The government recently consulted on its proposed reform of PSE qualifications. They have drafted a set of standards in employability, personal and social development and independent living skills, upon which all publicly funded qualifications at Entry and level 1 in these areas must be based in future. The intention is to create consistency and drive up quality to enable more learners to achieve better outcomes. So far, so laudable. But are the standards proposed and the associated rules for qualification development going to achieve these aims? I don’t think so.
The standards are a rag-bag of content areas and performance standards which pay no regard to existing frameworks such as the Preparing for Adulthood outcomes, the expectations of the Ofsted judgement area for Personal Development or the Gatsby Benchmarks. The terms, ‘independent living’, ‘personal and social development’ and ‘employability’ have not been defined, resulting in significant gaps and overlaps. There has been no consideration of what current learners think is important to learn in these areas and very limited understanding of what constitutes positive, relevant achievement at Entry 1 and Entry 2. As a result, we have a set of standards, both weighty and gappy, which already feel old-fashioned, with little or no content relating to 21st century issues such as sustainability and environmental awareness, social inclusion, healthy sleep, responsible social media use, reasonable adjustments, assistive technology, work-life balance and home/remote working or resilience.
The proposed qualification rules deny learners at Entry level access to employability skills qualifications. They require all level 1 learners to cover a mammoth set of 14 mandatory content areas in order to achieve an employability skills qualification, with no ‘bite-sized’ qualifications on offer. They allow for only one personalised personal, social and employability skills qualification per level, per awarding organisation, so no more progression from award to certificate to diploma, or selecting a best-fit size for a particular learner or learner group. Where a qualification includes a particular content area from the standards, there is an unwieldly list of mandatory learning outcomes that must be covered. The result will be a much tidier qualifications framework, but one which makes it significantly more difficult than at present for providers to use qualifications to benefit their target learners.
The lack of flexibility in the proposals suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose that qualifications at this level serve for the target learner groups – primarily those with SEND or other type of disadvantage. External accreditation is essentially a means to recognise and reward achievements significant to the individual, largely in order to motivate them and build their confidence and self-esteem. In order to fulfil that purpose, qualification content must reflect what is important to and for these learners and the qualifications framework must give providers sufficient flexibility to use the qualifications to structure learning and underpin personalised programmes.
So, what could be done to develop the skills that young Entry and level 1 learners need to thrive after leaving full-time education, or for adults to truly benefit from a return to learning? What would help education providers enable these learners to leave their courses as well-rounded individuals, active citizens – and members of the workforce, where possible?
A set of personal, social and employability standards could play a significant part. The next government would need to do a radical re-writing of the current draft to address all of the concerns raised through the consultation, involving a far wider range of professionals and learners. The content could be re-focused on developing active citizens, capable of enjoying fulfilling, socially included adult lives, with jobs wherever possible. The standards could then be turned into a curriculum framework on which teachers could draw to help them structure meaningful, motivating, progression-focused learning programmes. Awarding organisations could be required to develop qualifications consistent with this framework – without all of the restrictions on mandatory content or qualification size. That would make the curriculum framework equally relevant to accredited or unaccredited pathways underpinned by RARPA. A framework such as this could have a really positive impact on the quality of teaching and learning in this area, particularly if the next government chose to invest in developing and promoting it as a resource. They could support the creation of accompanying exemplar material, effective practice sharing sessions and webinars showcasing how providers have used it to improve learner outcomes.
However, good quality FE courses and well-designed qualifications are only going to take us so far in achieving good outcomes for learners with SEND and other types of disadvantage – especially in relation to employment. The low rates of progression into work for students taking personal, social and employability qualifications, quoted by the DfE in the introduction to its consultation document, reflect the national disability employment gap where those with a learning disability are by far the least likely to be in employment. There is much more that government could be doing to address the complex and systematic biases in the labour market that are negatively impacting on employment rates. Reforms to adult social care including an increase in suitable supported living accommodation would enable more disabled people to live more independently. A fixed proportion of the adult education budget being ring-fenced for courses for people with learning disabilities would enable more learners with SEND to engage in lifelong learning. The next government must tackle the issue of poor outcomes for disadvantaged learners through a joined-up approach across departments and the development of a comprehensive plan to effect change. Post-16 providers and awarding organisations will happily play their part but we can’t rely on them or on standards and qualifications – however well-designed – to do all the heavy lifting.
Read Natspec’s response to the Department for Education’s consultation on national standards for personal, social and employability skills qualifications.
