LSRN Strategic Discussion WorkshopWorkplace Skills and Qualifications:

evidence and policy

Tuesday 9 May 2017

80 The Strand, London WC2R 0RL

CONTENTS

Page

The workshop 2

Position paper 3

LSRN purpose and values 4

Speakers’ biographies 5

Information from participants 9

LSRN contacts 20

1

2

THE WORKSHOP

This event is hosted by Pearson. Planning for the event was supported by a small grant made by the Education and Training Foundation to support the work of LSRN during 2016-17.

The LSRN event planning team were Andrew Morris and Anne Thompson. The event was organised by the NfER Events and Conference Team on behalf of LSRN, in liaison with Pearson.

POSITION PAPER

An ongoing debate in the Further Education sector and skills landscape broadly has been the question of how skills are formed and how learners are best supported to engage with such skills. The three primary modes of skills development are qualifications, experience and workplace training.

The Wolf Report (2011) was critical of this aspect of the FE sector’s outcomes and argued that a significant number of qualifications that the sector delivered, particularly short courses, did the learner little good and had no real social and economic impact. It argued, along the lines of OECD reports on vocational education and training, that longer courses, underpinned by English and Maths qualifications were the right platform for skills formation. But it also proposed: ‘as a matter of urgency, that more 16-19 year olds be given opportunities to spend substantial periods in the workplace, undertaking genuine workplace activities, in order to develop the general skills which the labour market demonstrably values.’

The developing policy around such skills is given even greater prominence in the DfE Post-16 Skills Plan (2016) which raises even more explicitly further considerations around parallel and related question about skills. Reflecting the proposals of the Independent Panel on Technical Education (The Sainsbury Review), the Skills Plan opts for the recommendation of substantial, high quality work placements in the technical education routes. And, moreover, work placements that are part of the learner’s evidence of accomplishments in order to complete the ‘study programme’. This suggests that there is a yet to be articulated framework for bringing together workplace skills and qualifications. How are these aspects to be balanced? Will the current Green Paper, Building our Industrial Strategy help?

What workplace skills development do employers implement and what do they say they want?

What employers want (outside of apprenticeships) is often put as ‘what skills and abilities do employers want to see in their workforce?’ This question raises an imponderable problem as 70% of workplace skill development (or continuing vocational education and training – CVET) is informal and often not recorded. For example, the ‘Jennings’ model proposes a framework of 70% on the job training; 20% formal training; and 10% qualifications (see charles-jennings.blogspot.co.uk). However, the downside to this approach is the variability of measures and visibility of what constitutes ‘training’ and ‘experiential learning’? Research on organisations confirms that ‘a third of respondents (32%) don’t know how many employees participated in L&D activity. In the public sector, the proportion is 42% and, in organisations with 10,000 or more employees, it is 58%!’ (CIPD Policy report, Investing in productivity: Unlocking ambition, September 2015.)

Yet, when employers do respond to the question of ‘what skills they want’ they give common responses around the disposition of the learner (reliability, punctuality, appropriate appearance). These dispositions or ‘skills’ are then put into work experience/placement monitoring schemes.

3

The definition problem around ‘skills’

The issue of ‘skills,’ then, broadens into one about qualifications, dispositions in the workplace, and employer recruitment. For example, on the latter point, a recent Careers Colleges Trust survey reported that learners were unsure of what employers wanted and saw academic qualifications as being desired in their applications (TES, 29th November 2016).

How do you juxtapose formal qualification routes and the broad range of skills, dispositions and experiences needed in the workplace? The DfE Post-16 Skills Plan and the 2017 Green Paper propose that 15 new technical routes will do exactly that by comprising qualifications and substantial, high quality work placements for up to 2 years.

Some questions we would like to pose and explore in the workshop are:

• What is the basis for our understanding of workplace ‘skills’? Do we know what these are in any detail?

• What evidence is there for a ‘skills mismatch’ when using academic qualifications as a proxy for other skills?

• How do skills, dispositions and qualifications develop together? What sort of evidence is there for a framework (other than a qualification route or apprenticeship) that would work?

• Do we know how these ‘skills’ integrate with a formal qualification route? What models can we draw upon to ensure a successful integration for the learner?

• What is the difference between an apprenticeship in which these skills are part of the immersive curriculum of the apprenticeship framework and the proposed technical education routes which ‘juxtapose’ qualifications and the development of workplace skills?

Norman CrowtherNational Official Post 16 Education and member of LSRN National Planning Group

Links:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/post-16-skills-plan-and-independent-report-on-technical-education

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/building-our-industrial-strategy

4

LSRN PURPOSE AND VALUES

Purpose

The network aims to help people, in going about their professional practice, engage with research and development.

The network seeks to:

Demonstrate the value of research and development by: assisting practitioners to undertake effective research and development assisting practitioners and policymakers to understand the outcomes and processes of

research and development encouraging the growth of a research culture at institutional, national, regional and local

levels.

Help build the capacity of the sector by: putting people in touch with each other providing opportunities to present and discuss research and development organising opportunities for professional development develop opportunities to undertake research and development work, collaboratively or

otherwise.

Exploring ways of increasing the influence of findings by: encouraging work across sector and discipline boundaries encouraging collaboration between parties developing conduits through which findings can be assessed and disseminated.

Values

In pursuing its purpose, the network places particular value on: An inclusive approach which:

recognises the variety of relevant methods and topics involves participants from a wide range of backgrounds, including practitioners, researchers,

developers, managers and policymakers identifies the specific role of practitioners and others in evaluating and implementing

findings.

Applying research to the concerns of practice and policy by: encouraging reviews of existing knowledge before new research is undertaken distilling and communicating key messages in appropriate ways for different audiences.

Addressing capacity by: building practitioner training into projects encouraging engagement with research through professional development activity demonstrating the value of research and development to budget holders maximising connections between regional groups.

5

SPEAKERS

Name: Martin DoelRole: Professor of Leadership in Further Education and SkillsOrganisation: UCL Institute of EducationEmail contact: m.doel@ucl.ac.uk

Biographical details

Martin Doel is Professor of Leadership in Further Education and Skills at the UCL Institute of Education. He was previously Chief Executive of the Association of Colleges (AoC) and prior to this served for 28 years in the Royal Air Force. He was appointed OBE in 1998 for his work in support of operations in the Balkans and for his contribution to Anglo-German relations, and CBE in the 2016 New Year Honours for his contribution to further and higher education.

Martin’s particular research interests are concerned with the distinctive contribution that further education can make to national prosperity and individual wellbeing, and the leadership challenges facing further education providers of all kinds.

Name: Ewart KeepTitle: Director of the Centre on Skills, Knowledge & Organisational Performance (SKOPE)Organisation: Department of Education, Oxford UniversityEmail: ewart.keep@education.ox.ac.uk

Biographical details

Ewart Keep has a degree in modern history and a PhD in industrial relations. He has been working in the skill policy field for 35 years, 30 of which he has spent as a full-time researcher. He has researched and written on lifelong learning, apprenticeships, managerial attitudes towards investing in learning, the role of employers in the skills system, the linkages between skills and economic performance, and how policies on education and training gets made across the UK. He is director of the Centre on Skills, Knowledge & Organisational Performance (SKOPE) at the Department of Education, Oxford University. One of his recent research projects was with the Association of Colleges for FETL on the long-term implications of devolution of the Adult education Budget for FE colleges, see

https://www.aoc.co.uk/teaching-and-learning/skills-devolution

He has also recently published an overview of what we know about skills utilisation in the workplace:www.skope.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/iploads/2016/09/Keep-2016.-Improving-Skills-Utilisation-in-the-UK-Some-reflections-on-What-Who-and-How.pdf

6

Name: Karen SpencerRole: Principal and CEOOrganisation: Harlow CollegeEmail contact: kspencer@harlow-college.ac.uk

Biographical details

Karen Spencer is Principal and Chief Executive of Harlow College in Essex. The College prides itself on its core values:

Learners at the Heart Team Work Be Your Best, be your Future Always be Innovative and Enterprising.

Karen has worked in the post-16 sector for 20 years. Karen is currently Chair of the London Stansted Cambridge Corridor group of college principals and is also a member of the AoC Quality and Performance group.

Karen takes an active interest in all aspects of Education; she is particularly interested in how the curriculum can better meet the needs of young people and adults to make them more employable, giving them good careers. Harlow College has recently established an Advanced Manufacturing and Engineering centre – a true partnership between employer, the College and the Local Enterprise Partnership.

Karen is also a Fellow of the Institute of Mathematics and its applications (FIMA). She was formerly a member of the Advisory Committee for Mathematics Education, a group tasked with giving policy advice to Government on Mathematics Education.

7

Name: Norman CrowtherRole: National Official for Post 16 EducationOrganisation: Association of Teachers and LecturersEmail contact: ncrowther@atl.org.uk.

Biographical details

Norman is the National Official for Post 16 Education at the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (On 1st September, following merger with the National Union of Teachers, ATL will become the National Education Union, the largest education union in Europe and the fourth largest Trade Union in UK. NEU will be the largest specialist trade union in the UK with a focus on education and supporting members at all levels of staffing and across all sectors).

Norman has been at ATL for 10 years and has developed collaborative working over time with all significant stakeholders, agencies and academics in order to promote the sector and research interests in the sector and bring research opportunities to members. His work is focused on strategic stakeholder engagement, advocating for reps and members and supporting recruitment and organising strategies. Norman helped devise last year’s Reimagining FE Conference at BCU last year and is working with Sam Jones at Bedford College on a regional conference model for the sector. ATL currently have a national ULF project which is seeking to develop intelligence around workplace learning and supporting vocational educators in the workplace. The project is partnered by ET Foundation, AELP and academic researchers.

Norman has a Ph.D in philosophy which has helped him develop as an independent researcher (a paper Norman co-wrote with Norman Lucas was published in the Journal for Education Policy, 2016, ‘The Logic of Incorporation’). As an FE lecturer his paper on realist methodology was commended at the 2000 LSDA inaugural conference (in eds. Hillier and Thompson, Readings in Post Compulsory Education). Recently he contributed to the The Coming of Age of FE (ed. Hodgson) with a co-written chapter on workforce development. He is now working on a paper regarding the social and political mechanisms for developing a sustainable vocational education and training sector and is also working in areas around the philosophy of vocational learning and pedagogy. A summary of the ATL/PESGB (Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain) which Norman contributed to will be issued soon. The seminar series discussed the major areas of development needed for a sustainable post 16 education and training environment and sector.

Norman completed a mechanical engineering apprenticeship at British Leyland when he left school and has studied and taught in Further Education colleges. He has an MA in Creative Writing and an MA in Sociology of Literature and gained a BA in European Thought and Literature and Sociology (First). For further information see Norman’s pages on academia.uk or Researchgate.

For ATL’s ULF project focused on employer engagement see conference booklet or contact ncrowther@atl.org.uk.

8

Andrew Morris, Co-organiser, Learning & Skills Research Network

Andrew is an active member of the LSRN National Planning Group. He led the setting up of the network in 1997 when head of research at the then Further Education Development Agency (FEDA). As Director of the National Education Research Forum he worked on improving the links between research, practice and policy across education. Currently he works as a freelance with many organisations and individuals to continue this.

In a former life he was a teacher and senior manager in FE and Sixth Form Colleges in Waltham Forest and Islington.

Anne Thompson, Co-organiser, Learning & Skills Research Network

Anne Thompson is a long term member of the LSRN national planning group. During a career in the FE sector, concluding as Vice Principal of Waltham Forest College, she worked on a number of research projects related to Access, alternative entry to HE, and HE in FE. She has co-authored books and HEFCE publications in these areas including Readings in Post-compulsory Education with Yvonne Hillier showcasing winning papers presented at LSRN conferences.

Since leaving the college she has worked on a series of projects funded by ESRC, HEFCE and BIS related to HE in FE/CBHE and as a consultant.

9

INFORMATION FROM PARTICIPANTS

All participants had the opportunity to provide information about current research they have conducted and the actions they have taken to disseminate the results and influence others.

10

An analysis and a message

Geoff Stanton, Independent Consultant

Are those who cannot remember the past condemned to repeat it?

As the recent report of the Independent Panel on Technical Education said “since the second world war there have been very many attempts to reform the system.” It goes on to say that “these have all been unsuccessful because they tinkered with technical education, and failed to learn from successful systems in other countries.”

However. it is equally true we have also failed to learn from the successes (and there have been some) and failures of these previous attempts at reform in the UK. Unfortunately the Panel, chaired by Lord Sainsbury, repeats this failure, not even describing the previous attempts it mentions, let alone analysing the problems they met. This is asking for trouble, and will put at risk their proposals.

Another recent report - from the Institute for Government – examines “why Britain is so prone to policy re-invention, and what can be done about it”. 1 It provides evidence that government has a tendency “to recreate policies and organisations on an alarmingly regular basis. New organisations replace old ones; one policy is ended while a remarkably similar one is launched.” It also points out that one of the areas that has suffered most from this is further education. Amongst the recommendations it makes are these:

…the senior civil servant responsible for the quality of policymaking in each department should be held accountable for ensuring …that major reforms are proceeding on a full understanding of past and existing policies and organisations.

To ensure that existing departmental expertise is being used, departments should be required to acknowledge previous policy and organisational approaches in all new policy proposals – including White and Green Papers – explaining what lessons they have learned from previous reforms.2

(My emphases).

If we apply these common-sense recommendations to the report of the Sainsbury Panel, what do we find?

Two of the most recent and relevant “reforms” in the area of full time vocational provision were the creation of General Vocational Qualifications in 1993, and in 2005, the introduction of post-14 Diplomas. 3 There are of course significant differences between these and the current proposals, not least with regard to phasing, and the learning time and resources required, but there are also some remarkable similarities. For instance:

Each one claimed that there were too many vocational qualifications, leading to confusion and low take-up. The Sainsbury Panel argued for 15 “clear routes” in order to remedy this4, but GNVQs also provided for 15 distinct areas at level 3, and the post-14 Diplomas for 14 full-time “lines” at the same level.

1 “All Change: why Britain is so prone to policy re-invention, and what can be done about it”. The Institute for Government”, 14th March 20172 Ironically, The Institute for Government is also chaired by David Sainsbury.3 There were also “vocational A-levels”, that Ofsted witheringly described as being “neither advanced nor vocational, but they are too easy a target.4 The difficulty the Panel had in organising qualifications into even as many as 15 routes is shown by the fact that one of route includes both journalism and upholstery, amongst other things.

11

Each one argues that vocational qualifications lack currency with employers because they were not properly represented when it came to specifying the required outcomes. The Sainsbury Panel says that unspecified “industry experts” should do this, but this is also not new: GNVQ outcomes were based on the competences identified by the ”Industry lead bodies” that then existed, and the Diplomas went further by putting employer-led partnerships in charge of the whole development process.

Each of the three ”reforms” tended to equate the need for a better system with the need for new and different qualifications, whilst assuming approaches to teaching and learning, and the appropriate recruitment of both staff and students, was relatively unproblematic. To focus just on creating a new set of qualifications is indeed “tinkering”.

A truly systemic approach requires not only an awareness of how curricula, qualifications, structures, resources and preferred assessment methods all relate dynamically, but also how they are all affected by the educational “ecology” in which they exist. For instance, an understanding of vocational education any country also requires an awareness of the nature and extent of the “academic” alternatives.5 In the UK, account also has to be taken of the tendency of government to intervene in favour of what it considers to be “reliable” qualifications at the expense of validity.

This brings me to a final point. The Panel’s report regards it as axiomatic that whilst “industry experts” have their parts to play “Government has to design the whole system.”6 I have pointed out elsewhere that in England - and it is an English problem - every government designed qualifications or testing system of recent times has failed to work first time7. What then happens is that one of the great and the good is called in to undertake a significant and unplanned redesign – a “product recall” - within a few years. See, for instance, the Dearing Review of the National Curriculum in 1988, The Beaumont Review of NVQs (1996), The Capey Review of GNVQs (1995), The Cassels Review of Modern Apprenticeships (2001) and the Tomlinson Review of A levels (“Curriculum 2000,” in 2002). Even more scandalously, the post-14 Diplomas, which were described in 2008 as “the most important change to our education system since GCSEs” simply had their funding removed by the next government in 2010. Meanwhile, learners suffer and credibility is lost.

On the other hand what can we learn from the longevity of much of most college-based BTEC provision, and the support being gained currently for the City and Guilds Tech Bac and the Cambridge Technicals from OCR?

England is unusual in its system of competing Awarding Bodies, but if any one of them had had so many product recalls they would have gone bankrupt. So what is going wrong with government schemes? In addition to the lack of policy memory identified by the Institute for Government I would add:

the unwillingness of government to give all the social partners sufficient influence; the absence of an iterative approach to development – going for revolution rather than

evolution; the adoption by government of academic paradigms when it comes to defining levels and

progression, and specifying assessment regimes.

The Campaign for Learning has produced a report by Mick Fletcher entitled “Reforming Technical and Professional Education - Why should it work this time? Mick adopts the constructive approach of identifying 9 specific recommendations that should be acted upon if what the government and the independent panel wish for is to come to pass. I recommend it to you, and with more space would

5 The Tomlinson Report would have allowed us to do capture this, but a perceived threat and - in my view- mythical threat to A levels caused its rejection. 6 Foreword, page 67 See “Learning Matters, making the post-14 reforms work for learners”, page 19, CFBT, 2008

12

have liked to be equally constructive, not least because I have great respect for David Sainsbury’s long term commitment to the education of technicians.

But for the moment my simple message is that we must identify the obstacles that have got in the way of previous and well-intentioned reforms, because they have not gone away. We must also question the assumptions that are regularly made about there being too many qualifications, about reform being qualifications-led, about how all young people learn, and about employment requirements being ignored.

13

Name: Bill EsmondRole: Senior LecturerOrganisation: University of DerbyEmail contact: w.esmond@derby.ac.uk

Research or research related activity

A multicase study of workplace learning arrangements on current study programmes, mapped against four of the technical routes proposed by the Sainsbury Review, was carried out to identify potential issues for the more substantial placements now proposed. Documentary analysis, qualitative interviews and observation were compared extensively to identify possible lines of development for college-based ‘technical routes'.How can your evidence be used to inform policy and practice in the sector or in employment? A wide variation of practices was evident across all phases of workplace learning: the organisation of access to placements, the planning and implementation of workplace learning and its integration with college-based curricula. They included well-established bodies on which employer and education representatives discussed a wide range of industry and curriculum issues in preparation for placements that provided access to knowledge unavailable in colleges. Elsewhere, the organisation of work-based learning was limited to the routine recording of arrangements made individually by students, supported to a greater or lesser extent by teaching staff on an incidental basis. The most highly-developed arrangements were in preparation for professional roles, where progression to employment is more likely to take place after higher-level studies. The more incidental arrangements applied to more routinised employment: learning was often centred on attributes or dispositions for employment; better-educated and prepared learners were best placed to take advantage of opportunities on these placements.

The tension between planned and incidental approaches is evident elsewhere. The workplace has been identified as a site of informal, incidental or situated learning (Eraut 1994; Watkins and Marsick 1990; Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998). But its opportunities are mediated by workplace environments (Fuller and Unwin 2003, 2004; Ellstrom, Ekholm and Ellstrom 2008) and the extent to which individuals are able to engage with them (Billett 2001; Felstead et al. 2009; Illeris et al. 2004). The Post-16 Skills Plan proposes planned, challenging and supervised placements (pp. 8-9) but also expresses concerns about existing planning mechanisms: a 'confusing mixture' of awarding bodies and 'unsustainable' providers (p. 11). 'Enabling factors' noted are the data, information and careers guidance that enable learners to make informed choices about routes into the labour market (36-37).

In addition to workplace environments and personal engagement with their learning opportunities, the facilitation of learning and its integration with the whole learning programme remains a third factor particularly for young full-time students undertaking work placements. Whilst the particular contributions of teachers, assessors, workplace trainers and industry specialists in facilitating learning emerged repeatedly in the data, their various roles were not widely recognised or integrated. Given the different outcomes of incidental and planned approaches to workplace learning, clarification and enhancement of the various roles of education and employment-based specialists can be an essential focus for the development of meaningful learning opportunities on future work placements.

14

The project was funded by a grant from the Gatsby Foundation.

Name: Tara FurlongRole: ChairOrganisation: RaPAL (Research and Practice in Adult Literacies)Email contact: webweaver@rapal.org.uk

Research or research related activity

Since 1985, RaPAL have been engaging in the following research engaged activity on developing research underpinned teaching and learning practice

publishing a digital journal three times a year plus additional ad hoc publications. We encourage and support members and others to contribute articles and participate in editorial. These are scaffolded by length and theoretically underpinned complexity to support inclusion as well as development.

holding conferences and colloquia incorporating keynote speeches and workshops underpinned by evidence-based practice, including part-virtual provision

consulting with members writing the RaPAL newsletter, blog, social media and other pieces

How can your evidence be used to inform policy and practice in the sector or in employment?

In the last few months, Nationally, co-organised our annual joint conference, this year with the Learning and Work

Institute, UCL IoE Post-14 Centre, UCU and NATECLA 'Resilience and Responsiveness'; producing the dedicated digital journal edition subsequently with a range of pieces by conference contributors http://rapal.org.uk/journal/

Pan-EU publicising the role of adult literacies in lifelong learning in partnership with EPALE translating extracts from our learner voice publication, Resilience: Stories of Adult Learning http://rapal.org.uk/resilience/, disseminating the challenges and lifelong impacts of non-compulsory education and indicative of the tutor and cross-sectoral institutional activity implicit, as a teaching and learning and policy influencing mechanism.

Nationally, co-ordinating our summer conference 'Global Literacies: UK Literacies in a Global Context' which includes workshops on workplace and family literacies, prisons, multilingualism and multi-literacies, responding to literacy and ESOL needs in mixed classes, reading for pleasure, research-informed practice and the continuing professional development of the adult literacies sector http://rapal.org.uk/conference-2017/

The digital journal publishes, and conferences held, regularly http://rapal.org.uk/ 'informal' publications creating dialogic fora and awareness raising

15

Name: Tara FurlongRole: ConsultantOrganisation: Designing Futures LtdEmail contact: tara.furlong@designingfutures.uk

Research or research related activity

In the last few months, fields of analysis leading to developmental recommendations (and implementation),

under-taking a study of the role of practitioners own literacies usage around research-underpinned teaching and learning practice in continuing professional development for the sector

co-organising fsb Brent Business Breakfasts monthly networking events with local small businesses, Brent council and local and national support services

contributing to Functional Skills reform consultation

How can your evidence be used to inform policy and practice in the sector or in employment?

In the last few months, the above activities to contribute to sector continuing professional engagement awareness and provision are creating a dialogic forum with small local businesses contributed to Functional Skills qualification reforms

Name: Cath GladdingRole: Research ManagerOrganisation: AELP (representative body for training providers) Email contact: CGladding@aelp.org.uk

Research or research related activity

English and maths – costs of delivery and prioritisation of GCSEIn February/March 2017, AELP surveyed 40 providers of English and maths. Although not a large sample, main findings were clear:

on average, above Level 1 the costs of delivery are not covered by government funding cohorts registered with independent training providers are highly likely to include learners

with significant barriers to learning, which equates to resource intensive delivery. How can your evidence be used to inform policy and practice in the sector or in employment?

Funding levels for maths and English should be reviewed and equalised in line with costs of delivery.

The overarching prioritisation of GCSE (set against other equivalents such as Functional Skills) makes things worse, as this qualification, whilst it has its place, is not well-suited for vocational environments and nor is it an appropriate pedagogy for very many people, as noted by the Ofsted Chief Inspector’s Report for 2015/16

16

Name: Dr Graham HallRole: BA Education TutorOrganisation: Coleg Meirion-Dwyfor, WalesEmail contact: grahamhall3@gmail.comResearch or research related activityInvestigation of the development of essential skills in numeracy, communication, information technology and bilingualism by Further Education students How can your evidence be used to inform policy and practice in the sector or in employment?Over a number of years, I have supervised research projects carried out for the dissertation component of the BA Degree in Post-Compulsory Education and Training, in conjunction with the University of South Wales. These studies have often focussed on the effectiveness of delivery of essential skills within vocational college courses.

Our finding is that the recent move away from a Key Skills award, with the introduction of compulsory resitting of GCSE Mathematics and English for students below grade C, has been an unsuccessful experiment. This conclusion is supported by Bellamy (2017) who has found that only about 20% of her resitting mathematics students gain the required grade, and Jones (2016) who found a statistically significant increase in withdrawals from vocational courses during the past two years which could be convincingly attributed to compulsory re-sitting of Mathematics and English. We attribute the lack of success of the current system to poor student motivation.

Evidence from student interviews and observations suggest that motivation in essential skills is increased by:

• Solving interesting problems which are relevant to the student's vocational course• Producing a product, either as an artefact or as a presentation or professional document• Practical measurement, or the collection of primary data through surveys• Autonomy in the specification and design of the learning activity• Working with others as a team, developing and using the special skills of each member.

Our recommendation is that a revised Key Skills qualification is devised as a way of ensuring that young people entering the work place have the necessary numeracy, literacy and ICT skills needed to do their jobs. The award should provide lists of criteria which cover the essential skills requirements, and students demonstrate their competence by creating a portfolio of work.

It is our experience that the best way to tackle this form of key skills assessment is take a top down approach. Each student completes an individual project based on a real life situation that includes enough maths to cover the Key Skills criteria, for example: laying a new patio and carrying out related garden design, or the care and feeding of the student's farm animals. Taking a holistic approach then means that writing up the project, reading all the information needed, discussing the project with the tutor and fellow students and finally presenting the project to the rest of the group covers the communication requirements. Use of Microsoft Office (Word, Excel and PowerPoint) covers the ICT criteria.

The advantage of this approach is that maths and communication are being applied in a practical way which will help the students when applying the same skills in the workplace or on higher level courses. Employers have been critical of new recruits who have good maths, communication or IT skills on paper, but cannot apply these techniques to practical situations in the workplace.

Disadvantages of assessment via a portfolio of work are that: it is time consuming, works best only for small groups, and requires a lot of one-to-one discussion. Assessment can become very bureaucratic, with much tutor time and effort required to track progress.

Overall, the increased student motivation achieved through project work definitely outweighs any

17

disadvantages.

Name: Harriet HarperRole: AdvisorOrganisation: Association of CollegesEmail contact: hh@harriet-harper.co.uk

Research or research related activity

I am one of two advisors on an ETF-funded programe that involves 15 projects operating across England.

The aim of the programme is to improve teaching, learning and assessment for learners on technical routes, with a focus on supporting the development of teaching practice, pedagogic mastery, technical skill and stronger employer–provider links.

The projects aim to be evidence based and research informed.

How can your evidence be used to inform policy and practice in the sector or in employment?

Details, as the projects get underway, will be available at https://www.aoc.co.uk/otla-development-projects?dm_i=26BG,4XGQM,IW4HIC,IPF67,1 

Name: Dr Elnaz KashefpakdelRole: Head of ResearchOrganisation: Education and EmployersEmail contact: elnaz.kashef@educationandemployers.org

Research or research related activity:

Since its creation in 2009, the Education and Employers research team has been responsible for more than forty publications on the subject of employer engagement in education. A series of peer review articles have presented significant new quantified evidence on the relationship between school-mediated employer engagement and employment outcomes. The team sits at the centre of a large international community of interest engaged in research into employer engagement in education. It runs conferences and seminars showcasing high quality new research; summarises key research publications (including academic articles) covering employer engagement and career development activities; and, in 2014, published with Routledge the first collection of research essays on the subject. The team has been invited into Whitehall on numerous occasions to present research findings, speaking at the Department for Education, BEISS and HM Treasury. We carry out research into employer engagement in education and how work-related learning can have positive outcomes on a young person’s future economic and education outcomes. We have found good evidence of wage premiums and reduced likelihood of becoming NEET as a result of participating in employers engagement activities. access our free research library for our full findings http://www.educationandemployers.org/research-main/. Our previous reports have been commissioned by the Education Endowment Foundation and The

18

Careers and Enterprise Company as well as other organisations and bodies to carry out research into this subject.

How can your evidence be used to inform policy and practice in the sector or in employment?

Our publications have demonstrated that economic outcomes for young people can be improved by improving the volume and design of employer engagement events. Our research has consistently shown that greater volume of school-mediated teenage engagements with employers has a statistically significant effect on reducing a young person’s likelihood of becoming NEET. Additionally, through a series of studies we have found that participation in employer engagement while at school is associated with wage premium once young people are in full time employment later on in life. In terms of the design of activities involving employers, schools should consider the needs of their students; different pupils respond to different work related activities in different ways. Our research also suggests that schools and colleges could boost the impact by preparing students before engaging with the world of work. Students consistently find employer engagement activities more useful if they have had time to think about their wider ambitions and prepare themselves prior to an event taking place.

Furthermore, Education and Employers studies have shown that students report more positive attitudes towards schooling after taking part in employer engagement activities. Using a dataset which tracked young people through adulthood, we also found that teenagers, at age 16, who agreed that ‘school was a waste of time’ earned on average 16% less at age 26 than those who disagreed. Using the same data we also found that teenagers, at age 14-15, who agreed that ‘school is a waste of time for me’ were two times more likely to be NEET than those who disagreed.

To help informing policy, we have shown that access to school-mediated employer engagement is not fairly distributed. Arguably those with greatest need for employer engagement within education commonly received it least. Young adults who had experienced the greatest volume of school-mediated employer engagement activities came, on average, from more privileged backgrounds. Our research has also highlighted that young people’s career ambitions routinely have ‘Nothing in Common’ with current and projected British labour market demand. There is good reason to believe that it is a significant problem. While successful school-to-work transitions are influenced by a wide range of social, educational and economic factors, significant relationships do exist between the character of teenage career ambitions and early labour market success. For young people, misalignment in the character of ambitions and the availability of realistic employment prospects makes it much less likely that they will experience smooth school-to-work transitions, highlighting the value of employer engagement in providing young people with access to reliable information about jobs and careers.

Website: http://www.educationandemployers.org/research-main/

19

Name: Eleanor StringerRole: Senior Programme ManagerOrganisation: Education Endowment FoundationEmail contact: eleanor.stringer@eefoundation.org.uk

Research or research related activity

The EEF and J.P. Morgan is funding three interventions aimed at improving Maths and English outcomes for 16-18 year olds without a C or above at GCSE, and is looking for more ideas to test. These will be robustly and independently evaluated, as randomised controlled trials.

1. Maths for Life – led by Nottingham University, and drawing on the work of Malcolm Swan and the Standards Unit materials. Maths resit teachers will receive professional development in how to increase classroom dialogue about maths, and improve mathematical understanding. (Pilot starting summer 2017, RCT summer 2018-19, evaluated by Behavioural Insights Team).

2. Texting Students and Study Supporters – led by Behavioural Insights Team, the project aims to improve attendance and attainment by sending text messages to students and ‘study supporters’ (a peer, parent or mentor that each student identifies as helping to keep them on track). The intervention consists of sending 35 text messages over a year, with messages including information on: course content; academic resources, such as practice websites; notifications about deadlines; details of extra tutorial sessions; and exam dates. RCT starting in Autumn 2017, independently evaluated by NatCen.

3. Embedding contextualisation in English and mathematics GCSE teaching. The Association of Employment and Learning Providers, working with MEI, will train settings to embed enhanced contextualisation approaches throughout their work with post-16 learners, aiming to motivate learners and improve their skills. (Pilot starting summer 2017, RCT summer 2018-19, evaluated by CVER at LSE).

The next funding round closes 9 June, and we are looking for further interventions in this field, particularly interested in those focusing on English teaching and learning.

How can your evidence be used to inform policy and practice in the sector or in employment?

We will publish the results no matter the outcome, and will disseminate them across the country. We hope the results will provide rigorous evidence for settings and policy makers about the most effective ways of improving outcomes for all learners, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

20

NEWSLETTER

A regular newsletter is produced and circulated. Please contact Andrew Morris (a.j.morris@blueyonder.co.uk) to be included on the circulation list or to include material.

REGIONAL AND LOCAL NETWORKS

Regional networks were created following the first national conference in 1997. Their level of activity has varied over time and across the country. During the time when LSDA provided support and links with their regional coordinators regional conferences were held and regional research projects supported. More recently the networks are entirely reliant on volunteers and support in kind from institutions. However, there continue to be regular network meetings in most regions as well as regional events, and convenors are members of the national planning group. Recently local groups are also being organised often based around a city or lead college.If you would like to find out about these activities please contact the relevant convenor.

East Mike Smith mikesmith1706@btinternet.comEast Midlands Hayley Wood H.wood@derby.ac.ukLondon and South East Sai Loo sai.loo@ucl.ac.ukNorth East Maggie Gregson maggie.gregson@sunderland.ac.ukNorth West Joel Petrie Joel.Petrie@liv-coll.ac.ukSouth West Claire Gray claire.gray@plymouth.ac.ukWest Midlands Rob Smith rob.smith@bcu.ac.ukYorkshire & Humber Kevin Orr K.Orr@hud.ac.uk

People who organise activities at a local level which are open to external participants are encouraged to provide contact details. Currently these include:Bristol area: City of Bristol College Diane.Workman@cityofbristol.ac.ukSouth Coast: City College Brighton Martyn Howe: MH1@ccb.ac.uk

Contact Andrew Morris to be added to the list ajmorris@blueyonder.co.uk

21

http://lsrn.wordpress.com/

22