Skills for Jobs: What Does it Mean? Part V
By Jan Ole Faust
Part five of the skills for jobs white paper concentrates on making teaching at further education providers a more viable career path, while also functioning more effectively, with a characteristic inclusion of the private sector. Although attempting to secure more promising employees for a career in further education would indeed be a prerequisite to better outcomes, this is contingent on vague grounds. And new centralised control measures may integrate necessary reforms, yet doubts about employer participation across ideas outlined in the white paper leave the salience of these schemes in doubt.
In the fifth section, an increased role of “industry” (employers) in further education’s teaching practices is proposed. How to tempt those working at such companies into the college estate is, unfortunately, left unexplored once touched upon. Teaching staff are to receive training from local industry professionals, and this collaboration could easily lead to students becoming more knowledgeable with the job market awaiting them. A less viable goal, conversely, is the moving of “industry experts'' into teaching, as no means of convincing them is submitted. Attentive readers will remember Fatima, whose next job could be in the optimal field of “cyber”, as opposed to dancing. While encouraging migration from a supposedly undesirable field into one the government views as superior is understandable, why these experts would wish to “Rethink. Reskill. Reboot.” into further education teachers is left open to interpretation. A case study where teachers were temporarily placed in a business, a process they felt was beneficial, is outlined. Tellingly, however, the case study entirely ignores the prospect of convincing talented professionals to retrain. The notion of more temporary two-way exchanges is also posited, which is somewhat closer to the aim of acquiring adept workers as teachers, but still falls short.
More promisingly, the rollout of T-levels is to be supported by teachers working with local employers, with a focus on utilising technology. This collaboration could help those acquiring a novel, and untested qualification move somewhat more preparedly into work.
The White Paper also outlines various measures that aim to make teaching in further education a more viable, attractive profession. The proposed increase in teaching staff, to tackle vacancies and expand courses with good employment potential is promising and underscores the need to develop productive courses. It is also welcome that Ofsted inspections of initial teacher education are to be extended to all providers of it, not just those validated by universities. The clear step away from a university-centric model in the accountability of teaching staff is a welcome break from previous administrations. Another measure to reduce the discrepancy with Higher Education is a more extensive gathering of data on the workforce at Further Education providers; a stated ambition to accrue as much data as secondary schools and universities do may attest to the government’s intention.
That being said, the means of tackling vacancies are vague and questionable. With the salary and job expectations of graduates not changing massively, acquiring willing recruits to fill vacancies and new course positions could be challenging. An information campaign to spread the word is posited, where the white paper proposes informing job seeking undergraduates they could “shape students’ lives”, inferring that this will precipitate droves of graduates entering teaching at colleges. Apparently realising that relying on the goodwill of degree-holders may be insufficient, financial incentives are outlined. Revealingly, a bursary for entrants is contemplated, not an actual pay rise across career stages. If teachers will disproportionately be hired for the most employable courses, which will increasingly be those most modern and innovative, higher salaries may be inescapable. According to a recent Royal Society policy briefing, Britain is already unprepared to meet the nascent demand for educating a technical workforce in scientific fields, and supporting such measures in colleges would go some way towards mitigating this.
As is reflected throughout the white paper, the Department for Education intends to centralise control over teaching at further education providers, through either employer or state-led standards. Whilst aspects of this are currently vague, such as the offering of professional support to achieve “cutting edge” skills, with no method of implementation posed, it is mostly achievable. Increased central power is to be used to support that which the government prioritises in developing the workforce, with curriculum alterations underpinned by employer-led standards, and investments in teachers’ professional development will be based on market changes. The teaching staff being aware of the sort of workplaces pupils would strive towards is promising, and clear government direction in setting out what “good” looks like could ensure providers are focused and accountable.
To guarantee the effective delivery, by teachers, of policies set out around the white paper, thorough means to intervene are listed. A wider, more prompt set of intervention abilities are vested in the Education Secretary, concentrated on achieving the aforementioned goals. Where non-compliance or quality risks in teaching are found, intervention is to be made simple, and new powers permit active regulation where objectives are left unachieved. Therefore, most programmes within this section seem somewhat feasible, although it would nevertheless be challenging to provide any such teaching services if graduates, and industry professionals, do not increasingly opt to work in the sector. And the Government has yet to reveal the goods that will make them do just that.