AoC hits back at ex-Ofsted director’s claim colleges are ‘frankly, rubbish’

Association of Colleges (AoC) boss Martin Doel (above) has leapt to the defence of his members after a former Ofsted director and civil servant launched a scathing attack on colleges claiming “lots of them are frankly, rubbish”.

Richard Brooks (inset, above-right), who was the education watchdog’s director of strategy from September 2009 to August 2013 and previously a senior adviser to Ed Balls during his time as Education Secretary, made the comments at the Fabian Society’s new year conference on Saturday.

Mr Brooks, now a freelance strategy consultant who authored a paper published by the Society in December entitled Out of Sight, about those not in education, employment or training (Neet), has been accused of making “unsubstantiated” comments by Mr Doel, the AoC’s chief executive.

During a panel discussion at the conference, which also included Estelle Morris, who was Education Secretary from 2001 to 2002, Mr Brooks said improving FE provision was a key step in addressing the issue of Neets.

He said: “These people have been in full-time public education for 14 years, and we have failed to equip them with the skills and qualifications they need. It is a scandal, and it’s not something we talk about enough.

“It’s only 230 or 240 of these [FE] institutions, and lots of them are frankly, rubbish. They are huge public bureaucracies, sucking up public money and churning out young people who don’t have the skills and qualifications they need. It’s absolutely outrageous.

“The people who run them are paid always in excess of £100,000 a year. We should be angry about this, but because they’re below the radar, they get away with it by saying ‘these people are hard to help’ and ‘we’re doing the best we can’. It’s nonsense.

“They are failing to serve the very average-looking young people who want to get on in the way they should be served.”

He said many young people were failing because they received bad advice from colleges, giving one example of learners told to do level two childcare courses without being informed they would need to have English and maths qualifications to study later at level three.

He said: “It’s beyond a joke, and it happens to thousands of young people. They carry on their education on false promise this is going to lead them to where they want to get to, they get blocked because they don’t actually have the core skills they need.

“When they go into beauty therapy at level two, when they go into motor mechanics at level two, it doesn’t get them onto the apprenticeship they need or the level three courses they need. So they stay in education at 16 and 17 and they become Neet at 18. So the Neet rate is low at 16, low at 17 and doubles at 18.”

Mr Doel said: “While the Fabian Society report is a considered piece of work with some sensible recommendations, Mr Brooks’s spoken comments are unsubstantiated.

“Every year colleges educate and train over 830,000 16 to 18-year-olds. They offer some of the best professional and technical education with experienced teaching staff and industry-standard facilities supported by their local business community. Ofsted’s annual report, published in December, showed 82 per cent of colleges achieved a good or outstanding grade despite a swathe of funding cuts.

“It is extremely disappointing to hear Mr Brooks criticising a sector that is giving our young people the employability skills they need to take their first steps in their career or continue to university. In fact much of what colleges achieve with young people is in spite of education policy rather than because of it.

“Good English and maths skills are vital but the influx of 16-year-olds needing to retake GCSE English or maths as a result of the government’s new policy is going to prove challenging for colleges. For those unable to pass GCSE due to the way it is taught, we would like to see a post-16 qualification which teaches applied English and maths.

“To improve our education system at all levels, central funding needs to be allocated fairly across all education age groups. A once-in-a-generation review of education funding carried out by the next government is what’s needed to ensure all young people have the opportunities they deserve.”

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

4 Comments

  1. People in glass houses should not throw stones. The quotes given in the above article are emotive rather than measured and designed for one thing, to grab headlines. I spent last week in the Midlands and the North talking to around 100 young people who described to me in detail their experience of school, the dreadful teaching of English and maths that they encountered, irrelevant work experience and the lack of objective and impartial careers advice available to them. Brooks attacks college principals for earning over £100,000 a year? Some questions. How much did Brooks earn as ‘strategy director’ in four years at Ofsted and what impact did he have on improving the lives of young people, or was he below the radar? Also, how much does a school head receive for managing a much smaller institution offering a limited curriculum offer of GCSEs and A levels, with success rates on core subjects at 16 years of age often around six out of 10? Why is it that when young people undertake diagnostic assessment at a college or independent provider the result is often entry level or level one, despite having just passed a GCSE in maths or English? Should that tell us something about teaching to pass examinations rather than to develop skills? Last year, how many 16 year olds were told they needed to stay on at school rather than go to a college or a training provider? A fair few if my conversations with young people are anything to go by, with many being ‘dumped’ either during or at the end of their first year in the sixth form. Rightly Brooks points out the need for equitable funding of education, something that has been blindingly obvious for many years. Despite that ever decreasing funding of the FE system, what is at the heart of the problem? Too many schools that fail too many of our young people, leaving FE to apply the plasters to the open wounds and negative impact on the confidence of young people. Having taught, managed and inspected in the FE system for my whole life and seeing still today the positive impact on those who have been failed by schools and political advisers (who advocate continual tampering rather than sticking with something and getting it right), I am going to treat the unsubstantiated and wildly general quotes made with what they deserve and not give them any further oxygen of publicity.

  2. Paul Smithers

    One of my former princpals (Ioan Morgan) once observed at a staff meeting that ‘in FE we make dream happen’

    Not the great dreams of Politicians and Captains of industry, but the more mundane dreams of being able to get a job and having the skills to progress within it, or perhaps knowing that verifiable, relevant and quality educational support will be available when that job ends or additional advanced skill/learning requires certification for career advancement.

    There is a very simple solution to the ability of colleges to support the so called ‘NEETS’, provide the money, resources and support that they need to progress into employment and/or access further education.
    I believe that the observation ‘the only thing more expensive than education is ignorance’ still hold true.

    From my own experience, the challenges facing those identified as NEETS will be better addressed when college managers treat these young people and their teachers as seriously as they would pursue Foundation Degree awarding powers.
    If you want the best outcomes, then provide the best resources.

    I feel that many programs provided for NEETS and those at risk of becoming NEET are regarded as funding streams rather than remedial programs designed to overcome the lack of success within the state education sector.

    Richard Brooks is now working freelance, why?

    Paul Smithers

  3. It is unwise to label the FE sector in this way. The simple fact is that there are good, bad and indifferent colleges just as there are good, bad and indifferent schools. As an independent provider we work with a number of very good FE Colleges in the provision of Apprenticeships and we steer away from those that are poor. A better recommendation would be to task stronger colleges to support or take over the weak and allow good practice to spread. This could even be extended to the independent sector who might deliver some services for some colleges better than the status quo.
    Where NEETs are concerned, any future government must incentivise the provision of impartial careers advice, particularly in schools with sixth forms. At present a head teacher trying to keep their sixth form open could be tempted to starve pupils of information about the alternatives. This leads to some young people staying on and then dropping out to become NEET. We must make it worth while for schools by rewarding them for each pupil who progresses to a positive destination such as Apprenticeships or the local FE College. Until this changes I fear that NEETs will be a by-product of the funding system which still rewards bums-on-seats.