The report on the appalling shortcomings in governance and leadership at Weston College and the staggering sums of money paid to the ex-principal came as a shock to me and I am sure to many others.
The report shows that the college paid vast sums of money to its now retired principal Paul Phillips without properly disclosing the payments in its accounts and without the full governing body and other staff knowing about it. This is not only a breach of financial protocols and good governance, but a fundamental departure from the values and ethos that underpin the FE college sector.
I am proud of the work that colleges do and the impact they have on communities and for a fairer and more prosperous world. That pride drives my motivation to work in this sector. It is based on a set of principles of wanting to work for the public good and to serve the people and communities that we live in. From my long sector experience, I know that is true for hundreds of college leaders too.
That’s why the details in the report came as such a surprise. It is a must-read for all college leaders on how not to do it.
Sector values
In our sector, values of honesty, openness, and fairness run deeply. In fact it was the college’s own staff who raised concerns with the regulator, leading to the investigation.
Those values are at the heart of the AoC senior postholder remuneration code. It sets out clearly a commitment to a fair, appropriate and justifiable level of remuneration, procedural fairness, and transparency and accountability. I am pleased to say that the norm in our sector is that colleges follow this code and its principles, and that Weston College was the outlier. That code along with the more recent government public pay restrictions have resulted in senior pay multiples in colleges much lower than in other sectors. The median pay to top pay multiple in FE colleges is less than 5.7, compared with 57 in FTSE350 companies. Following the AoC code requires transparent reporting of senior pay, so the accounting issues at Weston were particularly worrying.
This breach of the rules will cast a shadow over every dedicated, ethical professional working in colleges across the country. Staff at all levels who go above and beyond, under considerable pressure and with limited resources, to provide high-quality education and support to students will be disheartened by what they have read.
It will be even more painful for Weston’s staff. They are part of a very strong college, delivering great experiences and outcomes for their learners. They will feel betrayed and let down more than anyone. With their new governing body and leadership in place, I am confident that a transparent and trusting culture can be developed quickly.
Wider lessons
Following the AoC code will help. But there are other lessons and a whole manual from the FE Commissioner on how governing bodies should oversee senior staff performance that can also provide support. At the very least, every college needs to be certain that there is full governing body oversight of principal/CEO pay. And that their remuneration committee is operating effectively within the rules. Beyond that they need to ensure that they have tax-compliant payroll arrangements, and that senior pay is transparently disclosed.
The good news is that Weston is in safe hands, with new leadership able to implement the sensible and fair recommendations in the intervention report. Beyond that, there is work for DfE to do on senior pay across the wider education and training sector to ensure that it is proportionate and transparent.
At the same time, I hope that there is no knee-jerk reaction from DfE. The key thing is that colleges follow existing rules and guidelines properly. But I would hope that the actions and decisions taken by individuals at Weston College are being closely examined to see whether any actions can be taken regarding their accountabilities.
Every now and then, we read about behaviours which fall outside of what we expect of our college leaders. Every such case is wrong. But as not-for-profit, charitable public sector institutions with a clear public purpose, the norm is impressive. Inside every college you will find staff and governing body members working hard to deliver great outcomes for learners and sticking implicitly to an ethos of public service, integrity and transparency.
But David, you don’t know this isn’t more widespread and it was your organisation that gave them a beacon award so you personally were taken in. This article doesn’t provide comfort other than an assumption it is not widespread
The key which you don’t even mention is the necessary rotation of governors and scrutiny on key governors which comes as a surprise to me.
This is an article displaying complacency and indeed the DFE must do something as the aoc has clearly failed in governing its members
Why are you not calling for action against Sir Phillips
I agree with much of what has been said in this latest exchange and earlier when the FECs report was published.
It is easy for us (most of us?) to say what happened at Weston was wrong but it is now essential to determine the consequences.
Firstly, the ex Principal needs to hand back his knighthood and the money which was not approved in the correct way.
Secondly the Auditors need to say clearly why they failed to spot the payments. Having worked in FE for 40 plus years I struggle to believe how over the years this was not found – if not in the annual review (but should have been) via ad hoc reviews of payroll and cash flow
Thirdly the Corporation Members AND the various Clerks who supported them during the time need to be held to account
Lastly the DfE and others in power should not fall into the trap of over regulating the arrangements but the reporting requirements need to be made crystal clear along with the consequences of not doing the correct thing at all times for the benefit of students and indeed staff
David is obviously trying to reassure us that this is an isolated case.
Sadly it isn’t. This is not the first time that a Principal has deliberately misled those responsible for governance. I doubt it will be the last.
Perhaps it is time to establish a legal framework around what must be reported to governors.
As a principal for many years i have been annoyed and frustrated by these greedy principals who seem to have either forgot or never been interested in the key reasons for undertaking such a privileged position. While pay and salary scales will always define different roles that should be the end of the differences, any principals who receive such perks like a bonus, travel first class, get medical care, have a college credit card, receive car allowance, or even have their own parking spot should have a good look at themselves and try to work out why they deserve (on top of their salary) these additional perks when other staff across colleges don’t.
It is these “little perks” which governing bodies support and it is these which start the slippery slope to a belief of entitlement. Governors often justify this with a very old fashioned belief that “its the only way to attract good principals”.
The only way to attract good principals is to ensure there is an open and transparent culture, one that supports staff to thrive with fairness and opportunities to be innovation. A culture where the principal is seen to be a member of staff as well as a leader and a principal that understands the challenges staff face in both their work as well as their personal lives as a result of college polices and procedures.
Defining a great principal is not how many awards your have won or your college has won, its not how much money your earned or how big your office is, its not the amount of times you have visited or been visited by VIP’s it is defined on how much impact you had on people, both staff and students, where people trust you because you make decisions based on the knowledge and understanding on what people other than yourself want or need.
This issue wont go away while Principals continue to receive and Governors continue to support a remuneration package which is fundamentally different to the rest of the college, maybe some colleges should start asking those awkward questions?
Well said. It is sad that an honest principal, of which there are many, cannot give their name to their comments (which I totally understand). When we look at Weston and Hadlow they show the poor governance and the slow reactions by funders and inspectorates. As said by me elsewhere, Ofsted are not up to it unless they inspect governance properly with quality inspectors with the right level of experience.
I agree that this is not an issolated case. A college where I previously worked had similar issues when the Principal and the Chair of Governors had too close a relationsip. How many others are there where such incidents have been hushed. What worries me is there does not seem to be any consequences for the individuals involved. Yes they may lose their positions, their reputation and integrity, but they also seem to be able to walk away with the cash, particularly when it is invested in very faviourable pension arrangements. Hard working staff just find this unacceptable. I fear we will be reading about this kind of thing in the future.
Just what is the underlying purpose of presenting statistics around median pay pay ratios in Colleges versus FTSE350 companies? Are the two things comparable? Is Mr Hughes banking on the low level of maths attainment and hoping this will slide beyond general comprehension?
Perhaps a better comparison, based on salaries dependent on public expenditure would be the AOC chiefs wage (£196,100 in 2024 accounts on turnover of £16m) to the salary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer (c£150,000).
As another broad comparison, from the FE workforce collection data 2022/23, the mean average Leader pay in General FE Colleges was £74,566.
Generally speaking, Median is used over Mean when there are extreme outliers, so the concept of using a median (because there are outliers) then comparing the median to the highest outlier serves a purpose, but should really be accompanied by a figure for transparency.
Given the increasing prevalence of zero hours contracts in FE because of underfunding (guess what effect that has on median…), it would probably also be worth publishing the salary of lowest paid. Then there is more focus on those struggling at the bottom, rather than those not struggling at the top. You never know, it might help put a stop to the competitive ‘how big is yours’ mentality among leaders and remuneration committees might be less inclined to be hoodwinked by high pay stats.
Don’t we get one of these articles every three or four years when the next scandal breaks? I’m sure plenty of us have been around since Halton and every subsequent debacle and, somehow, these things keep happening…