journal-issue-16

fdf Strategic Plan 2008-11

EBTA’s rise to prominence

Apprenticeships: a recipe for HE progression

The Employer and Provider Partnership Jigsaw

Issue 16 : October 2008

Contents : Issue 16

fdf Strategic Plan 2008-11 3

Derek Longhurst, fdf

Employer partnerships and Consortia 5

Charles Pickford, (Private Sector), fdf

and Sue Tatum, (Public Sector), fdf

EBTA’s rise to prominence since 12

House of Commons launch

Jonathan Sharp, fdf

The Employer and Provider Partnership 15

Jigsaw: Putting your pieces together

Clare Stoney, fdf Consultant

Union Learning reps – an innovation 20

or an innovation?

Liz Smith, unionlearn

Using Foundation degrees as a 22

vehicle for workforce development

and change

Esther Lockley, fdf

Foundation degrees overseas: 24

some models for consideration

Dr Penny McCracken, fdf

Apprenticeships: a recipe for higher 29

education progression

Susan Hayday, fdf

Foundation degrees in the 34

construction sector

Esther Lockley, fdf

Forthcoming event 37

Publications 38

fdf Board Members 39

Welcome to forward16

The publication of this edition coincides with the 2008 fdf

national conference Innovating Workforce Development:

Productivity and Opportunity. Articles are therefore

focussed upon the work that fdf has undertaken over the

last year, current activities and future developments.

On 1st August, fdf entered a new phase with renewed

funding from HEFCE for 2008-11. Derek Longhurst’s article

introduces the revised fdf Strategic Plan for this period.

Charles Pickford and Sue Tatum report on the development

of employer consortia across a range of sectors. They

describe this effective approach to employer partnership

with higher education and illustrate how a number of

consortia are working to address the higher level skills

needs of employers.

The fdf Employer Based Training Accreditation service is

the subject of Jonathan Sharp and Ken Phillip’s piece. They

outline the nature of the service and reflect on the success

of pilot the programme. Clare Stoney’s piece reports on

another fdf service that supports providers in developing

effective and sustainable partnerships with employers.

Unionlearn are key partners for fdf in championing and

supporting work-based higher education opportunities

for working adults. Liz Smith, Director of unionlearn

considers the crucial role of union learning representatives

in unlocking talent and potential within the workforce.

Susan Hayday then describes the Government’s agenda

for Apprenticeships, considers why so few apprentices

progress to higher education and outlines research

commissioned by fdf that has identified features of some

apprenticeship programmes that facilitate progression.

Penny McCracken looks at Foundation degrees from an

international perspective. Her article provides interesting

insight into potential models for the delivery of employer-

led Foundation degrees overseas.

I hope you find this issue of forward interesting and useful.

We welcome your feedback, so please do contact me with

any comments or suggestions for future editions.

Esther Lockley

Editor

[email protected]

2 Issue 16 : October 2008

fdf Strategic Plan

2008-11

Derek Longhurst

Chief Executive, fdf

The new fdf Strategic Plan for 2008-2011 will be published in October 2008. It constitutes a development and refinement of that which was published for 2006-2008 and takes full account of the very significant developments that there have been since 2006, amongst which we might list:

• Publication of the Leitch Review of Skills (HM Treasury 2006) and the government’s response regarding higher level skills, Higher Education at Work: High skills: High value (DIUS 2008)

• Establishment of government targets for Foundation degrees and for co-funded higher education provision

• Development of HEFCE’s strategy for employer engagement and funding for institutions to support partnerships with employers

• Evolution of the Sector Skills Alliance

• The Sub-National Review and the changing roles of Regional Development Agencies, Regional Skills Partnerships and local authorities

• Establishment of the new Commission for Employment and Skills

• Evolution of Lifelong Learning Networks and Pathfinder Higher Level Skills Strategies.

This list is by no means exhaustive but it represents an increasingly complex environment especially, perhaps, at regional level.

3Issue 16 : October 2008

There are several important changes represented in the new plan for the next funding period.

1. This Strategic Plan represents more fully the wider remit from HEFCE, as the Funding Council, for fdf to establish, support and sustain employer partnerships with higher education generally and not just to operate within the domain of the Foundation degree qualification.

2. It undertakes a review of how the landscape has changed significantly since 2006. In particular, the issue of ‘employer engagement’ is a high priority for many institutions, agencies and organisations in response to government policy. This Strategic Plan focuses upon how fdf can play a significant role, nationally, regionally and cross-regionally in developing strategic partnerships that will lead to real outcomes that are responsive to these policy initiatives. The task here is to engage both strategically and practically, without duplication of activity, in ways that focus upon delivery of added value.

3. This Strategic Plan for 2008-2011 confirms the organisation’s previous direction of travel represented in our Mission Statement. fdf has become employer-facing in all of its activities and our services to support higher education providers are designed to represent such perspectives.

Part One of the Strategic Plan 2008-2011 focuses upon setting the contexts within which we operate and provides an overview of our core Strategic Aims.

Part Two of the Strategic Plan 2008-2011 focuses upon our core Strategic Aims, Objectives and Key Performance Indicators.

A key factor for fdf is the establishment and development of sustainable strategic partnerships across all of our activities. We see collaboration as fundamental to everything that we do. I hope that individuals, institutions, organisations and agencies will consult this Strategic Plan and find it helpful in understanding the distinctive identity of the organisation.

Strategic Aims: 2008-11

1. To lead national and regional strategies, through collaborative partnerships, that advance employer-led higher education provision.

2. To provide quality enhancement consultancy services to support good practice in establishing and sustaining employer-provider partnerships, including the development and accreditation of work-based learning, at higher education level.

3. To develop strategies to deliver greater diversity in higher education participation through workforce development supported by both employers and employee organisations.

4. To lead a national communications strategy to enhance informed awareness of the distinctive identity of the Foundation degree, stimulating other opportunities for higher level workforce development, especially amongst employers and employees.

5. To develop strategic partnerships with other stakeholders, organisations, agencies and institutions to enhance collaborative delivery of our strategic aims.

6. To deliver our Strategic Plan aims and objectives efficiently and effectively, ensuring good governance, transparency and accountability, especially to funding bodies.

Mission Statement :

Innovating workforce development

To meet the demands of workforce

development, business improvement and

the knowledge economy, fdf will seek to

stimulate, support and sustain employer

partnerships with higher education.

The fdf Strategic Plan 2008-11 is available at www.fdf.ac.uk/about_fdf


References

HM Treasury, 2006. Prosperity for All in the Global Economy - World Class Skills (the Leitch

Review). Available at: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/leitch_review/

review_leitch_index.cfm <http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/leitch_

review/review_leitch_index.cfm>

DIUS, 2008. Higher Education at Work; High Skills: High Value. Available at:

www.dius.gov.uk/consultations/con_0408_hlss.html <http://www.dius.gov.uk/

consultations/con_0408_hlss.html>

Employer Partnerships

and Consortia

Charles Pickford

Director of Employer Partnerships

(Private Sector), fdf

Sue Tatum

Director of Employer Partnerships

(Public Sector), fdf

Introduction

The process of developing and supporting employer-led consortia to meet the specific higher level skills needs of a sector is increasingly being seen as an effective and successful way to establish partnership working. As reported in previous Forward articles, fdf has driven this strategy and initiated the development of several consortia that are currently working to ensure that the employers’ higher level skills needs are realised. This article will provide further insights into employers’ expectations of higher education partnerships, identify the

characteristics of employer-led consortia and illustrate consortia in practice through a brief review of several current projects.

Reflecting employers’ expectations

One of the objectives of the consortium approach to developing employer-led higher education is to ensure that employers’ needs are met in a sustainable way. This relates to both large and smaller employers. Ensuring a consistency of approach and the application of standards (where they exist) means that the skills acquired on the Foundation degree programme are not only relevant to the host employer but also transferable and recognised by the employer body as a whole. Despite competition, such transferability is valued across both the private and public sectors. It is of particular value within the public sector where there are large employer organisations (such as the NHS, the civil service or the police) where a ‘national’ consistency to the education and training gives the employer confidence and supports the individual career progression within and between organisations.


The consortium approach also provides an important mechanism to support smaller business and enterprises. Such organisations often have insufficient ‘buying’ capacity to influence higher education requirements. This may be reflected in various ways:

• the limited number of students that they can support on an educational programme

• limited work-based learning experiences (where new roles require practice and experience that may not yet be in existence within that organisation)

• limited resources to fully engage with the lengthy process of developing and, once developed, the monitoring of a programme

• the fact that universities do not have the capacity (people and systems) to fully involve every single employer (each one of whom may be sponsoring one student with no further engagement) in the decision-making and monitoring processes.

As Foundation degrees are ‘coming of age’ there is now a growing body of evidence for both the private and public sectors that enables us to articulate the core requirements for programmes which are then shaped and defined by higher education providers in accordance with their curriculum and pedagogic practice.

The early work of fdf in building and supporting employer consortia, particularly in the private sector, is providing an empirical evidence base of employers’ expectations for their higher education partnerships. This is reinforced and refined with each new partnership. However, consistent messages about what employers expect from partnerships with higher education are emerging. These are summarised below:

• Strategic long-term developments• Collaborative relationships between higher

education partners• Collaborative relationships with other stakeholders• Consistent, but not prescriptive, national provision• Alignment to national standards• Delivery by staff with current working knowledge

of the employer’s sector• Embracing of employer expertise• Valuing and maximising opportunities for work-based

learning• Accreditation of employer-based training• Models of delivery that meet employer’s and

employee’s needs• Professional client management

Some of these expectations are more readily understood than others. However, others require more detailed explanation.

Strategic long term developments

It is important that the cost of the development of educational activity is reflected in initiatives that are sustainable and can support long term development requirements (albeit with modifications to developed programmes). Within the public sector, the strategic imperative is often driven by national policy requirements or policy statements. Initiatives within the children’s sector, for example, clearly reflect both of these. The Early Years Foundation degree was a government initiative with a prescribed curriculum with accreditation given by SureStart. Whilst this approach acted as a surrogate for a consortium approach, it did not result in specifically bringing together employers with the education providers except through the medium of the employee student.

However, incorporating such national standards alone cannot substitute for mechanisms that enable employers to be more specifically involved. The consortium approach can accommodate this. It may represent a number of major employers within a sector, but also can be reqional or sub-sector based and work on a delegated representation basis. The SureStart accreditation programme has now come to a close and the Children’s Workforce Development Council (CWDC) and fdf are leading a new approach that will build on fdf’’s consortia learning experiences and the development of local networks.

This example stresses the importance of establishing a strategic approach that provides the necessary flexibility and supports effective partnership working between employers and higher education providers. It should also be ‘future-proofed’.

Collaborative relationships

This can vary from developing a shared set of learning outcomes to be achieved in ways that are unique to each institution; to a network of institutions agreeing to deliver a common programme with rules of combination to meet the needs of a transient workforce deployed across the UK; to the identification of core learning specifications (usually competences) offered by all education providers (in their own way) but with specific specialist elements offered by specified education providers - enabling students to study with their local education provider but to take specialist modules with the appropriate specialist provider(s); to institutions offering an identical curriculum to clients with a national workforce. The last type of collaboration clearly requires greater alignment of institutional processes in addition to alignment with business rather than academic cycles.


Collaborative relationships with

other stakeholders

It may be important to include various government, professional or sector bodies to secure the consistency of approach required, alignment with national agendas and any national role/job ‘recognition’ that may be required.

Consistent, but not prescriptive,

national provision

The underlying message is that employers need to feel confident that a Foundation degree graduate in a particular discipline has the same underpinning knowledge and skills regardless of the awarding institution. This will strengthen the currency of the Foundation degree for employers and facilitate labour mobility in the sector. There is no desire for a higher education national curriculum since employers are very clear that provision must have the capacity to reflect the needs of individual partnerships. One response to the need for greater consistency in provision is the development of Foundation degree specifications that provide detailed guidance to providers, linked to networks of providers offering Foundation degree provision that is formally recognised by employers as meeting their needs.

Delivery by staff with current working

knowledge of the employer’s sector

The partnership between the education provider and the employer usefully recognises the strengths and expertise of both partners. In a number of instances Foundation degree programmes are supporting the implementation of totally new roles or skill sets that require knowledge and skills that span a variety of job roles and/or working environments. The academic staffing experience of such new roles is, therefore, unlikely to yet exist. The opportunity to use the partnership to develop academic knowledge of the work requirements is providing a clear benefit for all. Opportunities to shadow employees, to conjointly develop and assess assignments are invaluable. Likewise, such developments stimulate inter- and multi-disciplinary working within the higher education institutions.

Valuing and maximising opportunities

for work-based learning

Many employers have considerable in-house expertise to support learning in the workplace. This needs to be recognised and built upon. The variations in such employer expertise also need to be appreciated with opportunities (where feasible), brokered through the consortium, for employers to support other employers. This may be critical for small organisations

where the present work environment may not provide the breadth and depth of learning experience required. This is particularly the case in the care sector. There may also be a need to build employers’ skills in mentoring, coaching, the facilitation of learning and in assessment.

Accreditation of employer-based training

The combination of the process for Employer Based Training Accreditation (EBTA) and progression to an award that is recognised within the industry is an attractive offer for many employers. Such an approach recognises the staff development activity that a number of large employers in both the private and public sector have, harnessing the continuing ‘personal and professional’ development (CPD) that already takes place. EBTA is an employer support service developed and delivered by fdf that effectively ‘hides the wiring’ of the academic process from employers whilst providing the opportunity for employer based training to be fully valued within a higher education context and strengthened if appropriate.

Models of delivery that meet employer’s

and employee’s needs

A number of current developments are worth noting to illustrate how some institutions are responding to this requirement. • Designing provision around the client business cycle rather

than the full-time undergraduate academic cycle• Minimising the time away from the business by utilising

combinations of intensive workshops, e-learning, work-based learning, e-tutors, e-mentors and work-based mentors

• Developing Foundation degree award frameworks that can readily satisfy CPD at levels 4 and 5 and where possible lead to ‘smaller’ awards

• Delivery on employer premises or preferred location

Professional client management

A timely and accurate response to employer enquiries is expected as a pre-requisite for successful partnership development. However, once the initial enquiry has developed into an active partnership the level of service that employers require goes beyond the traditional offer. Institutions and employers are negotiating service level agreements that relate to, for example, student progress reporting, levels of tutor support, fee support, retention, company visits, business awareness and mentor development. This list is not exhaustive but illustrative of the ongoing expectations of employers once the partnership has developed to the delivery phase.



Characteristics of successful employer-led consortia

All of the consortia, or networks, that fdf is supporting are developing their own identity and ways of working. There are however emerging characteristics that all consortia share to a large extent. These are as follows:

• The employers in the consortia have recognised the need for higher level skills within their business

• Higher education institutions have a demonstrated commitment to satisfying the higher level skills needs for this particular business sector

• All partners recognise that current higher level provision does not offer a complete package for total workforce development

• Both employers and providers are prepared to step out from organisational and institutional self interest and recognise that the wider interests of the sector (inclusive of the supply chain, smaller businesses/organisations, and in the public sector, the users of the services) must be addressed to attain the education and skills for global competitiveness or world class effectiveness

• All partners have the organisational and individual capacity to contribute to shaping the educational agenda. This is not restricted to large businesses, there are smaller organisations willing to make a commitment of time and energy

• The employers and providers have the ambition to provide leadership for the sector

• Neither community is wedded to historical approaches in relation to the development of higher level skills

• The consortia are solutions-driven and output-focussed, with a pragmatic approach to tackling the challenges addressing issues

• There is a recognition that the approach adopted must meet current and anticipated workforce development needs within a competitive market place where attracting and retaining talented staff is crucial to the success of the sector

Consortia in Practice

fdf is pursuing this strategy across the following sectors: adult social care; aircraft maintenance; armed forces; biopharma; building services engineering; chemicals and refineries; clay building products; children’s workforce; construction; creative and digital media; cultural heritage; electricity utilities; end-of-life care; energy; fashion and textiles; information and communication technologies; museums, libraries and archives; policing; polymers and composites; ports; regional healthcare

providers and Strategic Health Authorities; retail; travel and tourism; wood product manufacturing; and water utilities. In many cases these partnerships are joint activities with colleagues from Sector Skills Councils.

The above list does not take account of completed projects such as fdf’s work with the RAF, Merchant Navy, and railway industry. Some of the projects have already been described in previous issues of Forward. The following brief summary of developments in biopharma, aircraft maintenance, wood product manufacturing and health and social care provides further insight into how consortia develop in practice.

Biopharma and Health Technologies

The initial impetus for this project was an employer-led initiative funded by the South East England Development Agency, fdf and other partners to support the development of the Foundation degree in Life Science Technology and Bio-Manufacturing at the Kent Science Park. From this sub-regional development a wider network of employers has been developed representative of the region as a whole and a training need analysis (TNA) carried out to fully understand the knowledge and skills required by employees in this sector. The outputs from the TNA have been communicated to the higher education providers within the region and the current phase of this project is to re-shape provision within the region to be more aligned to employers needs. The outputs and collaborative approach fostered by this project have been recognised by both employers and agencies in adjacent regions and the analysis gained in one region is now being tested and further developed to meet the needs of a growing network.

Aircraft Maintenance

The initial momentum for this project came from an employer ‘champion’ who recognised a skills shortage and that existing provision was not meeting need. The employers in this sector did not have a tradition of networking to discuss the opportunities for improvements in education and training. An in-depth TNA was completed with the employer champion to inform the development of a comprehensive skills matrix for the sector. The skills matrix has now been ratified by two other major employers from within the sector and is informing and shaping the development of higher education provision. Once firmly established with some of the leading employers the network will be gradually expanded to reach out to a wider community of employer/provider partnerships.


Wood Product Manufacturing

Initially, there was an expectation that the partnership would form principally through the process of National Occupational Standards (NOS) development, with university staff being involved and acquiring essential knowledge of what employers expect from qualified recruits. This has been a smaller part of the joint initiative than intended because of delays in the NOS contracts therefore compensatory measures have been used, such as focused meetings involving the standards-setting body UKWoodchain, university staff and key employers in a three-way discussion of Foundation degree content, structure and access issues.

The ‘gap’ between these industries and the university sector as a whole will not be closed easily but can be reduced significantly at a local level, judging by two other measures agreed by the partnership. An opportunity was taken to use the University as the venue for one of the regular meetings convened by the Health and Safety Executive’s Woodworking Advisory Group, attended by senior businesses and trade body representatives from all four countries, with university staff observing and then leading a presentation and subsequent discussion of the Foundation degree initiative. From this, a second measure

was agreed: the establishment of a Content Development Group, comprising interested bodies and jointly co-ordinated by UKWoodchain and the sector’s unaccredited examination body, IWSc.

Content development was intended, from this point, to be strongly led by industry representatives whose direct guidance would enable swift completion of the programmes but expectations had to be limited in the knowledge that the sector is not equipped to provide such leadership without significant background support. In practice, two staff from UKWoodchain continued to encourage and guide content development from the industry side, one liaising with employers and the second working with the university to maximise the inclusion of industry requirements in the Foundation degree programmes. This arrangement has been important to date and will continue but is stimulating increased levels of interest among trade bodies, two of which expect to hold separate discussions with the university sector about Foundation degree programmes linking directly with their existing professional membership schemes. It is apparent that the partnership is leading to further developments across the sector and the development of innovative approaches to delivery that accredits existing training, builds upon the expertise of employers, and offers flexible CPD.


Health and Social Care

Building consortia or networks in the public sector takes on a slightly different focus, often building on structures and partnerships that are already in existence, for example, Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs), regional social care partnerships (particularly the Learning Resource Networks established by Skills for Care) and CWDC’s regional networks. The consortia are primarily regional but build on national drivers and requirements.

Whilst the learning outcomes for professionally registered training are prescribed, the new roles (supported by Foundation degrees) across these sectors have no such overarching specifications. Foundation degrees in health and social care form a substantive volume of Foundation degree provision. However, each education provider has developed their own programmes interpreting national policy agendas or local workforce development needs in their own way. In the majority of cases the latter has been through working with one employer. Where programmes have been developed through a much wider discussion with employers about requirements there has been no specific in-depth engagement and commitment from the employer. Education providers rightly say that it is difficult to get employers to the table.

Within this sector there may be several education providers offering the same programme in competition within a small geographical area whilst healthcare organisations in other areas have no access to any relevant programmes. Some employers may be asked to work with several different education providers. Others may have strong links with a provider for their professional training but then find they have to link with a totally ‘unknown’ provider for Foundation degree provision. With the supervision and assessment of learning in the workplace as integral this can result in a considerable duplication of activity. The present situation has caused considerable confusion amongst employers and resulted in a reluctance to commit as fully as they might wish to the partnership working required to support workforce development at this level. Education providers have complained that they are not getting the students on the programmes that they have taken such time to develop.

Time capacity is at a premium where the delivery of services to the public has to be sustained at a high level. This means the employers are keen to reduce the load – a significant factor in the adult social care sector where there are a large number of very small providers with businesses to run. Programme activity that has been successfully developed to give resource effective delivery and a consistency of approach (e.g. in Greater Manchester and North East London) was achieved through consortia type approaches led by the respective SHAs.

However, employers, themselves, in a number of instances are also keen to ensure they are involved in the development of, and support for, the student learning. One approach does not suit all.

The establishment of ten SHAs (from the 28 former organisations) has highlighted regional diversity. With the brokered agreement between the NHS, Skills for Health and the Learning and Skills Council, the Joint Investment Framework (JIF) requires SHAs to develop plans for the development of their wider workforce. The imperative to shape activity that reflects the good practice criteria outlined above is growing and fdf, (as an independent but expert organisation), has been asked to work with a number of SHAs to form regional consortia. These will develop a regional framework approach for Foundation degree activity in health and social care. Work with the North East, West Midlands and East Midlands is already well advanced. The outcomes will be disseminated regionally but will also be presented as case studies for wider dissemination. Work in Yorkshire and the Humber, South Central, South East Coast and London is just beginning. This work will support education providers in establishing more effective relationships with employers and should result in more cost-effective provision for both the education providers and employers.

During 2008-9 fdf will also be working on a new project with Skills for Care building on their Foundation degree Framework. A national consortium will be established and will support some regional pilot activity. The focus will be upon the development of Foundation degree provision that meets the service and workforce developments within adult social care per se as well as strengthening the links to health. Following the outcomes of the Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) - funded Gateways to the Professions project (reported in Forward Issue15), fdf is also working with CWDC to build effective networks/consortia – initially in three regions.evident.


Closing remarks

As the consortia approach to addressing the higher level skills needs of employers evolves it raises further challenges to be resolved. The issues of shared intellectual property rights, alignment of academic regulations, provision delivered to a business rather than academic cycle, have all been resolved. The emerging issues to resolve relate to network support, development, resource and facilities sharing and ongoing governance. These will be reported in due course as the consortia mature, and the resources required to sustain focused networks become more evident.

EBTA’s rise to

prominence

since House of

Commons launch

Jonathan Sharp

PR and Marketing Manager, fdf

The fdf Employer Based Training Accreditation (EBTA) scheme was officially launched at a House of Commons reception in March when MPs were joined by leading figures from higher education institutions, other public sector organisations and employers.

Leading figures from Microsoft, Tesco and Vodafone were among the industry HR professionals who attended the reception hosted by Kelvin Hopkins MP, chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Further Education and Bill Rammell, Minister of State for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education.

Kelvin Hopkins said at the event:

“EBTA will encourage employers to recognise the importance of improving the skills of their workforce and applies the rigorous standards of university learning to their in-house provision.”

The Minister commented:

“This type of initiative supports the Government’s desire to see more employer-led and employer-influenced provision, which is crucial if we are to produce more people with the skills that business and the economy demand.”

EBTA operates by aligning employer training with university standards and brokering recognition between employers and universities. The scheme, which is led by fdf, is designed to

be easily accessible and user-friendly, with a professional EBTA consultant looking at employers’ current training activities to assess the content and level of training.

fdf’s EBTA consultant will then discuss a university-linked system that involves awarding ‘credits’ in relation to this learning. These credits can contribute to a university award and can also lead to the development of a Foundation degree – or other qualifications.

The scheme’s first pilots are already progressing smoothly, including accreditation of a training scheme for legal cashiers at Quill Pinpoint Accounting Ltd by the University of Chester. Quill, which has offices in Manchester, Liverpool, Redcar and Bolton, offers a legal cashiering and book-keeping service for both solicitors’ practices and commercial companies. The company employs more than 80 staff and has more than 500 clients.

To meet growing demand and to ensure that the company have the skills and experience required for today’s multi-disciplined legal environment, they have designed a structured training course that covers all specific requirements of legal cashiering.

A training course for those looking to work in digital media is undergoing accreditation by the University of Bolton. The Digital Pass Course, which is funded by the UK Film Council, is being delivered by Northwest Vision + Media and is committed to providing high calibre individuals for the region’s film, TV and creative media industries. Before the involvement of EBTA, students taking the Digital Pass would receive a certificate of completion which was unaccredited.

Current initiatives include: Tesco, Tui UK Ltd, Christian Salveson (Norbert Dentressangle Group), Jewsons (through Saint Gomain), National Policing Improvement Agency, Sunderland Council’s National Programme for School Behaviour and Attendance, Flybe, the Royal School of Signals, to be followed by the Royal Electrical Mechanical Engineers and the RAF, and the East Lancashire and Manchester Chambers of Commerce.

In addition to the growing number of employers engaged in the scheme, EBTA has been actively working with the Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) to promote its work more generally. A significant number of higher education providers and Lifelong Learning Networks have become involved from recognition of the value of EBTA to their developing relationships with employers and the increasing priorities and opportunities being extended to vocational learners.

Over the next two years, fdf will continue to support the further development of the EBTA scheme and will be seeking to significantly increase the number of and range of successful accreditations, to encourage and support the capacity of higher education providers across the country to respond, and to explore how the benefits of EBTA can extend to employees in SMEs as well as larger enterprises.


“The fdf EBTA scheme has just reached a significant milestone with the end of its two year successful pilot phase.

During this time we have witnessed how the value of accrediting training has become increasingly recognised by employers – across all sectors and by both large and smaller enterprises. Employers are recognising the value that accreditation by a university adds to what they are already providing by way of training. As well as making training more effective in improving business performance, accreditation opportunities are seen by employers as important for attracting and retaining staff and for developing their full potential in the workplace.

EBTA has seen at first hand how the number of employer engagements has grown from a mere trickle to a steady stream. This is clear evidence that both the private and public sectors appreciate the need for higher level skills to boost the country’s economy. A number of the SSCs are also now fully engaged with EBTA.

This progress is in part due to the effective advice and guidance provided from the experienced pool of consultants that have been appointed and trained by fdf. They possess the expertise to advise employers on the potential for getting their training accredited and to introduce them to the most relevant universities. The EBTA Consultants appointed by fdf continue to give support to employers and to ensure their empowerment through the process of getting accreditation approval with their chosen university.

Also on a positive note, the last couple of years have seen a growth in the number of higher education providers showing a keen interest in accrediting training as part of their employer engagement strategies. EBTA is therefore playing a significant part in the role that fdf has to support HEFCE’s and the Government’s drive to encourage universities to engage with employers. This has been recognised in the recently published Department of Innovation Universities and Skills document Higher Education at Work which acknowledges the importance of fdf’s innovative decision to set up EBTA.

EBTA has also successfully encouraged participating universities to review their accreditation procedures and, where possible, be more flexible and responsive in this matter. EBTA is also working with Lifelong Learning Networks to encourage the integration of accredited training into progression pathways for vocational learners.

As we look towards the next stage of the EBTA success story, it is important to acknowledge that fdf will be seeking to capitalise on progress made during the developmental phase to ensure the scheme is firmly established as a major and permanent contributor to raising higher level skills in the workplace.

Ken Phillips, EBTA

Manager at fdf, looks

back over the two years

since the initiative was

piloted, and outlines

the strategy for

ensuring the scheme

continues to prosper…


The aim must be for all employers to think of accreditation when they provide training for their workforce and for employees to ask their employers for their training to be accredited, so that they can fully engage in the journey of lifelong learning. Likewise, it is just as important for higher education providers to view accreditation as the key starting point for developing and expanding work-based provision.

EBTA is playing its part in fostering a new culture of excellence and encouraging true returns on investment among employers. The message must be loud and clear: Think training. Think Accreditation.”

7.6 ‘…We are learning from the early experience of fdf’s Employer-Based Training Accreditation scheme and accreditation of in-house provision is specifically included in a number of the employer engagement projects HEFCE is funding or expects to fund.’

Higher Education at Work: High Skills: High Value (DIUS 2008)

More information about EBTA is available at: www.fdf.ac.uk/home/information_for_universities_and_colleges/employer_based_training_accreditation_ebta


The employer and provider

partnership jigsaw:

Putting your pieces together

Why read yet

another article

on employer

engagement? The answer may lie in your response to the following:

• Am I looking for essential information to develop employer and provider partnerships?

• Would I find an adaptable tool kit which provides an enabling structure helpful?

• Do I want a flexible guide that I can apply to my own situation whatever the locality or existing stage of working with employers or other partners?

• Am I looking to identify opportunities, new products/services for today’s market?

• Do I want to help my organisation cope well with constant change?

If your answer is positive to any of these, read on..., however, there are no answers, only questions for you to consider.

The project

This project, originally conceived as an investigation into how to streamline validation and recognition to improve employer engagement, has involved continuous evolution and change. The result has been the production of an Employer and Provider Partnership tool kit and a staff development programme to support institutions in establishing and sustaining effective partnerships with employers.

The outcomes of the project reflect not only the complex and changing higher education environment but also the impact of global recession. Major challenges to consider include: changes in funding and government policies; and moving forward into a global recession and demographics.

Key issues addressed by the project include:

• development of an ethos of employer and provider partnership rather than engagement

• use of a lifecycle approach to the total business need, rather than one aspect of an awarding body’s requirements

• consideration of how to integrate and embed other networks and developments so that the ‘wheel is not continually reinvented’

• review of the level of readiness of providers to meet employer needs• identification of the different needs of employers, providers and

employees/students

Clare Stoney

fdf Consultant

response to The project

Project

Employer/

Provider

Partnerships

Getting

Started

Health Check

Building

Patnerships

Putting

the pieces

together


Employer and Provider Partnership tool kit

Why do private providers hold about 90% of the education and training market?

This was a question put to employers who went on to identify the following benefits from private providers:

• credibility, up-to-date expertise and knowledge of the industry

• market awareness• rapid and flexible response customised to our needs• face-to-face contact and follow-up by the provider• ability to identify new opportunities and needs of

the company

This information has been utilised in the development of the Employer and Provider Partnership tool kit.

The major sections of the tool kit are:• an overview of the tool kit and how it can be used• getting started – the health check• building partnerships – ensuring sustainability• resources – an overview of some of the major issues

and related articles and sources of information

Pilots

The tool kit has been piloted with over 50 employers and 100 education and training providers. The feedback has been extremely positive and each institution has reported that it has had an impact on their future planning. The tool kit has been refined and reviewed in the light of the pilots.

During the pilot stage, 20 providers were involved in an in-depth use of the tool kit with fdf acting as a facilitator. Interesting outcomes from the pilots included:

• providers identified the need to measure the level and success of their current partnerships more effectively

• the health check led to the realisation that opportunities were not being optimised

• some institutions diagnosed a potentially fatal disease – ‘silo sitis’ which results in employer fatigue and lost markets

• identification of problems in communication inside the provider organisation

• the requirement for further staff development and identification of unique roles and responsibilities

• the barriers that can arise in employer partnerships because of language and cultural differences between employers and providers

• the need for an infrastructure to be developed that could cope with the level of activity and provide relevant information in larger scale activity in developing partnerships

During the pilot stage, providers benefitted from:

• time to explore the relevance of the materials that had been developed

• the support of an external facilitator in exploring organisational issues and new opportunities

• time out to look at the future development of employer partnerships within the organisation

It is interesting to note that most time was spent considering the Getting started section of the tool kit. Even where providers wanted to start immediately on the Building partnerships section, they found the need to return to the Getting started section to reassess their future plans.

Getting started – the health check

Most education and training providers have developed contacts with employers over a number of years and question why they would need to do a health check. The answer is to be found in the rapidly changing world we live in. Demographics, funding structures, government policies, global recession, changing markets and skills requirements and social needs, all conspire to create seismic change in the world of education and training. The Getting started section of the tool kit provides an opportunity for all providers to reassess their current level of engagement and identify or confirm their plans for the future. It involves the stages identified in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The provider health check

Provider Health Check Essential elements

Vision Aims and

Objectives

Strategy for HE/FE

Development

Business Model

Resources -

Financial and

Physical

Employer

Partnerships

System and

Infrastructure

Staffing, Training

and Development


Discussions considered in the Getting started section centred on:

• the current level of employer engagement, costs and benefits

• future planned growth over the next three years and how it will be funded and resourced

• type of activity – products and services that may be offered

• type and level of partnership that will deliver the outcomes

• level of readiness to meet the market need – portfolio, staffing and infrastructure

• action planning to move forward

During the pilot stage, it was reassuring to observe that each institution used the tool kit in a different way. However, there were some common outcomes. In particular, institutions highlighted a number of benefits including:

• working in partnership with employers using a service, rather than product, approach

• using a commercial approach utilising pre-sales, account managers and sales people who can assess how best to satisfy an employer’s needs, know what they are offering and have the flexibility to customise the service or product

• using the tool kit in different ways at each level of the institution:

- senior management can use it to review the vision and strategy for employer engagement

- managers can use it to develop the business model

- staff in departments can use it to develop the portfolio and sustain the relationship

• different types of educational institution developing different levels and types of employer partnership – institutions need to aim for ‘best fit’ in terms of size, expertise, location, speed of response and customisation

• making better use of local and regional networks and resources although the ‘not invented here’ syndrome has to be avoided

• avoiding business opportunities where the costs and benefits cannot be reconciled. In this context, co-funding and sustainability increase in importance

• recognising the key importance of marketing, reputation and brand/image


Building employer partnerships

The Getting started section was useful in identifying where partnerships could be developed and in which areas. The Building partnerships section is useful in identifying key issues for the institution when developing sustainable partnerships. Figure 2 identifies those stages in the process:

Institutions using the tool kit identified the benefits of following a systematic process across an institution in relation to the service provided to employers and in relation to quality and standards and meeting external scrutiny requirements.

The tool kit provides standard pro-formas covering the lifecycle of the employer and provider partnership. The pro-formas were developed in discussion with employers.

Some of the key findings from the pilots included:

• the need to identify the appropriate level of partnership with employers. Higher education institutions (HEIs) and further education colleges (FECs) have potentially different markets, products and services to offer

• the benefits of working with brokers and consortia in moving forward partnerships with employers

• the opportunities to reduce costs and improve service to employers through the use of frameworks

• the opportunities provided by local and regional networks in developing partnerships

• the importance of sending out well-prepared staff who exemplify the characteristics required by employers

• the difficulties in resourcing an appropriate infrastructure• delivery of a product was only a small component of the

services that could be offered• the need to streamline activity and reduce duplication

of effort

Putting the pieces together

‘Great things happen when we put the right pieces together’ – this is a phrase from the Abbey and Santander advertisement. It is true also for the development of employer and provider partnerships. There is no one size that fits all. Each institution has to find its own solution. However, the elements within the employer and provider partnership remain the same.

Businesses are feeling the pinch in a turbulent market. Many are experiencing what we see in the headlines everyday:

• decreasing revenues• shrinking budgets• disengaged employees

Employers need to focus on:

• maximising employee performance• getting one step ahead of the competition• emerging as the clear leader in the market

In today’s world employers need to demonstrate to the market that they can achieve superior growth in an uncertain market. Therefore, investment in partnerships should be geared towards improving and maximising employee performance so that they can deliver a superior product in that uncertain economic environment.

Employers are being encouraged to identify key strategies that can be used and focus on:

1. making the most of the workforce and developing its talents

2. making sure that there is a workforce that can address and work with the rapidly changing economic conditions

3. radically improving communications, horizontally and vertically within the organisation

4. identifying the best employees and investing in them

HEIs and FECs can work in partnership with employers to move these strategies forward. However, there are a number of

Figure 2: Building employer partnerships

Building Employer Partnerships

Provider Health Check

+Action Plan

Develop Staff and Structures

+Select type of Partnerships

Develop Partnerships

Follow BusinessLifecycle

Monitor, Analyse and Evaluate

Outcomes



pieces to the jigsaw. Delivery of training and education is only one aspect of the services that can be offered to employers. Other services include:

• accreditation of in-house training and private provider training

• provision of market intelligence and future planning for the business

• formation of mutually beneficial partnerships where an exchange of services can offset the financial outlay.

Institutions found the tool kit useful in exploring how to maximise resources and expertise. Analysis of what was happening in industry identified many forms of training and education. The questions became ‘how do these ‘fit together?’ and ‘where are our strengths?’ rather than ‘how do we beat the competition?’. Institutions then focussed on developing a more eclectic approach. There were three main considerations:

• what are our strengths? – size, type of institution, expertise and availability of staff, and current employer and provider partnerships

• understanding the industries/professions we serve – types of industry/professions, size, market challenges to those industries, location and regional priorities

• for each industry the training and education mix – HEIs, FECs and schools, private providers, professional/statutory bodies, suppliers and in-house training

There was no single answer to the puzzle. However, consideration of the various pieces of the jigsaw led to some interesting outcomes including:

• one HEI decided that it would be ineffective to continue with its current plan of delivering to individual organisations and sought new opportunities through the consortia approach and partnership with FECs for delivery purposes

• some FECs decided that they needed to streamline their approach to the development of new awards and moved towards sector-generic awards and competence frameworks

• both HEIs and FECs identified new opportunities for them to work together with private providers to provide a range of services to employers

• further development is required in terms of processes and systems for accreditation of prior learning learning and work-related learning

• institutions identified a need to make greater use of national organisations such as fdf to provide support and gain access to employers

The tool kit is only one support mechanism for providers in considering employer and provider partnership. Employer-based training accreditation (EBTA) and consortia of employers are supported through fdf. Regional and national agencies and professional bodies also offer a range of materials.

The final question for you is:

‘How are YOU going to put the employer and provider partnership puzzle together?’

The fdf Employer and Provider Partnerships tool kit and further details of the staff development programme can be found at: www.fdf.ac.uk/home/information_for_universities_and_colleges/employer_and_provider_partnerships/

some

nue with ons and proach

nd

ence

HEIs

FECs

Schools

Professional Bodies

Private

Providers

In-house

Training

OtherStakeholders

Union learning reps – an innovation or an innovation?

Liz Smith

Director of unionlearn

unionlearn is a valued partner of fdf, not least because the union learning reps that this article refers to are

an important force for developing a learning culture at work and an appetite for higher level skills. unionlearn

and fdf share a common mission to support the career development of working adults, and help raise and

realise their aspirations in terms of higher education, including through Foundation degrees. In November 2007

unionlearn and fdf signed a Memorandum of Understanding that recognises the particular roles of fdf and

unionlearn in championing and supporting work-based progression to higher education and together we have

developed a work plan to take it forward. Initial activity has focused on raising the awareness of higher education

opportunities and Foundation degrees, of union learning reps, with unionlearn disability champions contributing

to fdf research on inclusion. We are also exploring the implications for individuals of the employer based training

accreditation (EBTA) process. However, the real challenge is to engage those employers that do not yet see the

value of training and developing their staff. In this article Liz questions how far the new statutory right to request

training will help to meet this challenge.

Susan Hayday, Director of Workplace Learning Strategy, fdf

Derek Longhurst, fdf and Liz Smith, Director of unionlearn


I’ve always found ‘workforce development’ a rather useful concept but it’s not one that speaks easily to people outside the professional world of learning and skills. In fact its only one up from alphabet soup!

Most employers and workers will more easily understand the term ‘training’ which isn’t the same thing at all but is easier to grasp.

So what distinguishes ‘workforce development’ from ‘training’? I checked out a few definitions on the internet - as you do. The former suggests a strategic approach, where the organisation identifies where it wants to go and what it wants to achieve. Once that’s done, identifying the skills that are needed to get there, whether the workforce has them and, if not how to develop them, is relatively straightforward if challenging.

Training can be the way that gaps are filled but there are other mechanisms too – such as mentoring and coaching. Training doesn’t have to be linked to the needs of an organisation at all of course, and can be something an individual seeks out to help them get into work or progress into other areas of employment.

So far so good. Or is it? Too many workers find that although they may be given the training they need for their current job role, their employer doesn’t see the point in developing them further. This could be a company with a workforce development strategy, but more likely it isn’t.

The vast majority of money for training continues to be spent on those that have already had a good deal out of the system, whilst those at the lower skills end remain exactly where they always were with the opportunities they’ve always had - next to none. The fact of the matter is that the workplace actually serves to widen the skills divide rather than bridge it.

This is nothing less than a national disgrace – and if the Government is to achieve its important ambition of eradicating low skills by 2020 these attitudes and the inequalities that flow from them will have to go.

We know the employer demand for higher level skills will continue to grow; and we know that the pool of workers to fill these shortages will have to be found from the current workforce, not just from students in schools and universities now. Leitch (2006) made that crystal clear – 70% of the 2020 workforce are in work already.

However, retraining people who already have Level 4 qualifications, or moving people from Level 3 to the higher levels (although this is a critical part of the challenge) will not be enough. Pathways and support are needed to help those people with the ability and qualifications at Level 2, to progress to Level 3 and then into higher level learning; and that’s where unions and their union learning reps can step in.

One of the preconditions for the above scenario is to raise people’s hopes and aspirations. This doesn’t mean being unrealistic. If my union learning rep told me that with a bit of effort I could be a nuclear physicist I would tell them to ‘get real’. But thankfully there are other options! Most people have unlocked talent that with assistance and opportunity can take them to places they never dreamed they could reach. Union learning reps can spread the word, act as role models, provide information, link up with partners, turn alphabet soup into plain English, persuade employers, negotiate deals, and enter into learning agreements.

Not a magic bullet, but as close as you’ll get. The recent announcement at unionlearn’s national conference on 18 June 2008 of a consultation on the right to request time off to train is another innovation, another important building block. Whilst it doesn’t go as far as we would like, Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, John Denham MP is certainly right that it could be the start of a very big conversation about training at work, and who’s responsible for what. It could help to change the culture so that expectations are raised and employers and employees alike realise that the workplace can be a site of learning from which everyone benefits. I’d be very surprised if union learning reps didn’t help thousands of their members to articulate these requests, and to link them to wider workforce development strategies in their organisation.

And credit where it’s due; the Government has certainly put resources and infrastructure in to help employers get the training they want – Train to Gain, Sector Skills Councils, and support for Foundation degrees to name but a few. So is a model that involves union learning reps working with employees and employers to secure learning and development that meets the needs of the organisation and the individual, an innovation in workforce development? I can’t think of another that tops it.

A decade ago it would have been difficult to envisage a new army of 20,000 trained volunteers dedicated to improving the skills of the workforce; it’s a lot for unions to have delivered in a short time. If union learning reps have the right relationships with providers, including higher education institutions, if they understand how they work, they can make sure that the voice of the learner is heard.

In an employer-led system, where providers are expected to engage with and be relevant to the workplace, top down will never be enough. We think that unions can help to square this circle – union learning reps are the voice of the learner at the workplace. And if that isn’t an innovation I don’t know what is!


Reference

HM Treasury. 2006. Leitch Review of Skills: prosperity for all in the global economy – world class

skills. Available at: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/leitch_review/review_

leitch_index.cfm [accessed 8 September 2008]

Using Foundation degrees as a vehicle for workforce development and change

Esther Lockley

Research & Web Development Manager, fdf

Evaluation of the introduction of Assistant

Practitioner roles in the North West

Assistant Practitioners are still a relatively new addition to the NHS workforce. Assistant Practitioners are workers who support Registered Practitioners (this includes a variety of practitioners such as Registered Nurses, Radiographers, Physiotherapists and Speech and Language Practitioners) but are sufficiently trained and skilled to undertake routine assessments and treatments, and in some cases, manage their own caseload of clients. Assistant Practitioners differ from traditional support roles in terms of possessing a greater depth and breadth of knowledge and skills, and consequently greater autonomy. Importantly, Assistant Practitioner roles are designed to deliver patient-centred care and offer enhanced, cost-effective services.

Greater Manchester Workforce Development Confederation (now part of NHS North West) piloted the introduction of Assistant Practitioner roles in 2002 in response to a number of challenges. Plans for the future of the NHS had been published in 2000 and directed service providers to embrace new approaches to the delivery of health care. In the light of this new direction, a major workforce evaluation and development project was undertaken that highlighted issues including substantial numbers of hard-to-fill clinical vacancies across Greater Manchester and possible under-utilisation of the skills and experience of the support workforce. The evaluation identified the potential for the development of Support Workers into roles that would enhance service delivery and address staff vacancies in a cost-effective fashion, whilst providing career enhancement opportunities for an existing, dedicated workforce. Greater Manchester Workforce Development Confederation therefore proposed the introduction of Assistant Practitioner roles and other workforce development confederations in the North West subsequently embarked on similar initiatives.


In 2007, fdf commissioned several research projects that explored the impact of Foundation degrees on workplaces, employers and students. In Issue 15 of Forward the outcomes of studies undertaken by the Centre for Higher Education Research and Information, the Learning and Skills Network and Foundation Direct were reported. These studies examined the impact of Foundation degrees on employers and students across a range of sectors.

This article outlines evaluation/research jointly commissioned by fdf and NHS North West and undertaken by the University of Central Lancashire (UCLan). The UCLan study looked specifically at the impact of the introduction of Assistant Practitioner roles to the NHS in the North West and the effectiveness of the Foundation degrees developed to train these new practitioners.

Foundation degrees were identified as an ideal vehicle for development of the new Assistant Practitioner workforce, primarily due to the work-based focus of the qualification. Following very successful piloting of the Assistant Practitioner role, 1,135 staff have undertaken Foundation degrees and qualified as Assistant Practitioners in the North West and now make up 2% of the total support workforce in the Northwest. A further 631 are currently undergoing training.

A number of researchers carried out evaluative studies in the early days of the introduction of Assistant Practitioners. However, as the roles were new, early studies could only look at the process and trainees. The research undertaken by UCLan aimed to build on these earlier evaluations by examining the impact of the introduction of the Assistant Practitioner role once practitioners were qualified. It examined the effect on service delivery from the viewpoint of managers, service users, the qualified Assistant Practitioners and their colleagues.

The research revealed that Assistant Practitioners were working in a range of ways in different services within the NHS in the North West and were commonly supporting Registered Practitioners or managing their own caseload of service users with non-complex needs. Some examples of the diversity are:• working as a discharge coordinator that includes working

with many different disciplines and working across different services and organisations

• working in specialist services such as maternity and speech therapy

• working in community settings, such as GP practices including running their own clinics and providing advice on health promotion issues such as smoking.

Assistant Practitioners reported a range of reasons for undertaking a Foundation degree and seeking a new role within their workplace. The desire to develop professionally, the challenge and financial gain were commonly cited as motivating factors.

The research revealed that managers and Registered Practitioners perceived a range of benefits for service delivery as a result of the work of Assistant Practitioners, including:

• freeing up of registered staff to provide treatment to service users with more complex needs

• increased coordination and streamlining of services• the introduction of new services• a reduction in waiting times in some areas

Service users’ perceptions of the introduction of Assistant Practitioner roles were also sought by the UCLan team. The

majority of service users reported positive outcomes, including enhanced continuity of care, quicker access to services and also broader benefits such as Assistant Practitioners acting as intermediaries between service users and other staff.

One aspect of the UCLan study was an evaluation of the effectiveness of Foundation degrees as a vehicle for workforce change and development. Foundation degrees were generally perceived to prepare trainees well for their enhanced role. Indeed, Assistant Practitioners were asked about their experiences of undertaking a Foundation degree, and below are the key responses:

• 82% thought that the Foundation degree had prepared them very well or quite well

• almost all of those questioned reported that the academic elements of the Foundation degree had been challenging or very challenging, but saw this level of challenge as a positive characteristic of their qualification

• local delivery of training, work-based learning and flexibility were felt to be major advantages of the qualification

These factors facilitated development of a local workforce who represented the community served and offered a curriculum that reflected local service needs.

The introduction of Assistant Practitioners was not without challenges and the research also revealed a numbers of factors that influence the perceived benefits and success of the new role. Some Assistant Practitioners reported that colleagues had been unsupportive or resistant to the introduction of their roles. A lack of awareness and understanding of the Assistant Practitioner role and Foundation degrees was commonly felt to be behind this as negative attitudes appeared to recede as staff became familiar with the role. Consequently, a key recommendation of the research is to improve understanding and recognition of Foundation degrees and the Assistant Practitioner role within the NHS. The study also highlighted the requirement for thorough workforce planning and service re-design to fully realise the potential benefits of introducing Assistant Practitioners, in terms of cost benefits and service enhancement.

The research report outlines a number of key areas such as health promotion and advocacy in which Assistant Practitioner roles could be further developed. The report also recommends exploration of the potential for national body registration of Assistant Practitioners as a lack of professional registration was seen as potentially inhibitory to the successful embedding of the role.


The full report relating to this research and the other studies commissioned by fdf in 2007

can be found at: www.fdf.ac.uk/home/information_for_universities_and_colleges/research_

commissioned_by_fdf [accessed 6 August 2008].

The findings of this study were reported at the fdf conference Transforming Services in

Health and Social Care through Innovative Workforce Development held on 8 July 2008

in London. Presentations given at this event can be viewed at: www.fdf.ac.uk/

events/recent_events [accessed 6 August 2008].

Foundation

degrees overseas:

some models for

consideration

Dr Penny McCracken

Director for Quality Enhancement Services,

fdf

In November 2007, fdf held a conference on Foundation degrees: Employers and Work-based Learning in an International Context. The popularity of this conference, together with recent developments in Foundation degrees, indicates that many people are considering whether they can offer Foundation degrees not just within the European Higher Education Zone but also beyond it. In autumn 2007, evidence showed that there were few Foundation degrees in operation overseas, but colleagues in various institutions were working with partners and employers in ways which could be transferred to Foundation degrees abroad and sometimes in other employment sectors. This article considers two current models in use with overseas partners to assist developments in Foundation degrees outside the UK.

The two programmes considered here are the Foundation degree Biological Science (formerly known as the Health and Medical Sciences: Applied Blood and Tissues Pathway) (FdBS), offered in the Gambia and the Foundation degree in Fire and Rescue (FdFR) which is offered in the UK to students from the Middle East. The FdBS is offered by the joint Faculty of Health and Social Care Sciences of Kingston University and St George’s, University of London, the awarding institution, while the FdFR is offered by Blackburn College and validated by the University of Lancaster.

Origins and context

Overseas Foundation degree programmes originate in a number of ways. Some come from an institutional strategy, others from an approach by an employer, or from a professional organisation. Many are developed through existing contacts or a combination of these factors combined with luck and coincidence. In all cases there is a measure of personal

enthusiasm. Working with existing overseas partners or known contacts certainly speeds up the development process and makes the partnership more secure. Many existing Foundation degrees in the UK will be run with employers who have contacts, suppliers or branches overseas. It is therefore worth considering how some of these programmes might be extended overseas while working with the same or a related employer.

In both programmes considered here, there was a measure of coincidence, existing contacts and personal enthusiasm. Kevin Murray and Stephen Johnson, co-directors of International Performance and Training had recently retired from senior posts in the fire service and Murray was taking a post-graduate certificate at Blackburn College. Both had previously liaised with Middle Eastern countries concerned about developing their civil defence workforce, and with the United Nations and other overseas organisations dealing with fire and police services. While Murray was studying at the college, his tutor was Roshani Swift. Swift had seen the growth of Foundation degrees at the college and saw the potential for developing a Foundation degree, particularly given the links between Murray and Johnson and the nearby Washington Hall International Fire Training Centre in Chorley, Cheshire.

The Medical Research Council (UK) in the Gambia had sent a student to study at Kingston University. On visiting the Gambia, one of the Kingston staff, Andy Jewel, felt that the Foundation degree might be helpful to their laboratory technicians. The Foundation degree had been developed with the NHS and had already run for two years in the UK. It needed no changes since it was for technicians undertaking the same job in each country.

The programme first ran in the Gambia in 2007-08 and, taken part-time, will last four years. The FdFR also began in 2007 and its first intake students complete the programme full-time within 18 months.

Development

Both Foundation degrees have used employers to establish the programme content and ensure its currency and relevance to particular areas of employment. The FdBS programme team worked with the NHS to make the programme appropriate either for staff working in NHS or private hospital laboratories or for technicians in laboratories dealing with genetics, immunology, microbiology and histopathology etc.

From Blackburn, Murray and Johnson visited Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates, to explore the employer’s exact requirements. These centred on the need for higher level training for officers. The civil defence authorities already sent employees over to undertake honours degrees in England. However, employers found that the programmes were often too science-based and lacked the input in the people skills required by officers on active duty with a team to supervise in emergencies. Murray and Johnson then worked with Swift


and her colleagues to develop a blended learning Foundation degree customised for Abu Dhabi.

The Gambia has one university which is relatively new. There is no appropriate science degree on offer, so the Foundation degree helps students who cannot go to another country, such as South Africa, to do this. One current student, for example, had to leave his medical studies because of funding problems, but through the Foundation degree he is able to gain a qualification while working full-time.

Structure

The Gambia programme has 16 modules which are each intended to take eight to 10 weeks, with an expectation that the students will study independently for a further 12-14 hours a week. Students say they do at least this amount. They often need access to a computer and at times to laboratory equipment, so not all study can be done at home. According to the Course Director, Cathy Price, a session will have a specific learning topic and each topic might last a week. Each topic has a varied diet of activities, to be carried out in the lab, or to research in the workplace, or to study practices in the laboratory. There are also quizzes, discussion boards and questionnaires on-line through the virtual learning environment.

The academic skills and theoretical aspects are delivered through this. Usefully there is also a Return to Study module at the beginning to assist students in the important early stages of the programme. Assessment is often through reports, essays and other means with a small number of exams to prepare students for the honours year to which they can choose to progress. Helpfully there are some formative assessments for students to help them gauge their understanding of the task.

The Blackburn programme for Abu Dhabi also has 16 modules together with a three-week residential at the nearby Washington Hall International Fire Training Centre. There is a research project which is continuous across the final level of the programme. There is considerable emphasis upon management and associated skills in addition to the knowledge required to handle a wide variety of fire and rescue situations. Work-based assessment is integrated throughout the programme.

Learning and teaching

Both programmes use a range of learning and teaching methods. The Gambia programme is mainly on-line with a face-to-face session at the beginning of each module. This is a popular format for other largely on-line programmes


including the Retail Foundation degree, developed by fdf with a partnership of higher education institutions, Tesco and MyKnowledgeMap, and the Travel Management Foundation degree run by six higher education institutions for TUI and others in the UK travel industry. It enables the students to meet each other and this facilitates subsequent on-line contact. Although the students are largely based in the same laboratory in The Gambia, they nevertheless value this session. They have contributed to changing the content so that it includes more of a summary of each module’s content rather than just an emphasis on their understanding of the assessments.

The university has supplied text books to the Medical Research Council and students cooperate between themselves to ensure that everyone is able to use the book in the available time.

The Blackburn students receive mainly face-to-face teaching with increasing amounts of independent learning. They can also directly access learning resources from the college and from the nearby International Fire Training Centre. The programme is currently being developed in an on-line mode to expand its availability to other areas of the emergency services such as paramedics and technicians.

Staff

Staff in the Gambia laboratory were selected to tutor different modules according to their experience in the specialism and become honorary staff of the university while they teach on the Foundation degree. As they are on-site they are also available to students to answer queries during the modules. The staff


are responsible for all the practical aspects of the programme which cannot be done on-line. There are clear plans for the face-to-face sessions to ensure consistency across the programme in the UK and the Gambia.

Blackburn provides all academic staff including individual mentors and academic tutors for the students. The employer and practical input also involves Murray and Johnson as well as the Washington Hall staff.

Challenges

The FdBS students find the work challenging. As with all students who work full-time, some find it difficult to juggle competing demands but no one dropped out of the course in the Gambia during the first year, a remarkable achievement. Students often come to the lab on Saturdays to access the computers and carry out assignments. It is more difficult for those who live further away. On-line learning itself provided challenges since students often needed to increase their IT skills both for on-line working and searching.

Peer support is very important and the students elect a representative for their programme who liaises with staff over any problems experienced by students. The fact they largely work together and have ready access to their tutors is beneficial.

The FdFR programme has also retained all its students. The employer has nominated the students and is paying all the expenses so the motive for staying is considerable. There is the prospect of promotion to senior positions and work in other countries after achieving the Foundation degree.

Both programmes are taught in English and during all class sessions students have to talk to each other in English. Blackburn staff are aware of the cultural adjustments students will have to make and actively promote critical thinking and questioning of staff. In the first cohort an Arab speaker was employed in order to explain the more complex ideas, but his role is limited to that to ensure the students learn to debate and think critically in English. The college provides English support sessions for language and academic study.

Benefits for employers and students

The employers are already seeing benefits. The Gambian students in the laboratory are suggesting changes in practice based on their learning. They also report a better understanding of the equipment they are using and as a result use it more effectively. For example, one student questioned why a

sterilising solution of 100% was used for cleaning the lab when it was clear from the programme that 70% concentration was more effective. At least one student has been promoted by the third module of the programme and is now deputy manager of the laboratory.

The Blackburn programme has developed a computerised assessment tool to assess students against the criteria in practical situations. This enables tutors, students and employers to see where strengths of individuals lie and where there is scope for development. The effectiveness of this tool is clear in the improvement of students when they come to deal with another emergency. It is a way of assuring the employer, during the programme, of the benefits of the investment in the students.

Conclusion

There is certainly the potential for Foundation degrees to operate abroad. The recent rapid development in on-line learning for workforce development in the UK means that relatively little additional development is needed, as the Kingston/St George’s case shows. Making use of existing employers who work overseas, or their supply chain, also makes sense and reduces development time. The example of employers sending their students to the UK for full-time study is likely to be feasible in a minority of niche sectors, such as the civil defence example at Blackburn. The college has already realised that developing the on-line materials will open up other markets.

There needs to be clarity in arrangements made with overseas employers as with any partnership. Responsibilities and roles should be clearly set out at the start and the higher education institution will be keen to ensure that it is appropriately discharging its responsibilities for the academic standard of the award. This is when working through a trusted academic partner in the relevant country could be beneficial since they can undertake liaison with the employers. Overall a little creative thinking could bring considerable rewards.



Apprenticeships:

a recipe for

higher education

progression

Susan Hayday

Director of Workplace Learning Strategy, fdf

Apprenticeships and their expansion are high on the Government’s agenda. The recently published Draft Apprenticeships Bill aims to establish a statutory basis for the entire apprenticeships programme and redefine the ‘blueprint’ outlining what apprenticeships should contain. It will also tackle the enduring problem of ensuring schools provide advice about apprenticeships so that young people are properly informed about apprenticeships as a career choice. The Government hopes to massively increase the number of apprenticeships available and anticipates that around one in five of all young people will be undertaking an apprenticeship in the next decade.

That will only happen if employers are persuaded of the business benefits of apprenticeships. At present demand for apprenticeships outstrips supply as demonstrated by a pilot ‘matching service’ (rather like a UCAS scheme for apprenticeships) that was run in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight reporting 17,000 registered applicants but only 6,000 places, and by the 50,000 applications recorded in 2006 for 9,000 construction industry apprenticeships.

One clear business benefit of apprenticeships is that apprentices can be capable of further development and acquire the higher level skills and knowledge to carry out the professional and technical roles that businesses need. Indeed the very skills and knowledge that Foundation degrees were set up to deliver. Those few companies that have a good

record of progressing their apprentices through to management positions are clear about the advantages of ‘growing your own’, employees that know the business through and through and have a loyalty to the company. Progression to higher education from apprenticeships is generally, however, minimal. As reported in by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee in July 2007, “On this, (progression from Level 3 apprenticeship to Foundation degree) there are no data at all. Apprenticeship qualifications are not separately coded when data on prior qualification statistics of university entrants are collected. There is general agreement, however, that progression to Foundation degree is at present very low if not negligible.” Whilst the issue of data collection is being addressed, and the proposed UCAS tariff for apprenticeships will strengthen perception of apprenticeships as a route to higher education (HE), there remains a need to build into apprenticeship programmes features that will support and encourage HE progression.

Research carried out on behalf of fdf has focused on identifying the common elements of apprenticeship programmes that facilitate progression to HE, including to Foundation degrees. The aim is to produce a commonly understood and applied recipe for apprenticeship progression. The research has been carried out in three phases.


Phase 1 of the research

The phase 1 analysis of apprenticeship programmes that provided a significant level of progression to HE provided the following checklist of characteristics.

SECTOR • Engineering – a sector with a long track record of ‘stretching’ apprenticeships beyond Level 3 by incorporating Level 4 units and through progression to HNCs and HNDs. Also one of only two sectors whose Sector Skills Council (SSC) has developed a Higher Apprenticeship Framework (the other being IT)

• Sectors with established work-based progression routes to higher levels, often linked to professional accreditation (e.g. engineering, construction, nursing, accountancy).

• There are individual instances of progression of apprentices in many – probably all – sectors

SIZE OF • Typically large employer with established, substantial apprenticeship programme – a major player in the localEMPLOYER labour market • Medium-sized company in high-skill, niche market • Small and medium-sized professional firms (accountancy, others?) • Individual, often employee-led examples with employers of all sizes

FINANCIAL • Capacity and commitment of employer to invest heavily in people and skillsRESOURCES • Generous allocation by employer of initial, fully-funded training time – typically four years • Mature (25+) apprentices often self-funding

PHYSICAL • High quality training facilities – both in-house and through providers (machinery often donated by employers)RESOURCES

HUMAN • Dedicated, enthusiastic staff committed to training and developmentRESOURCES • Active support of senior management • Dedicated provider liaison with large apprenticeship contracts • Provider instructors/tutors with industry background, supported by continuous professional development

ETHOS/ • Employer is a ‘learning organisation’ – strong commitment to developing people and skills at all levelsCULTURE • Commitment to work-based learning and shopfloor progression – senior executives include ex-apprentices • Apprenticeship and progression embedded within the company – it is normal company practice • HE opportunities open to all – commitment to equality of opportunity and parity of esteem • Often (though not invariably) entrepreneurial, proactive providers keen to develop work-based routes to HE

BUSINESS • Intermediate and high-level skills – technical and managerial – are critical to the businessDRIVERS • Skills gaps at technician level • Attraction of/need to grow own graduates alongside traditional graduate recruitment • Retention a key driver • Consideration of longer term interests as well short-term needs • Professional accreditation/licence to practise are often significant incentives • Government policy in the public sector

APPRENTICE • Rigorous recruitment and selection, with a strong focus on aptitude and personal qualities, and an eye to HERECRUITMENT potential& SELECTION • Widening the professional recruitment net • HE and opportunity for progression on the agenda from the start


NETWORKING • Networked into the local learning and skills infrastructure – Learning and Skills Council, providers, Lifelong Learning Networks etc.

• Networking and learning from other sector employers • Links with schools • Involvement with SSC

PROMOTION • Reputation as a good employer committed to training • Articulation of business benefit • Proactive promotion of apprenticeship • HE opportunities a key message • Proactive internal as well as external ‘selling’ of apprenticeship progression

DELIVERY • Close alignment of learning to business objectives (especially Foundation degree) • Flexible delivery – e.g. to accommodate shift patterns; ability to step on and off • Additional units to meet business need and/or prepare for HE • High quality workplace mentoring • Accessible college support – ‘open door’ • Learners take charge of their learning • Provider staff development programmes • Clear, comprehensive documentation

INNOVATION • HE transition strategies – e.g. study skills units, HE induction during apprenticeship • Higher apprenticeship, fast-track models, e.g. start HE alongside NVQ3 • Bespoke (often Foundation degree) programmes tailored to workforce needs • Public policy drivers, e.g. NHS Making a Difference calling for more flexible routes into nursing

QUALITY • High demands and expectations of learners • Close supervision and support of apprentices in the workplace • Learning agreements • Close liaison between provider and employer • High retention and completion rates • Rigorous monitoring, review and continuous improvement The research also considered the characteristics of apprentices progressing to HE on these programmes which emerged as follows:

APPRENTICES • Highly motivated • Mature for their age • Career-orientated – acceptance of low trainee wage in return for longer term gain • May have underachieved at school, achieving less than the Level 2 threshold (five A-C GCSEs or equivalent) • Strong preference for practical ways of learning • Loyalty to employer – appreciative of the quality and value of training (though generally unaware of how

exceptional apprentice progression to HE is) • Typically no history of HE in the family • Learning must be combined with earning – strong aversion to student debt


Phases 2 and 3

Phases 2 and 3 involved further research to provide additional evidence of factors supporting progression. The first phase of the project was limited to four sectors; engineering, nursing, accountancy and limited work in the IT sector. In phase 2 additional research to ensure the findings were sufficiently robust and applicable/transferable to other sectors was conducted including into higher apprenticeships, into the impact of the development of an apprenticeship qualification on progression and into the Accountancy Apprenticeship and Apprenticeship in the Health and Social Care sector.

Phase 3 used research conducted in phase 2 as a base to identify sectors where there appears to be a strong case for progression, the skill sets individuals need to gain and the job roles they may be able to progress into (subject to vacancies etc). Emphasis was placed on understanding the roles individual learners are being developed for and links to progression by older learners from Level 2/3 job roles to Foundation degrees. Consideration was given to whether employers do or do not support progression, the impact of funding, the wider business case for progression and cost/benefits of apprenticeship progression in comparison to graduate recruitment.

Most of the employers consulted saw apprentice progression as complementing graduate recruitment, rather than as an alternative. Traditional honours graduates were often seen as unsuitable for technician and team leader roles because of their lack of workplace experience and practical skills. The few employers who do ‘grow their own’ through apprentice progression programmes consistently referred to retention as a key driver; high levels of employee retention and loyalty were seen as an important advantage of these programmes over

graduate recruitment. However, despite these benefits, such progression routes appear to remain largely undeveloped. The findings suggest that employers and sectors are largely persisting with traditional apprentice and graduate recruitment practices that do not address increasingly important intermediate skills needs at Levels 4-5. This is despite the well documented rise of professional and managerial occupations in an increasingly high-skills economy making a strong case for maximising progression opportunities to higher learning for employees with Level 3 qualifications and competences.

Those sectors with a high proportion of the workforce in the associate professional and technical occupational group have most to gain from opening up progression pathways for their apprentices and other ‘Level 3’ employees. However, these skills needs and progression routes are not always articulated clearly or addressed adequately in SSCs’ sector skills agreements. There is a need for more specific and referenced guidance on the skills case for apprenticeship progression to higher education in sector skills agreements. Apprenticeship frameworks also tend to provide little information on progression, and the place of progression in the delivery of apprenticeship is often unclear, something that may be addressed in the Apprenticeships Bill.

Nevertheless, some sectors and professions – notably IT, engineering, healthcare and accountancy – are leading the way in providing apprentice progression opportunities. Key success factors include well-developed, high-quality apprenticeship programmes, a strong link between higher-level qualifications and career progression and proactive support from the relevant SSCs or other sector organisations.


Progression models

Progression models emerging from the case studies varied but could be identified as falling into one of the following five categories.

Progression model Sector example

1. ‘End-to end’ progression from advanced apprenticeship to bespoke HE, typically IT Foundation degree with the opportunity of progression to honours degree 2. Accelerated progression from apprenticeship to HE, with the HE qualification Engineering started before completion of the apprenticeship framework. Opportunity, particularly with a Foundation degree (though Higher Nationals are still often the HE technical certificate of choice in the engineering sector) for progression to honours. Links to professional accreditation 3. Integrated, accelerated progression through apprenticeship with exemption from Healthcare part of a diploma/Foundation degree, with opportunity of progression to honours. Strong articulation with professional accreditation 4. Higher apprenticeship frameworks, with HE qualification (typically Foundation IT, engineering degree) as technical certificate and competence assessment beyond Level 3 (typically NVQ4 units or full NVQ4) 5. Progression through NVQs/apprenticeships to NVQ4 and/or professional Accountancy, some qualifications, with an opportunity to fast-track into HE if desired. Strong articulation other financial services with professional accreditation

The low prevalence of such models and apparent low demand for apprentice progression are arguably as much cultural as practical: even among those sectors with seemingly most to gain, advanced apprenticeship is not widely perceived as a platform for higher learning, but as a Level 3 programme to develop skilled workers and nothing more. The research found little evidence that raising awareness of HE progression opportunities featured in the delivery of advanced apprenticeship programmes. Any subsequent progression beyond Level 3 appeared to be mostly ad hoc, driven by a particular business need or individual ambition.

ConclusionThe research therefore points to a need to challenge and support those sectors with most to gain from apprentice progression, raising awareness of the benefits among employers and individuals and addressing the issues that are suppressing demand for such progression. fdf is using the research to help articulate this skills case and identify how the research can be used to support sector progression. We aim to produce sector-based guidance, a recipe for HE progression, which can be used by the SSCs, higher education institutions, further education colleges, training providers and employers in the sector to help raise demand for HE progression.


Further Information

Further information about the draft Apprenticeship Reform Bill is available at:

www.commonsleader.gov.uk/output/page2169.asp [accessed 8 September 2008]

In 2007, fdf and ConstructionSkills initiated a joint research project to explore the development and delivery of Foundation degree programmes in the construction sector. The areas examined by the research included:

• the reasons for the development of programmes

• the key factors influencing programme design

• the parties involved in programme development

• employer involvement in design and delivery

• the extent to which key industry guidance had been utilised during programme development

• challenges faced by providers in developing and delivering programmes

There were 62 construction-related Foundation degrees running in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2007-08. A further 33 programmes were being developed or awaiting enrolments in the same period. Programmes covered a range of subject disciplines including Construction Management, Civil Engineering and Quantity Surveying. This research project looked at 30 programmes delivered by 10 different academic institutions. Providers, employers and professional institutions provided information about the design, development and delivery of these programmes.

Foundation

degrees in the

construction

sector

Esther Lockley

Research & Web Development Manager, fdf


Key findings

1 For academic institutions, the initial motivating factor for development of Foundation degrees was response to government policy. However, all academic institutions emphasised the role of Foundation degrees in widening participation, providing a route to an honours degree and the value of work-based learning for both students and employers.

2 All of the academic institutions interviewed used labour market information and involved local employers and professional bodies in the design and development of Foundation degree programmes. This was seen as a key to meeting the needs of local, regional and national employers.

3 Several institutions reported that real and perceived time constraints were the main inhibiting factors for employer involvement in the design and delivery of Foundation degree programmes.

4 Institutions reported a low level of awareness of Foundation degrees amongst employers and a great deal of misunderstanding regarding the nature of the qualification. This was perceived a major challenge for institutions attempting to develop partnerships with employers. Some academic institutions mentioned that employers had a low level of awareness of Foundation degrees, or were resistant to the concept of Foundation degrees as they considered that HNC/Ds met their requirements.

5 Two out of three employers surveyed were interested in working in partnership with a higher education institution to develop a Foundation degree either as an individual employer or as part of a consortium of employers. There is further evidence outside of this research that shows that employers are actively interested in being part of an employer consortium.

6 Six out of 10 responding institutions referred to the ConstructionSkills Foundation Degree Framework when designing and developing their programmes. Four institutions referred to their existing successful HNC/D when developing their Foundation degree programmes.

7 Academic institutions value the input from professional bodies on their validation boards and employer liaison panels. Foundation degrees can provide entry routes to professional qualifications which are mapped to industry competence requirements. The importance of mapping to professional membership requirements is recognised by academic institutions. However, some professional bodies are reluctant to recognise Foundation degrees as an entry qualification for further honours degree study. One of the responding professional bodies commented that the main challenge encountered when considering recognition of Foundation degrees is establishing appropriate benchmarks for the mapping of work-based learning as the level and requirements vary between programmes.

8 Finding work placements for students not in employment can be a challenge as employers are unable to help on a regular basis.

9 The Construction Industry’s Training Board’s Northern Ireland Standards Committee (replaced with the ConstructionSkills Standards and Qualifications Strategic Working Group for Northern Ireland) agreed that the HND was the preferred qualification, as it was well established, well-recognised, and a valued qualification in the construction industry.

10 Foundation degrees and Higher National Diplomas share some common features. Both are work-related and in different ways provide for work-based learning (which can encompass a range of activities described as: work placements, work-applied learning or work experience). For Foundation degrees, work-based learning is an essential assessed aspect of the course. A number of approaches can be adopted for this, accounting typically for about three to four months of a Foundation degree. For HNDs, full-time learners have the opportunity for work-based learning through formal work placements or their part-time employment experience. Work-based learning units are provided so that this can be formally assessed. Some HNDs are structured with students spending a year in industry. Comments from the HND providers would indicate that the year ‘on-site’ results in a major change in candidates’ attitudes and commitment to achieving the qualification and putting into practice what they have been taught and experienced.

11 The preferred delivery method for Foundation degrees for employers was day release, part-time and evening.

12 There appears to be a lack of use of key industry-led guidance and systems by the academic institutions surveyed in this sample. This is a deficiency that needs to be addressed through clearer focussed guidance.

13 The basic structure of the existing National Qualification Framework is regarded as satisfactory by employers and professional bodies. However, one professional body emphasised the need for clearer progression routes between vocational/technical qualifications. The employers agreed that the framework provides adequate progression routes for all staff in technical roles.

14 The Foundation degrees surveyed have been established relatively recently, hence it is too early to make sound judgements about the progression routes available to Foundation degree graduates.

15 Whilst on some courses the majority of students do take up student membership of a professional body it is not known if they continue membership after graduation. This information was either not known by academic institutions or it was too early to say as students had yet to graduate.


Future work

fdf is looking to address the lack of awareness of Foundation degrees through a series of initiatives. In 2008, fdf has mounted a sustained and targeted national advertising campaign aimed at employers. Additionally, fdf has looked to raise the profile of Foundation degrees across a number of sectors through the development of sector-specific employer consortia, consisting of high-profile employers who will lead the development of Foundation degrees that will become potential models for future developments.

Academic institutions also have a very key role to play in increasing employer engagement with Foundation degrees and higher education more generally. The Higher Education Funding Council for England has clearly indicated that employer partnership should be high priority for all higher education institutions. For many institutions this may involve a step-change in terms of their policies and practices concerning employer partnerships. In recognition of this, fdf offers resources and a staff development programme to support the management of employer-provider partnerships.


fdf will continue to work in partnership withConstructionSkills to:

• support partnerships of employers and providers to meet the higher level skills needs of the sector and build upon the learning derived from the employer researched and led projects currently underway

• work in partnership with Lifelong Learning Networks both nationally and regionally to support the higher education sector in responding to the needs of employers within this sector

• work in partnership with Regional Development Agencies, the Higher Education Academy Subject Centre, professional bodies and other stakeholders to support the development of the higher level skills needs for this sector

ConstructionSkills

The ConstructionSkills Standards and Qualifications Strategic Committee was presented with this research and agreed the following future work:

• to continue to promote Foundation degree programmes in the context of the ConstructionSkills Qualification Strategy as an important progression route

• to revise the ConstructionSkills Foundation Degree Framework to make it more succinct and user friendly based on the ConstructionSkills Standards and Qualifications Validation Group (S&QVG) ‘Draft Procedure and Criteria for Validating Vocational Qualifications, Units, Learning Outcomes and Assessment Strategies and building on the ‘Listing of key benchmark criteria for a prototype bid for a Foundation degree programme in Construction and the Built Environment’

• to test the S&QVG criteria for Foundation degrees working with higher education institutions, employers and professional institutions beside forthcoming work piloting qualification approval arrangements for the Qualifications and Credit Framework (for non-higher education qualifications in England)

Further Information

The full research report is available at: www.fdf.ac.uk/home/information_for_universi-

ties_and_colleges/sector_skills_councils [accessed 8 September 2008]

For further information about ConstructionSkills see: www.constructionskills.net

Forthcoming event

Thursday 16 October 2008

10.30am - 3.00pm

Foundation degrees: enhancing design and

delivery of full-time programmesThe Higher Education Academy, Innovation Way‚ York Science Park‚ York‚ YO10 5BR

This fdf and Higher Education Academy event recognises that, whilst, in response to Leitch, there is a drive for more part-time,

flexibly delivered and work-based Foundation degrees for the existing workforce, there nevertheless remains a need for full-time

Foundation degrees. Those looking for a route into employment, particularly school and college leavers, including in the future

those who have completed a Diploma, can be well-served by a full-time Foundation degree.

Purpose: the event will focus on effective practice in full-time Foundation degrees, particularly in respect of engaging employers

and embedding work-based learning. The event aims to:

fdf publication Achieving effective practice in the establishment, planning and delivery of full-time

Foundation degrees: A guide for universities and colleges (copies will be available to take away)

This event is for:

HE managers

Business development managers

Programme leaders of full-time HE programmes

To book please go to:

www.heacademy.ac.uk/events/detail/16_Oct_2008_Foundation_degrees_YORK

There is no charge for this event but advance enrolment is necessary for administrative purposes.


Publications

Employer and Provider Partnerships

This publication is designed to provide a framework that institutions can draw from and adapt

according to their particular needs and circumstances, for each stage in the process of partnership

development. It can be used at every level in the institution (organisational strategy, operational

curriculum management, course/departmental team) to assist discussions about vision, strategy and

practice.

Available at:

www.fdf.ac.uk/home/information_for_universities_and_colleges/employer_and_provider_partnerships

The impact of Foundation degrees on the

workplace and students: A summary of research

projects commissioned by fdf

In 2007, fdf commissioned a number of research projects that examined the impact of Foundation

degrees on the workplace and students. This publication summarises the findings of these projects.

Available at:

www.fdf.ac.uk/home/information_for_universities_and_colleges/research_commissioned_by_fdf

Achieving effective practice in the establishment,

planning and delivery of full-time Foundation degrees:

A guide for universities and colleges

This guidance has been produced by fdf to support providers in addressing issues specific to full-

time Foundation degrees and ensure high quality Foundation degrees are developed and delivered

that address workforce needs.

Available at: www.fdf.ac.uk/home/information_for_universities_and_colleges/fdf_publications

Case study: Travel Operations Management

This case study describes the development of a Travel Operations Management Foundation degree

for the travel and tourism industry.

Available at: www.fdf.ac.uk/home/information_for_universities_and_colleges/case_studies


fdf Board Membersfdf Board Members

Members:

Dick Coldwell CBE Former Member of the HEFCE Board

(Chair)

Joe Eason Former Training and Education Development Manager,

Corus

Linda Florance Chief Executive, Skillfast-UK

Mike Goldstein CBE (former Vice-Chancellor and Chief Executive,

Coventry University) Independent

Deian Hopkin Vice-Chancellor and Chief Executive, London

South Bank University

Fran Hulbert Former Director of Skills Policy, North West RDA

Pat Jackson Director of West Midlands Regional Skills Partnership

Anil Kumar Director of Education and Policy, Engineering and

Technology Board

Derek Longhurst Chief Executive, fdf

Chris Mullen MBE Project Director for Delivering the Workforce,

Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority

Dick Palmer Principal and Chief Executive, City College Norwich

Gareth Parry Professor of Education, University of Sheffield

Mike Stapleton Training and Education Manager, Compass

Stephen Uden Head of Skills and Economic Affairs, Microsoft

Beverley Webster OBE Chief Executive, Prosperis

Observers:

Sarah Millet LSC

Pat Morrison DELNI

Richard Parsons DIUS

Liz Franco HEFCE

Secretary:

Ian Starkie Director of Corporate Affairs, fdf


Documents

journal-issue-16