NCFE – Written evidence (HFV0017)
About NCFE
NCFE is an expert in designing and assessing Technical Education qualifications with nearly 170 years of experience.
As a registered educational charity, we are committed to changing the lives of learners and supporting people to progress and achieve. Everyone from our customer experience to innovation team helps to support this commitment. These qualifications have contributed to the success of millions of learners at all levels, bringing them closer to fulfilling their personal goals. Last year alone, across the NCFE and CACHE brands over 340,000 learners from over 2,000 colleges, schools and training organisations chose NCFE as the Awarding Organisation to help them move into a job or progress in their careers.
More information is available at www.ncfe.org.uk.
Andrew Gladstone-Heighton
Policy Leader
NCFE
NCFE response
Is the current structure of post-school education and training, and the way it is financed, appropriate for the modern British economy?
1. The post-school education sector has traditionally meant ‘post-16 learners’, however the recent introduction of legislation raising the participation age (RPA) has confused this definition somewhat. The RPA legislation in 2013 has enabled young people undertaking education or employment with training until the end of the academic year that they turn 18 year old.
2. However, as commentators such as Lord Baker have noted, we still have an exit exam (the GCSE) taken at 16, rather than 18 when a learner actually ‘leaves’ formal education. This conclusion of results 2 years before leaving seems to undermine the importance of the learning that could be achieved in 2 further years of study.
3. The GCSE also casts a shadow back over the education system, with schools incentivised to deliver the best GCSE outcome rather than the best overall learning outcome upon learner leaving, the corresponding emphasis and focus is on 16 year olds and the GCSE. This can be detrimental to a wider curriculum that could include more technical options, creating more technically skilled and work-ready learners[1].
4. The Further Education sector is also expected to deliver GCSE outcomes for English and maths. However, it is to those learners who have not yet achieved their GCSE[2], at a comparably lower funding rate than schools[3].
5. The current reforms driving change within the sector have been initiated by a limited number of employers constrained to certain sector of the economy. The Apprenticeship reform programme currently being rolled out is based on the Richards Review of Apprenticeships (2012), led by entrepreneur Doug Richard. The Post -16 Skills Plan, which is informing the current cycle of qualification reform has been led by Lord Sainsbury.
6. Both of these reviews have taken on the flavour of those leading them, and have been partially based on assumptions of the existing technical education system that may not necessarily hold true[4]. This means that policy is being made on the basis of personal opinion often alluded to as ‘policy based evidence making’, rather than fact based decisions ensuring an appropriate response to meet the future skills needs of the British economy.
7. The centrepiece of Technical Education reforms moving forward is aimed at Vocational Qualifications (VQs). On this occasion however, reform of content is also allied to a proposal to remove a competitive market for VQs by awarding exclusive licences to develop qualifications for each of the 15 routes. This is a high risk strategy which has already been considered and rejected for academic qualifications[5].
8. The other cultural factor is the environment of constant change and reform in the Further Education sector which makes it more difficult to understand the structure and associated financing of FE. The subsequent confusion means that people are less likely to explore the opportunities being offered. This constant reform leads to frustration and confusion in the sector as changes are not allowed to be embedded, with no institution or individual accountable for the outcome. For example; ‘Since 1981 there have been 28 major Acts related to the development, organisation and structure of vocational and further education and skills training in
the UK’[6], in addition ‘As well as ministerial change, skills and industrial policy has changed departments or been shared with different departments in no fewer than ten instances since the 1980s.’[7]
9. Constant reform in the FE sector has led to cycle of change and constantly shifting qualification types being delivered, which means there is no real basis for comparison or longitudinal focus on the educational outcomes being delivered.
Funding
10. The post 16 education sector has been cut significantly. The Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis Long-run comparisons of spending per pupil across different stages of education[8] shows that:
‘In 1990–91, spending per student in Further Education was nearly 50% higher than spending per student in secondary schools, but in 2015–16 it was 10% lower, at around £5,600 per student. Spending on Further Education fell faster during the 1990s, grew more slowly in the 2000s, and has been the only major area of education spending to see cuts since 2010.’
11. They also add that on current trends; ‘Spending per student in 16–18 education is set to fall further between 2015–16 and 2019–20, leaving spending per student at a similar level in real terms to that 30 years previously’[10]
12. This is concerning, as most learners who study in the Further Education Sector traditionally need greater resource investment due the more challenging nature of this cohort[11].
If not, what changes are required to develop a system that meets the needs of enterprise and the labour market whilst providing value for students and the Government?
13. We recently set out our recommendations in support of the government’s Technical Education reform agenda as part of the NCFE and the Campaign for learning report ‘Reforming Technical and Professional Education - Why should it work this time?’[12]
14. To help promote Technical Education as a strong and prestigious alternative to the academic route, and to succeed where earlier attempts have failed, government should:
14.1 ‘develop a more convincing definition of technical and professional education and set it in the context of a plan that relates to all types of occupation. In addition it should define and use more carefully the terms STEM, technical education and further education
14.2 be clearer about where new recruits to technical education - aged 16-17 and 18 and over - are to come from
14.3 not proceed with the proposals to remove competition from the market for vocational qualifications
14.4 set out clear proposals on how plans for the devolution of skills in terms of planning and funding, revenue and capital will operate in respect of technical and professional education. More specifically, the government should ask itself whether technical and professional education up to level 3 can thrive in a system where some is funded via the Adult Education Budget and devolved while other aspects are funded via fee loans ?
14.5 develop proposals for substantial vocational college based routes not defined as technical education at levels 1 and 2, especially for 16-18 year olds’
15. In addition to the above, we would value clarity around the governments’ Industrial Strategy, both in terms of anticipated skills needs in all sectors of the economy, and commitments to long term funding alignment based around upskilling these sectors.
16. We would also value an evolution of the government’s thinking around the 2017 Conservative Party Manifesto, commitment “We will deliver our commitment to create 3 million apprenticeships for young people by 2020 and in doing so we will drive up the quality of apprenticeships to ensure they deliver the skills employers need”. The 3 million target focuses on apprenticeship programmes started, not those completed, so provides a distorted view of volume of training delivered, value added to the economy and return on levy investment.
17. We would also request a further investigation into the cost benefit analysis of apprentice recruitment, training and employment versus recruitment of regular employees. There would be valuable information in comparing the return on investment to an employer in recruiting an apprentice against recruitment through other channels.
18. We propose a number of more realistic measures that would give a clearer indication of the value added by apprenticeships undertaken:
18.1 Number of apprenticeship completions
18.2 Number of apprentices in sustained employment both within the sector they completed their apprenticeship in and through movement to another sector following completion
18.3 Wage during and after apprenticeship
18.4 Increase in employer productivity following apprenticeships
19. These recommendations would help create a Technical Education system that would avoid the pitfalls of the past, and create rounded and resilient employees for the future. It would also allow for Further Education providers to engage in long term planning in providing the skills the economy needs.
9 August 2017