1. 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
2. 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
e.lockley@fdf.ac.uk
2 Issue 16 : October 2008
3. 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
4. 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
4 Issue 16 : October 2008
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>
5. 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.
5Issue 16 : October 2008
6. 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.
6 Issue 16 : October 2008
7. 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.
7Issue 16 : October 2008
9. 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.
9Issue 16 : October 2008
10. 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.
10 Issue 16 : October 2008
11. 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.
11Issue 16 : October 2008
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.
12. 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.
12 Issue 16 : October 2008
13. “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…
13Issue 16 : October 2008
14. 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
14 Issue 16 : October 2008
15. 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
15Issue 16 : October 2008
16. 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
16 Issue 16 : October 2008
17. 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
17Issue 16 : October 2008
18. 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 Business
Lifecycle
Monitor, Analyse
and Evaluate
Outcomes
18 Issue 16 : October 2008
19. 19Issue 16 : October 2008
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
Other
Stakeholders
20. 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
20 Issue 16 : October 2008
21. 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!
21Issue 16 : October 2008
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]
22. 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.
22 Issue 16 : October 2008
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.
23. 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.
23Issue 16 : October 2008
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].
24. 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
24 Issue 16 : October 2008
25. 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
25Issue 16 : October 2008
26. 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
26 Issue 16 : October 2008
27. 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.
27Issue 16 : October 2008
29. 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.
29Issue 16 : October 2008
30. 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 local
EMPLOYER 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 skills
RESOURCES • 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 development
RESOURCES • 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 levels
CULTURE • 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 business
DRIVERS • 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 HE
RECRUITMENT potential
& SELECTION • Widening the professional recruitment net
• HE and opportunity for progression on the agenda from the start
30 Issue 16 : October 2008
31. 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
31Issue 16 : October 2008
32. 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.
32 Issue 16 : October 2008
33. 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.
Conclusion
The 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.
33Issue 16 : October 2008
Further Information
Further information about the draft Apprenticeship Reform Bill is available at:
www.commonsleader.gov.uk/output/page2169.asp [accessed 8 September 2008]
34. 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
34 Issue 16 : October 2008