Minister announces T-levels delay

The first T-levels will be delayed until September 2020 – a year later than planned – the government has announced

The first two pathfinder qualifications were supposed to be approved by February 2019, with teaching to commence from that September, according to England’s post-16 skills plan, published July 2016 and based on the recommendations from the Sainsbury review of technical education.

The remaining routes were then intended to be phased in from 2020 to 2022, a timescale that had been branded “impossible” by several major awarding bodies including City & Guilds.

Now, apprenticeships and skills minister Anne Milton (pictured above) has announced that she will delay delivery of the first qualifications by 12 months.

In an answer to a parliamentary question tabled by Rebecca Pow today, Ms Milton said: “The post-16 skills plan set out our plan to reform technical education including the introduction of 15 new technical routes to skilled employment, new college-based training programmes based on employer-designed standards, and high quality T-level work placements.

“My officials have now carried out extensive testing of the current delivery plans, including in relation to work placement provision, in discussion with employers, providers and awarding organisations.

“Following that assessment, we have concluded that we will deliver a small number of T-levels from September 2020.”

The remaining T-level routes will still be available as planned in September 2022.

Ms Milton added that over the summer, the Department for Education would “continue to refine and develop our plans working with business and the providers, and we will provide an update on progress in the autumn”.

Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, welcomed today’s announcement: “This is a major reform programme that with deserves careful consideration to ensure that the curriculum and qualifications are world leading and stand the test of time. It’s a welcome development given the time concerns previously voiced.”

Pippa Morgan, head of education and skills at the Confederation of British Industry, said the delay was “welcome news” because the technical education reforms were “important and complicated”.

 

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, added that he welcomed the timetable change because T-levels will require a “massive effort because of the complexity of the change, but also because we also collectively need to challenge the snobbery and unfairness which goes well beyond the education system”.

Today’s announcement follows a host of FE Week stories that have revealed a crisis in T-level planning. The DfE’s consultation on new qualifications has been pushed back until later this autumn, prompting several major awarding bodies to beg it to rethink its “impossible” timetable.

On Tuesday (July 18), we revealed that no-one has yet been appointed to the T-level advisory development panels that should have met for the first time four months ago, even though they will be instrumental in the development of the new qualifications.

And earlier today (July 20), the crisis deepened even further after a new DfE report suggested Lord Sainsbury’s recommendation to have one awarding organisation per qualification was not viable.

Other important stages in the process include procurement for the new technical qualifications, which is still due to begin in October 2018.

Smith review calls for rethink on GCSE maths resit policy

The government’s controversial policy on post-16 GCSE resits should be rethought, according to the author of a new government-commissioned review out today.

However, Professor Sir Adrian Smith’s plea was quickly rejected by the Department for Education.

Prof Smith made the recommendation in his long-awaited review of post-16 mathematics, first announced in the March 2016 budget, which looks at how to improve the study of the subject.

But the leading academic stopped short of recommending that everyone should continue to study the subject until the age of 18 – one of the key issues he was tasked to investigate – amid concerns over the lack of resources across the education system.

“In view of the low GCSE success rates and new GCSE requirements, the Department for Education should review its 16-to-18 resit policy with the aim that a greater proportion of students without a grade C or equivalent attain appropriate mathematical understanding by age 18,” he said.

“Specifically, there should be fresh consideration of appropriate curricula and qualifications for these students and the extent to which current policy incentivises these to be offered.”

In his response on behalf of the DfE, the schools minister Nick Gibb said he understood Prof Smith’s “concern” about the “need for high-quality alternative curricula and qualifications for students aged 16-18 for whom GCSEs are not appropriate”.

He continued: “We recognise the need to improve the quality and recognition from employers of alternative qualifications such as functional skills. This is why we are reforming these qualifications.”

However, “the current policy will stay in place in 2017/18”, he said, though he committed to monitoring it “to assess whether it is having the desired impact”.

Since 2014, all 16- to 19-year-olds without at least a grade C in GCSE maths or English have had to enrol in courses in these subjects alongside their main programme of study.

This requirement was tightened in 2015 to require all of those with a grade D in those subjects to sit a GCSE course, rather than an equivalent stepping-stone course such as functional skills.

But after last year’s GCSE results showed huge numbers of learners aged 17 and older failed to up their grades in resits, many in the sector called on the government to scrap the policy.

And the 2016 Ofsted annual report, published in December, said the resit policy was not working as the government had hoped.

There had even been hints from both education secretary Justine Greening and former skills minister Robert Halfon late last year that the government was going to U-turn on the policy, which have so far come to nothing.

The Smith review was first announced by former chancellor George Osborne as part of the March 2016 budget.

According to the accompanying documents, the government asked Prof Smith “to review the case for how to improve the study of maths from 16 to 18, to ensure the future workforce is skilled and competitive, including looking at the case and feasibility for more or all students continuing to study maths to 18, in the longer term”.

In his foreword to today’s report, Prof Smith said his “clear conclusion is that we do not yet have the appropriate range of pathways available or the capacity to deliver the required volume and range of teaching” for “most or all students” to continue studying maths until 18.

Instead he said the “government should set an ambition for 16-to-18 mathematics to become universal in 10 years.”

Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers said of today’s report: “Maths is important for the whole population and it’s not being helped by a policy that leads to tens of thousands of young people retaking GCSEs.  

“Functional skills are a good alternative, but the government needs to fund them properly if it is genuine about the apprenticeship programme being a quality option for young people and adults.”

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said he was “disappointed” by the DfE’s “snap judgement” on Prof Smith’s resit rethink call, and urged the department to “reconsider this issue” ahead of 2018/19.

“After four years of putting students through GCSE resits, colleges can confirm that the policy does not work and is an obstacle to the ambition that we all share,” he said.

Other recommendations in the report include a call for the Institute for Apprenticeships to work with maths experts “to ensure appropriate expert advice is available to the panels of professionals developing technical routes”.

Prof Smith also urged the DfE to “reconsider the institutional incentives and disincentives arising from the 16-to-19 funding model for schools and colleges, with a view to removing disincentives for mathematics provision”.

In order to address the challenges facing the FE sector in terms of recruiting enough maths teachers, he wants the DfE to “improve the evidence base on the FE workforce teaching mathematics and quantitative skills in order to assess supply, teaching quality and the effectiveness of current recruitment measures” and “expand its support to develop excellence in GCSE mathematics teaching across the FE sector”.

As part of its response to the Smith review, the DfE today announced a £16 million level three maths support programme, starting from April 2018.

The programme, worth £8 million a year for two years, aims to improve the quality and capacity of post-16 maths teaching and to increase the number of students studying level three maths.

Ofqual to investigate DCS qualifications fraud

The country’s exams regulator has begun an investigation into “direct claim status” in an attempt to tackle qualifications malpractice in FE.

Last year, Ofqual launched an inquiry into qualifications fraud in the private security sector after a sting by the BBC found staff at Ashley Commerce College, in Ilford, were prepared to sit exams for students training to work as security guards.

FE Week reported in February that following the regulator’s own wider investigation into the misconduct, which revealed some awarding organisations had inadequate arrangements with their training providers, one exam board, Industry Qualifications, was notified of an intention to be charged a £50,000 fine in relation to 13 breaches, the review of which is currently ongoing.

Now, the regulator says it is researching DCS – a reward system that allows providers to make claims for qualification achievements without external verification from their awarding organisation first.

In Ofqual’s annual report and accounts, published today, it said: “In spring 2017, we published a report covering the potential for malpractice and maladministration during 2015 and 2016 in qualifications required for working in the private security industry.

“We have begun to review whether there are other qualifications and sectors where there may be similar risks.

“We have already started a wider research programme to consider the risks associated with ‘Direct Claim Status’ across all sectors.”

Read more: Tough doorman quals assurance after fraud probe

DCS is awarded to those providers that meet quality criteria defined by their awarding organisation, usually on an individual qualification basis, after they meet certain criteria.

A source told FE Week that DCS is incredibly popular with providers because they are able to offer a quick turnaround from assessment to certification, but that it can be high-risk for a number of reasons.

There’s usually a long period of time between a qualification being awarded and a review of the awarding organisation – sometimes up to a year.

“Should an awarding organisation subsequently choose to remove DCS there may be learners that have been awarded qualifications that they did not fully achieve,” the source said. “Tracking those learners down and rescinding the qualification is a difficult proposition.”

DCS is also traditionally awarded where a provider’s staff demonstrate that procedures meet quality requirements. But when there is a change in personnel, if the awarding organisations aren’t notified, it can lead to the issue of incorrect certificates.

Ofqual said had nothing else to add other than it was in the evidence gathering stage of the investigation.

Why doesn’t FE Week have more diverse representation?

Apparently, 55% of senior leaders in FE are women. I don’t believe it.

A large part of my job is to find interesting voices in the sector who want to express an opinion, challenge the status quo, or simply join in the wider debate.

Yet I would estimate that 80-90% of the emails I receive offering me expert features written by heads of organisations to run in FE Week are written by women – women who are putting a man forward to write the piece.

That’s not these women’s fault – it’s usually their job, and the person they are representing is often legitimately the most senior person at their organisation who is an expert in that topic. My heart still sinks every time.

That’s not because I don’t think men can write; just as with women, some can, some can’t. And it’s not because I don’t appreciate their getting in touch with me – it’s because every time I see an unsolicited email from a woman, I have hope that she might be putting herself forward.

She rarely is.

READ MORE: How to get more women into FE leadership

I know what it’s like to suffer from a lack of confidence, and I do empathise. Not everyone wants to be part of the public debate. But what really brought it home to me was a recent comment from Robert Halfon, the former skills and apprenticeships minister, who told the FE Week team that in his time as minister, not a single day went by when our newspaper wasn’t discussed in some context in his office.

That’s huge.

To have the ear of those is power is a weighty responsibility on our shoulders. It means we need to be sure we are representing the full spectrum of informed views and groups across the sector, and I’m not convinced that we do.

Women leaders in FE exist – I know they do. Women with strong opinions have contacted me – occasionally – about writing for us. But not in anything like the volume that men do.

The stats also tell me they are out there. Fifty-five per cent of senior managers in FE are women, according to the latest Education and Training Foundation data.

Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) figures are a little more disheartening: while 14% of the population registered as non-white in the latest census (and this is an underestimate for England, as Wales is also included in this data), only around 11% of college staff in England are BAME, a figure which drops to 5% for independent training providers. The percentages for teaching staff in both types of provider are similar, but only 9% of college managers are BAME, while the ETF couldn’t even provide data for ITPs as the number of responses was too low to give a robust figure.

Most people hate to think they are being approached due to their skin colour or genitalia

Whenever I go to conferences, I try to meet women and people of diverse ethnic origin. That can be a little awkward. Firstly because everyone harbours some degree of mistrust towards journalists, and secondly because if I ever casually mention that I’m looking to improve the diversity of our publication, most people hate to think they are being approached not because of their innate merit, but due to their skin colour or genitalia.

That’s not the case, but the problem exists. We have far more white men’s opinions represented in our paper than is representative of the sector. And while they may be supremely qualified to write about their subject, there are also women and BAME people of all genders who know what they’re talking about.

In order to diversify our contributors, I need to throw the net out wide. And one or two of those people will turn out to have the right combination of talent, insight (and the freedom to speak out) that is required to attract the attention of the decision-makers.

I see the Features section of FE Week as something of a bulletin board – curated of course, but still a place where people from all over the sector can have their say (that’s the Opinion section), tell people about exciting projects their college or institution has been up to (that’s the Campus round-up) or where they’re moving next (Movers & Shakers).

I’d just love it to be a more representative one. So I’m reaching out. Now it’s up to you to do the same.

@cathmurray_news

cath.murray@feweek.co.uk

Breaking: Apprenticeship pay survey exposes rise in proportion paid illegal wages

Nearly a fifth of apprentices at level two and level three are illegally paid less than the minimum wage, according to the government’s long-delayed apprenticeship pay survey.

Eighteen per cent were found to be paid below the appropriate national minimum wage or national living wage (for workers aged 25 and above), up from 15 per cent in 2014.

The survey, which aims to find whether apprentices are receiving the correct remuneration, was first announced in May 2016, and finally found its way online today.

Hairdressing apprentices are “by far the most likely to have received non-compliant pay”, the survey said, rising to 47 per cent in 2016 from 42 per cent in 2014, while “those on the management framework were least likely” – up to seven per cent in 2016, from three per cent in 2014.

Other sectors with significant non-compliance included construction and related, which rose from 24 per cent in 2014 to 28 per cent in 2016. Health, social care and sport rose from 12 to 17 per cent, electrotechnical was up from 17 to 24 per cent, while hospitality and catering went from nine to 15 per cent.

The 2016 survey was carried out through telephone interviews with apprentices between June 9 and July 25 last year.

In total, “4,963 interviews were conducted with level two and three apprentices in England, and 184 with apprentices on the new apprenticeship standards developed by ‘Trailblazer’ employer groups.”

The figures painted a largely worrying picture at level two and three.

For those aged 16 to 18 or in their first year of an apprenticeship, 13 per cent were paid below the NMW – up three per cent from the 2014 survey. And for ages 19 to 20 and in second year of their apprenticeship, the figure was 32 per cent for 2014, up two per cent last year.

It was a different story for those aged 21 to 24 and in their second year of apprenticeships – with 32 per cent earning below the NMW, down five per cent from two years earlier.

But for the 25+ age group in their second year of apprenticeships, the proportion was up from 23 to 31 per cent.

Non-compliant pay was more common among level two apprentices (20 per cent) than those on level three provision (16 per cent).

The report stressed that “when comparing compliance levels between 2014 and 2016, it is important to note that the lowest NMW rate for apprentices underwent a considerable increase between October 2013 and October 2015 (the rate applicable for the 2016 survey)” – from £2.68 to £3.30. This went up again to £3.50 an hour in April this year.

The new NLW rate came into force from April 2016, creating a new minimum £7.20 rate for all those aged 25 and over or in the second year of their apprenticeship or later.

It was also noted that although levels of non-compliance had increased since 2014, so too had the proportion paid over £9 an hour: 18 per cent last year compared with 15 per cent in 2014.

Commenting on these findings, Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said: “The survey clearly shows that if there is a long-term relationship between the apprentice and the employer, the apprentice will on average earn a salary well over the minimum wage.”  

But he stressed: “At the other end of the scale, there is absolutely no excuse for paying less than the legal minimum.”

Interim “high-level” results of the survey were released in October, as part of a report for the Low Pay Commission, the independent body that advises the government on minimum wage levels.

These indicated that the proportion of apprentices earning below the NMW had gone up, but months subsequently passed without a full report.

FE Week learned in April that the researchers who carried out the work handed a final draft of their report to the government way back in January.

Mark Winterbotham, the director of the firm which carried out the survey, told FE Week at the time that he didn’t know why it hadn’t yet been published.

He insisted his organisation had handed the final drafts of the reports over to the government in January, but admitted he had “not had any communication since early March” with the research team at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

The all-party parliamentary group on apprenticeships further recommended earlier this month, in its annual report, that pay for apprentices should be far more flexible, increasing in line with their experience and level of qualification.

It recommended that apprentices’ pay should be increased like this “to ensure that the apprentice route is attractive to as many people as possible”.

 

How World Youth Skills Day can help with social mobility

Inequality is a major problem for many 18- to 24-year-olds, but Neil Bentley believes WorldSkills UK can play a part in helping the disadvantaged move up in society

“Young people losing hope over life chances,” was the damning conclusion of the recent Social Mobility Barometer, which looked at public attitudes to social mobility in the UK. The report certainly makes for challenging reading for all of us interested in seeing young people succeed in work and life.

A poll of nearly 5,000 people across the UK, it revealed that nearly 48 per cent believe that where you end up in society today is mainly determined by your background and who your parents are. This is compared with only 32 per cent who believe everyone has a fair chance to get on regardless of their background.

In addition, the poll also reveals a geographical divide, with 71 per cent claiming that they feel that there are ‘fairly or very’ large differences in opportunity depending where you live in the UK.  

Clearly, we have a problem with social mobility in this country

However, what struck me most about the report was the feelings of social pessimism among young people. The barometer found that half of young people think the situation is getting worse, and only 30 per cent of 18- to 24-year-olds believe it is becoming easier to move up in society.

Clearly, we have got a problem with social mobility in this country, but I don’t want to lament the barometer’s findings because I’m not sure it takes us very far. The more interesting question, and the one we should all be focusing on, is how we can address the challenge.

Among the troubling data, there is more than just a glimmer of hope. While 18- to 24-year-olds are clearly very concerned about social mobility, the findings showed that they are actually the most optimistic that those from less advantaged backgrounds can get on in life.

I think that this greater sense of optimism is rooted in our younger generation’s innate ability to tackle a challenge and make the most of it. This was certainly shown at the recent turnout for the general election. The best estimates indicate that over 20 per cent more 18- to 24-year-olds voted than in 2015. This showed what those of us who have the privilege of working with young people already know to be true: they believe in and want to help shape a better future for all.

I certainly see this optimism when I meet members of Team UK and also young apprentices from around the world who are in training to represent their countries at WorldSkills Abu Dhabi 2017. Background is irrelevant when it comes to world-class competition and there really is a positive message when it comes to social mobility from these competitors.

Past and present members of Team UK are products of their local FE colleges, training providers and businesses across all industries. That in itself is a real statement about the ability of the UK’s education and training system to give our young people the start in life they deserve. But it is only half the story.

After they have finished their competition journey, members of Team UK continue to work with us visiting schools and businesses in their local communities. They are now hugely successful in their own right. Our skills champions include numerous entrepreneurs, key employees at well-known organisations and inspirational mentors. They have an important message to share: by investing in young people’s skills and building their confidence we can accelerate their progress in work and life.

That is also why, as a member of WorldSkills, WorldSkills UK, together with the 75 countries and regions that make up the international skills body, promoted ‘Skills for All’ on World Youth Skills Day on 15 July. This United Nations-designated day seeks to generate greater awareness of the importance of technical education and training in transforming the lives of young people around the world.

The members of Team UK are living proof of this.

Dr Neil Bentley is chief executive of WorldSkills UK

Exclusive: T-Level crisis exposed as DfE fail to appoint any advisory panel members

More trouble has erupted in T-Level planning, after it emerged that no-one has yet been appointed to the advisory development panels that should have met for the first time four months ago.

FE Week made a Freedom of Information request for the names of all the appointments made to these technical education panels, after the Department for Education repeatedly refused to say whether or not they had recruited to the paid positions.

In the response to the FoI request, a spokesperson said: “Following a search of the department’s paper and electronic records, I have established that we have yet to make appointments to the panels of professionals, so do not yet hold this information.

“We are currently reviewing proposals and expect to make appointments to the panels shortly.”

The DfE posted job adverts seeking industry professionals to serve as panel members or chairs back in January.

These were to serve on “panels of professionals” that would “develop occupational standards for new technical qualifications, as part of flagship reforms to England’s post-16-skills system”.

Panellists’ employers would be paid £1,000 a quarter, and the chairs’ employers would receive £2,000 a quarter.

According to the adverts, the DfE had been aiming to notify successful applicants “in the spring” of this year – and the first panels were expected to start work in March.

The front page of Edition 215 in June

But when FE Week asked for an update on the panels in June, as part of an investigation into whether T-level plans were in trouble, we were told that an announcement would be made “in due course”.

And when we asked again the following week – after education secretary Justine Greening urged businesses to get behind T-levels during a speech to the British Chambers of Commerce – we were told that further details were still unavailable.

Several major awarding bodies including City and Guilds have recently pleaded with the government to rethink the “impossible” T-level timetable, amid growing evidence that plans are already running behind schedule.

According to the skills plan published July 2016, and based on the recommendations from the Sainsbury review of technical education, the first two pathfinder routes are meant to be ready for teaching from September 2019.

But this depends on reaching a number of milestones on time, including setting up these panels of industry experts to help with the development of the new qualifications.

At the same time, the Institute for Apprenticeships is also establishing “prestigious employer-led groups” to help shape the future of the apprenticeship programme.

The names of the 15 chairs for the IfA panels were announced in April, while adverts for the panel members were posted in June.

Mark Dawe, the chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, last month branded the two separate sets of panels “a recipe for a lack of joined up decisions and inconsistent outcomes”.

Global STEM challenge exhibits at Formula 1 Live in London event

An international STEM competition for apprentices and young people, F1 in Schools, exhibited at the first-ever Formula 1 Live in London event last week.

The event brought together Formula 1 drivers, musicians and supercar fans, and was hosted in London’s Trafalgar Square.

F1 Live in London

Positioned in the ‘innovation showcase’ area of the event, F1 in Schools – which challenges young people to make their own Formula 1 cars – had former winners of the competition talking to interested youngsters about their experiences taking part.

The innovation showcase area aimed to promote opportunities available to children and young people interested in pursuing a future career in Formula 1, with engineering competition Formula Student and female engineer community, Dare to Be Different, also promoting their work.

Part of the F1 in Schools showcase also extended to the event’s ‘design and make’ area, where visitors were shown demonstrations of how the miniature cars used in the competition are designed, manufactured and wind tunnel tested.

The challenge, which is open to 11 to 18-year-olds, recently opened an apprentice category for UK competitors for 2017.

With regional, national and global heats, rewards for successful teams include tickets to the British Grand Prix, tours of the McClaren factory and scholarships and bursaries to some of the UKs top engineering universities.

Founder and chairman of F1 in Schools, Andrew Denford, said: “We never expected so many people to attend. There has been so much interest in what we do, how we’re involved with the sport and the opportunities that our students have to forge a career in Formula 1.

“The concept of F1 Live London was very ambitious, but it has been so well organised and given so many people the chance to experience Formula 1 and what goes on around it.”

Mystery surrounds late Learndirect performance breach

The nation’s largest FE provider has finally been hit with a serious performance breach notice, a month after its apprenticeship achievement rates plummeted below minimum standards.

But some in the sector are wondering why the notice did not appear earlier – or why it was only eventually included in the government’s notices of concern list on Friday.

The omission is particularly confusing because the issue date listed on the notice is March 14.

The provider giant’s apprenticeship achievement rate tumbled from 65.1 per cent in 2014/15 to just 57.8 per cent for the last academic year, according to national data released last month by the Education and Skills Funding Agency. This brought it below the minimum standards threshold of 62 per cent.

Commenting on this unusual delay, a spokesperson for the company said: “It is not appropriate for Learndirect to comment on a government publication.”

The DfE also declined to provide any comment.

The consequences of being issued a notice of serious breach can include a ban on recruiting new learners or applying for additional funding, according to the agency’s approach to intervention.

Learndirect was one of a number of providers to have fallen foul of recent changes in the way achievement rates are calculated, which led to a slew of notices of concern or serious breach sent to providers.

As previously reported by FE Week, 35 providers were hit with such notices in March for failing to meet minimum standards, according to an ESFA list published in April.

But Learndirect wasn’t among them – nor was it on the list when we reported on its falling achievement rates in June.

The reason for this delay is still unclear, although it could have been connected to firm’s reference number.

FE Week heard rumours back in June that the ESFA had formally informed Learndirect that it would be permitted to switch a new UK Provider Reference Number – which is now its only one on the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers.

Such a move would have allowed the provider, which had almost 200,000 learners at its most recent Ofsted report in 2013, in which it was rated ‘good’, to wipe the slate clean concerning low achievement rates.

However, both Learndirect and the ESFA have denied this had been allowed, just days before the backdated notice finally appeared on the list.

Two months before this, FE Week reported that Learndirect employees had been informed they were to be placed in a month-long consultancy period, facing potential job cuts.

A spokesperson told us at the time that this was because it was no longer going to offer GCSEs as part of its early-years courses.

But in June it emerged that up to one in 10 Learndirect staff could face redundancy as a result of a restructuring programme, initiated in response to “uncertainty relating to the outcome of the adult education budget procurement process, and a business decision to focus on levy-only apprenticeship delivery”, according to group chief executive Andy Palmer.