost everyone in FE can agree on, it is the need for a reduction in the degree of turbulence faced by the sector. No-one is against change but there is a clear consensus that too much of the change affecting the sector in recent years has been ill thought-out, poorly managed and above all temporary. In that sense, the proposal by Labour to abandon plans to reinvent the wheel will be music to very many ears.
The precise wording in Labour’s manifesto is as follows: “Labour would abandon Conservative plans to once again reinvent the wheel by building new technical colleges”. Clear enough you might think, but it is symptomatic of the state of the sector that there are at least three wheels they could be referring to. Most people would be happy for them to abandon all three.
One possibility is that they are referring to new University Technical Colleges (UTCs). At the time of the last election the main parties were vying with each other as to who could open the most UTCs but as each day passes the failure of this educational experiment becomes more evident. It’s not that vocational education for some 14-19 year olds is a bad idea; it’s just that it’s crazy to allow a group of well-connected idealists to attempt to graft a few 14-19 institutions onto a system that rejects a 14-19 phase; and it’s silly to set up schools to deliver an FE curriculum.
Another possibility is that they are referring to national colleges, which at one stage appeared to be springing up with every ministerial whim. After the new Nuclear College and the HS2 College, one half expected the National College of Brexit Negotiators. Fortunately, the pace of invention seems to have slowed; and ‘new’ in relation to national colleges seems to have more to do with badging collaborative activity than setting up new structures. One of the recent ones, for example, is described as ‘a network of hubs’, seemingly reinventing spokes as well as wheels.
One half expected the National College of Brexit Negotiators
The most likely candidates for Labour’s dustbin, however, would seem to be the proposed new Institutes of Technology (IoT) intended to be the flagships of the new technical revolution launched by Lord Sainsbury and supported by the Industrial Strategy green paper.
The Conservative pitch at this election is about stability but their policy on IoTs has been very far from stable. In the Post-16 Skills Plan – not yet 12 months old but looking increasingly out of date – the IoTs are seen as being built around existing infrastructure (though playing second fiddle to yet more national colleges). By the time of the Industrial Strategy green paper however, just six months later, they were announcing plans to develop “prestigious new Institutes of Technology to deliver higher-level technical education in all regions”. In the Conservative manifesto – barely three months further on – they had moved from all regions to one in every major city. At this pace of policy development there’ll be one around every corner before Christmas.
Labour is absolutely right to call a halt to this nonsense. We have a perfectly good network of FE colleges, most of which offer technical education at advanced level as well as the upper secondary phase. Some 10% of undergraduate higher education is offered in FE colleges and, as analysis for the Education and Training Foundation has shown, is clearly focussed on local employment opportunities. Colleges already offer degrees, foundation degrees, HNC/D and professional qualifications. We need to invest more in what we have, rather than wheel out yet another wheeze.
