Introduced in 2007 as an alternative to more traditional academic qualifications like GCSEs, Functional Skills Qualifications (FSQs) were designed to develop the English and maths skills needed for everyday life and work. Their focus on real-world skills makes them ideal for apprenticeships, where Level 2 English and maths are required for programme completion. However, the debate around FSQ efficacy has taken centre stage among vocational skills providers. Their fundamental purpose – to provide practical and applied learning and access to robust literacy and numeracy training – has come into question following the Department for Education’s 2019 reforms.
A compelling study into the issues raised by FSQs
To unpick the issues, the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP), backed by Gatsby and Edge, has recently completed comprehensive research on this topic. Alongside partners at the Association of Colleges and Warwick University Institute for Employment Research, the study – comprising interviews, focus groups and deep-dive quantitative analysis of the cost of FSQ delivery – appears to validate providers’ apprehensions. It also offers seven recommendations for improvement.
As the research outlines, the DfE’s 2019 reforms were ostensibly aimed at improving the relevance and recognition of FSQs, improving their credibility and value across the labour market. As is often the case, however, these reforms inadvertently altered the landscape. Combined with stagnant funding and growing numbers of non-contextualised exam questions, many felt that FSQs had become significantly more challenging and no longer appeared to serve their original purpose. This perception was further reinforced by a notable decline in achievement rates.
Challenging accepted wisdom – a complex picture emerges
The research sheds some interesting light on these thorny issues. In particular, one key finding challenges the widely accepted idea that FSQ difficulty has increased. On the contrary, the research shows that FSQs’ difficulty level remains largely unchanged. Yet pass rates have still plummeted. Why? This incongruity led the researchers to explore other factors influencing the perception of increased difficulty. They found that the reduced contextualisation of exam questions contributed to learner perceptions of increased difficulty, resulting in disengagement. This issue has been compounded by the challenges that apprentices and employers face in balancing Functional Skills training with other commitments – a problem exacerbated by FSQs’ exclusion from off-the-job training.
The financial aspect of FSQ delivery presents another layer of complexity. Most providers deliver FSQs at a financial loss. For FSQs taken within apprenticeships, the financial burden can be as high as £440 per qualification. Further costs are incurred when resits are required – a relatively common outcome. And all this without extra funding support.
7 practical recommendations for policymakers
The culmination of these findings paints a concerning picture. Providers and employers increasingly demand English and maths qualifications before the commencement of apprenticeship programmes, limiting learner choice and impeding social mobility. To address these issues, the research proposes seven sound recommendations for policymakers:
- Maintain the differentiated purpose of Functional Skills Qualifications: Ensure FSQs continue to serve as practical, real-world alternatives to GCSEs, focusing on essential life and work skills.
- Increase contextualisation in exam questions: Infuse real-world scenarios into exams to improve learner engagement, enhancing skills acquisition. The authors suggest exploring how AI might be deployed to tailor exam questions expediently.
- Review the structure/spread of Level 2 Functional Skills maths questions: Break down intricate scenario questions into multiple segments, both for clarity and to alleviate ‘cognitive strain’.
- Promote more diverse assessment methods: Use formative assessment and project-based evaluations to move beyond a binary pass/fail system. This would also recognise diverse learner strengths/needs and acknowledge areas of partial success.
- Incorporate English and maths components into the off-the-job apprenticeship training: Functional Skills should be allowed in off-the-job training within apprenticeships, ideally supplemented by additional learning opportunities that specifically support FSQ attainment.
- Reevaluate the role of FSQs in awarding apprenticeships: Consider alternative approaches to reduce reliance on FSQs for apprenticeships. For example, studying towards literacy and numeracy qualifications as a condition of funding or developing tailored English and maths programmes for specific occupational scenarios.
- Increase FSQ funding by at least 10%: FSQ funding has not risen since 2014. It is currently insufficient to cover delivery costs. An immediate 10% increase to £796 – although still under inflation – would at least match average delivery costs. The Department for Education (DfE) should also establish a consistent method for monitoring costs to inform future FSQ funding decisions.
While this merely offers a summary of the research and its recommendations, it highlights the intricacy of the issues around FSQs. As with any practical report, the focus remains on sensible and achievable solutions. The recommendations, described in far more detail in the full report, balance the integrity of FSQs while ensuring their continued relevance in preparing learners for life and work. I would strongly urge stakeholders and policymakers to reflect on the findings in more depth. They make for a fascinating read and are extremely informative for anyone charting a course through this choppy aspect of the vocational education landscape!
