Colleges are losing their focus on student success in favour of other activities, FE Commissioner Dr David Collins has warned.

In his third letter to the FE sector, which comes after he visited his 14th college since his interventions began, Dr Collins (pictured) said senior teams were often seen by staff as “invisible”, often in colleges which had been judged inadequate in terms of leadership and management.

Dr Collins has now visited Barnfield College, Bicton College, City of Bristol College, City of Liverpool College, City of Wolverhampton College, K College, LeSoco, Stockport College, Startford-upon-Avon College, Weymouth College, Norton Radstock College, Bournville College, Guildford College and West Cheshire College.

He said senior leadership teams should provide “a sense of common purpose and teamwork that centres on the experience and success of the learner”.

But he added: “Given the multiple demands on time and resources, sifting out what is really important and at the heart of the institution – student success – seems to be lost sometimes in the pursuit of tangential activity at the expense of the core business.”

Dr Collins also said some colleges were failing to check their performance against other institutions and seek better practice.

He said the best college leadership teams were aware of what was happening in the sector and beyond, and a “deep understanding and solid relationship with business”, but that “in many of the colleges I have visited to date, this has been missing”.

He added: “A key characteristic has been that they have been inward-looking rather than outward-facing.”

He also called on colleges to address the balance when it comes to the skills of their senior leadership teams.

He said: “In the best colleges, senior leadership teams have the range of skills, qualifications and experience to ensure the delivery of high-quality provision while being sufficiently self-confident to implement change or ask for help if needed.

“In a number of colleges where an intervention has taken place there have been highly-skilled individuals at senior levels but the balance hasn’t always been right. Financial expertise in particular has often been missing and there has been a reluctance to seek help from elsewhere.”

Skills Minister Nick Boles said: “A great number of colleges have made significant steps in improving the quality of their provision. However, the FE commissioner rightly highlights that there is more work to do.

“I would encourage all colleges who need to improve performance to look to those who have demonstrated strong leadership, a clear outward looking vision and who nurture and celebrate the success of both staff and learners.

“That way we can help make sure the entire sector is delivering to the highest possible standards.”

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply to FE Lecturer Cancel reply

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

2 Comments

  1. In his letter to the sector Dr Collins states

    If a college is having a problem my advice is simple – find someone who is performing well in that area and learn from them.

    However, things are not quite that simple for as Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert I Sutton in their 2006 book Hard Facts Dangerous Half-Truths and Total Nonsense : Profiting from evidence-based management argue that there are three ‘dangerous’ decision practices which can often cause both organisations and individuals harm and one of which is casual benchmarking. Pfeffer and Sutton argue there is nothing inherently wrong with trying to learn from others. However, for this type of benchmarking to be of use the underlying logic of what worked and why it worked needs to be unpacked and understood. Pfeffer and Sutton identify three questions which must be answered, if learning from others is to be beneficial.

    Is the success of a particular college down to the approach which you may seek to copy or is it merely a coincidence? Has a particular leadership style made no difference to student outcomes, even though student outcomes appear to have improved. Do other factors explain the improvement of student outcomes and which are independent of leadership style.

    Why is a particular approach to, for example, lesson observation linked to performance improvement. How has this approach led to sustained improvements in the level of teacher performance and subsequent improved outcomes for students.

    Are there negative unintended consequences of high levels of compliance in well performing colleges. How are these consequences being managed, and are these consequences and mitigating strategies evident in any benchmarking activity? (Adapted from Pfeffer and Sutton p8)

    Furthermore not only is the FE Commissioner’s advice not as quite as simple as first thought, it may also be wrong. Rosenzweig (2006) identifies a range of errors of logic or flawed thinking which distort our understanding of company (college) performance and which is implicit within the Skills Commissioner’s letter and his 10 Cs. Rosenzweig identifies the most common delusion as the Halo Effect, as is which an observer’s overall impression of a person, company, brand and product and in this case college, influences the observer’s feelings and thoughts about that entity’s character or properties. In this case when a college’s retention, achievement, success rates and operating surplus improve people (inspectors or significant other stakeholders) may conclude that these arise from a brilliant leadership and a coherent strategy or a strong and a college culture with high levels of compliance. If and when performance deteriorates – success rates or position in leagues tables fall – observers conclude it is the result of weak leadership and management (the Principal), and the college was complacent or coasting. On the other hand, the reality may be that there has been little or no substantive change and that the college performance creates a HALO that shapes the way judgements are made about outcomes for learners, teaching and learning and assessment, and leadership and management.

    As such, the challenge for the sector is to give struggling college’s useful and meaningful advice rather than possibly simplistic notions and which do not reflect the current best evidence.

  2. FE Lecturer

    “He said senior leadership teams should provide “a sense of common purpose and teamwork that centres on the experience and success of the learner”.”

    The reality is that most senior leadership teams focus almost entirely on achieving a grade 2 or grade 1 when OFSTED next visit. These senior management teams are always looking to spot the next OFSTED requirements so that they keep their job and look good. Teaching staff have to waste time following SMT interpretation of the latest OFSTED guidelines which we all have to follow like sheep whilst real education suffers.

    The real priorities at most colleges are as follows:
    1. Grade 1 or grade 2 OFSTED result.
    2. Protecting the position of the senior management team.
    3. Survival, coping with cuts and avoiding debt for the college.
    4. The learner experience.
    5. Looking after teaching & support staff.