Latest news from FE Week | FE Week

Change needed over ‘casual’ college staff

Sally Hunt explains why the UCU is calling for FE employers to move hourly-paid and casual staff who have been working at an institution for at least two years onto permanent contracts.

Last week, FE Week wrote about Lincoln College, where a threat was allegedly made to withhold pay from part-time agency staff because of a disagreement over marking.

On that occasion, the issue was quickly resolved and the affected staff didn’t lose out financially.

Worryingly though, the story was yet another example of just how insecure and vulnerable to manipulation the employment of many college teachers can be.

In April, a survey by the University and College Union (UCU) revealed that 34 per cent of lecturers, and 37 per cent of other staff involved in teaching in FE colleges are employed on what we term “precarious” contracts.

These include hourly-paid, variable-hours and term-time only contracts, as well as staff who are employed through an agency.

Thirty colleges employ more than half their teaching staff on these types of contracts.

But does it make a difference whether a lecturer has a permanent contract or not?

We think it does. The entrenched insecurity of many FE contracts causes real issues for the affected staff – and their students.

The most common complaint we hear from staff on casualised contracts is that they are not paid properly for their work planning and preparing lessons or assessing students’ work.

Staff who struggle to fit lesson preparation or marking into their paid hours have even less time to provide the help students need outside of their contact hours.

Casualised staff very often don’t have the same access as their permanent colleagues to training, development and support, and many report having little idea what they will be teaching from one term to the next, being expected to pick up courses at short notice.

Too many teaching staff find themselves stuck in a cycle of short-term, precarious contracts

As well as affecting their professional lives, insecure contracts have a profound personal impact on staff.

Individuals on hourly-paid contracts are classed as workers not employees, giving them access to fewer employment rights relating to parental leave, redundancy pay, minimum notice periods or unfair dismissal.

Casual contracts make it cheaper and easier to hire and fire staff, increasing their sense of vulnerability.

Many casual staff also struggle to make ends meet because of the variations in their income. Over half of respondents (56 per cent) to a UCU survey who were on “precarious” contracts said that they had struggled to pay household bills.

Nearly two fifths (39 per cent) had experienced problems keeping up with mortgage or rent commitments and three in 10 (29 per cent) had found it difficult to put food on the table. Women tell us that the precariousness of work makes it hard to plan for a family, and extremely difficult to resume their careers after time off.

Colleges protest that casual contracts provide necessary flexibility, but too often this only works one way.

The reality is that too many teaching staff find themselves stuck in a cycle of short-term, precarious contracts which are more often associated with companies like Sports Direct than an FE college.

Hardworking staff are the cornerstone of successful colleges, but in many institutions casual teaching staff are getting great results in spite of, not because of, the support they get from their employer.

At UCU, we believe that greater workforce planning and employment stability will deliver a more effective learning environment as well as a fairer workplace.

That’s why, as part of our pay claim for 2016/17, we’re asking FE employers to move hourly-paid and casual staff who have been working at the institution for two years or more onto permanent contracts which reflect the hours they normally work.

The union is also calling on the government to take a closer look at the way staff are employed in colleges, and improve the way that institutions’ use of casual contracts is reported in national data.

Such a high level of precarious employment poses a real threat to quality, but it also makes FE a less attractive place for the best and brightest teachers to work.

If we really want to ensure a strong and sustainable FE sector in years to come, we need better workforce planning that provides for stable jobs and allows staff to plan ahead for their own future.

Reasons to be fearful for UTCs

Graham Taylor explains why he thinks university technical colleges (UTCs) are failing to attract enough students.

FE Week has exposed numerous examples of recruitment difficulties for UTCs.

It was for example reported last month that 39 were open — but four were closing (or have closed) due to low student numbers.

Interest from parents and students is still disappointing — UTCs are only half full overall — even though more of them are planned for launch by 2017.

So why I hear you ask are they struggling?

The main thing in their favour is that they have a sexy name — FE colleges would love to add ‘university’ to our branding.

But basic demographics are a major problem for them. There are simply too many providers chasing too few 14-19 learners.

Putting UTCs up against new school sixth forms, studio schools and national colleges, when the overall school population is falling, was always going to be a risk.

UTCs are also struggling to demonstrate that they’re doing anything different to what’s already out there.

Lord Baker, the best-known UTC champion, says they support applied learning, blending vocational skills with academic learning. But we all do that. The FE sector has certainly had that covered for donkey’s years.

UTCs are also hampered because they’re basically one-trick ponies, tending to specialise in just one vocational area. FE college and private training providers cover what they do and more, which is leading to unnecessary replication of expensive resources and staff.

Then we ought to look at evidence of UTC quality, which is mixed. Average success rates in UTCs aren’t great – several have ‘financial notices of concern’ and high drop-out rates.

Another important consideration is this: why would young people want to leave their original schools at 14?

It usually only happens if the student or parent is extremely unhappy with a school — which is fortunately not the norm.

Some local schools pass on their so-called problem children to UTCs, in the hope that hands-on learning will improve their behaviour.

Yet colleges can help with this too — does anyone remember Increasing Flexibility from back in the 1990s?

By making GCSEs/Ebacc the norm, the senior government adviser Professor Alison Wolfe and the former education secretary Michael Gove have also effectively scuppered pre-16 so-called Mickey Mouse vocational qualifications.

Evidence of UTC quality is mixed

This made it even harder for UTCs to differentiate themselves from schools in the 14-to-16 market.

And post-16 they look like any FE college, without the wraparound life-support systems and curriculum choice.

Their business links may be good, but so are the FE sector’s. We have years of work-based and apprenticeship training experience under our belts. Perhaps we’re not so good at marketing this.

Finally, I suspect it’s just as hard for UTCs as it is for colleges and private trainers to get a look in at schools with their own sixth forms. Most school heads want to keep their pupils post-16, not always in the best interests of the learner.

So why does the government still want to plough on with the concept of UTCs?

Could it be that it and Ofsted have a downer on FE? Sir Michael Wilshaw, the current chief inspector, certainly has.

He of course caused outrage when he spoke about failing FE colleges and, along with skills minister Nick Boles and education secretary Nicky Morgan, is still looking towards UTCs becoming part of multi-academy trusts as a means of giving them a sustainable future.

I’m not saying that all UTCs are under threat. Of course, some are successful, and if they can get the taxpayer to cough up for the buildings and training, then good luck.

But I would say this to our ministers: if you really believe in localism and that local enterprise partnerships can help identify skills shortages, then why not put the opportunity to meet those needs out to competitive tender?

I’m sure colleges and private trainers can come up with effective and efficient proposals which avoid expensive and unnecessary spend on buildings but combine their specialist staff, kit and equipment to deliver.

Alternatively, let funds follow the learner, always the best way methinks.

It’s not just about English and maths

Paul Joyce explains what Ofsted inspectors are looking for from traineeships — beyond high quality English and maths provision.

With a greater emphasis being placed on apprenticeships and vocational education, it can sometimes be easy to forget about traineeships and the important role they play in preparing many learners for their next steps.

There is sometimes confusion, therefore, about what Ofsted does and does not expect to see when inspecting traineeships.

As with all education and training, Ofsted inspects traineeships under the Common Inspection Framework.

Inspectors also refer to the detailed guidance contained in the FE and skills handbook.

Their key considerations will include the extent to which well-planned and managed programmes meet the principles and requirements of traineeships, including provision of work-preparation training, English and mathematics, and high-quality work experience.

Also, how well do managers collaborate with employers to ensure all programmes prioritise the skills and attitudes learners will need for work, and whether they ensure provision builds on each learner’s prior achievement and enables them to progress to an apprenticeship, employment or possible further study.

In addition to that, they look into whether work experience is integrated into each traineeship and provides a purposeful and challenging context for learners to develop their skills, including in work-related English and mathematics.

Inspectors also consider whether teaching, learning and assessment enables learners to develop the skills, attitudes and behaviours needed to help them achieve their main learning goals and career aims.

They also look into whether learners progress to an apprenticeship or sustained employment; and acquire the sector-specific skills necessary to enable them to progress to their planned next step.

The primary purpose of a traineeship is to enable students to successfully progress to employment, an apprenticeship, or to a substantive further education programme.

Despite what some have suggested, providers are not judged solely on the quality of English and maths provision

Inspectors always remain mindful of this and will seek reliable evidence from providers that demonstrates how successful the provision is in supporting such progression.

They also check to establish the reliability and accuracy of provider’s progression data by, for example, contacting previous learners or their employers.

This is because we want to know that the learners who progressed to positive destinations continue to be in sustained employment, on an apprenticeship or on a further education course.

We also look at the quality of teaching, learning and assessment that is provided to learners on the programme.

This may include, for example, evaluating how effectively learners develop employability skills such as time-keeping, communication, team-working, problem-solving, or literacy and numeracy skills.

If learners are enrolled on courses that lead to qualifications, inspectors will of course look at whether they are being supported to achieve those qualifications.

All of this helps us to evaluate how effectively the programme is equipping learners with the skills, knowledge and attributes they need to progress to their intended destination.

To reach an overall judgement about the effectiveness of traineeship provision, inspectors carefully evaluate all the available evidence.

This will often include the quality of training, trainees’ destinations, qualification achievement, and progress in English and maths.

Although progression to positive destinations carries the most weighting, inspectors will take a rounded view of all the evidence.

Despite what some have suggested, providers are not judged solely on the quality of English and maths provision.

They are also judged against all of the criteria set out above, as is evident from our inspection reports.

As many of our traineeship inspection reports show, where provision is good, a high proportion of learners progress onto an apprenticeship programme, into work or to a substantive FE course.

With these providers, learners typically make good progress from their starting points, develop their English, maths and other employability skills and benefit from high quality work experience or work-related learning.

Since September 2015, Ofsted has inspected and graded traineeship provision on 13 occasions.

In nine providers, provision was judged to be good; in three, provision required improvement; while in one provider, it was inadequate.

Grades for traineeship provision are higher than grades for most other provision types and that is something providers should be proud of.

AELP boss accuses government of distorting market against ITPs

The government has been accused of “distorting the market” against independent training providers with its post-area review support package for colleges by a sector leader.

Mark Dawe, the new boss of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, has now demanded a “level playing field” for public and private providers alike, on the eve of his first conference.

He told FE Week: “All we are looking for in AELP is a level playing field and all providers having the same opportunities, whether college or independent training provider, private or charitable.

“We are concerned that the government is providing financial assistance to colleges to help set up apprenticeship organisations in direct competition with independent training providers.

“In some cases this feels like it is the government distorting the market and potentially providing state aid in an inappropriate manner.”

He pointed out that providers of all stripes were facing unprecedented change, and that it would be “appropriate” to support everyone involved — particularly over apprenticeships.

“With 76 per cent of the [apprenticeships] delivery, you would have thought the government would be keen to support ITPs as much as colleges through this transformation.”

The government’s post-area review support package includes transition – or consultancy – grants of up to £100k to help colleges “access the best change management skills”, according to guidance published by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in April.

The cash is available for “each significant change resulting from an area review”, such as a significant curriculum rationalisation, establishment of “a shared services arrangement”, or “the establishment of a joint venture” such as a merger.

Two of the three area reviews to have completed so far – Sheffield City, and Birmingham and Solihull – have included proposals for the colleges involved to develop a joint apprenticeship company.

Loan funding from the government’s restructuring facility is also on offer for colleges to help them implement recommendations from the area reviews.

The fund is for general FE colleges and sixth form colleges “impacted by a substantive area review recommendation” and “unable to fund the change themselves”, according to guidance published last month.

Commenting on this restructuring facility, Mr Dawe said: “If colleges are considered unsustainable in their current form, they should be offered not just to other colleges but to ITPs and others with the same financial incentives that are being offered through this fund – for example, loan support and loan write offs.”

He added: “There should be a prospectus for sale for every college in this situation.”

A BIS spokesperson said: “The restructuring facility is there to support the implementation of recommendations from the area reviews.

“It’s focused on FE and sixth form colleges because this reflects the focus of the area reviews themselves.”

Details of the restructuring facility, which is being held by the Treasury, were exclusively revealed by FE Week in February, two weeks before they were confirmed by BIS.

FE Week understands the size of the pot to be £560m, although this has never been confirmed despite repeated enquiries to the Treasury.

No opt-out for colleges

Traineeships aren’t perfect by any stretch of the imagination — as our recent stories exposing their success rate failings to apprenticeships demonstrated.

But they still appear to have the full support of the government, which is prepared to invest large sums to boost starts.

The findings from our freedom of information request suggest a distinct reluctance on the part of colleges to take advantage of this.

It worries me that colleges have again been shown to be slow to evolve their provision to suit government priorities.

This all comes on the back of our report last November that uncovered really low levels of apprenticeship delivery at many colleges.

The Association of Employment and Learning Providers’ then revealed two weeks ago that most of the apprentices colleges do deliver are subcontracted to the independent providers.

We all have our own views on what other areas of FE provision needs to be fought for — and don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to have to rename our paper Apprenticeships/ Traineeships Week one day.

But we all have to move with the times and colleges surely need to be more flexible.

Boles pleads for Manchester colleges to be more ‘ambitious’

The skills minister Nick Boles wants the colleges involved in the Greater Manchester area review to try and be more cooperative — amidst complaints that they are clinging to their independence.

Nick Boles (main picture), made the comments during a Westminster Hall debate that focused on FE in Greater Manchester, following concerns which have been repeatedly raised by the review’s chair, Theresa Grant, about stubborn colleges.

The Greater Manchester Combined Authority has also weighed in, expressing dissatisfaction with proposals made by the 10 general FE and 11 sixth form colleges at the review’s fifth steering group meeting on May 25, in a statement seen by FE Week.

Mr Boles said that Ms Grant “does not believe the colleges are being sufficiently ambitious”.

He continued: “Concerns were raised that those that are hanging on to their independence, for understandable reasons — perhaps they are already good or outstanding — may not be looking far enough out and should think about the future landscape and opportunities, not just about rifts and threats.”

FE Week understands that Hopwood Hall College, Salford City College and Wigan and Leigh College have been singled out for particular criticism for dragging their heels, for example, over possible merger proposals.

In the debate, held on June 15, Mr Boles said: “I strongly encourage the colleges that are part of the review to take on board Ms Grant’s comments and work with her in further meetings … to try to see whether there is a way to grasp the opportunities more boldly.”

In response to Boles’ comments, colleges from the region were eager to refute claims that they have been being uncooperative.

In an email chain seen by FE Week, the principals at Tameside College, Stockport College and Oldham College – which plan to merge – discussed presenting a united positive front before submitting statements to FE Week.

Simon Andrews, Stockport College’s principal and chief executive, said in a statement that the colleges were “extremely excited” about their plans.

He said: “The proposal from Stockport, Oldham, and Tameside colleges, which resulted in our recommendation, is very ambitious and supported by the Combined Authority, FE Commissioner, Skills Funding Agency and Education Funding Agency.”

Alun Francis, principal and chief executive of Oldham College, described the three colleges’ proposal as “a radical and ambitious vision for FE” and said the area review experience had been “universally positive”.

He said: “We are establishing a more resilient organisation which will have greater technical and professional specialism, be more closely aligned to local regeneration ambitions, more strategic in terms of employer engagement, and responsive to the needs of the city region as a whole.”

At Bury College, principal Charlie Deane said: “Bury College has responded positively to the aims of the Greater Manchester area review.

“Our innovative and ambitious proposal continues to support this focus.”

The other colleges involved in the review declined to comment.

The GMCA voiced its dissatisfaction with proposals from colleges involved, in a statement from the steering group meeting in May.

The institutions had proposed only two mergers, involving five colleges.

One of the proposed mergers involves Tameside, Stockport and Oldham colleges, and the second will see Bolton College and Bury College merge with the University of Bolton.

English and maths are not the only inspection consideration, Ofsted insists

English and maths judgements do not exert an “overriding influence” on Ofsted’s college inspections, despite a recent spate of ‘inadequate’ ratings, according to its deputy director for FE and skills.

Paul Joyce (pictured) has written to FE Week to defend Ofsted’s recent ratings spree, which has seen 10 colleges receive the lowest possible rating since the new common inspection framework was launched in September.

All 10 were slammed by inspectors for their English and maths provision, and sector leaders had expressed concern in last week’s issue that increased government expectation on delivering good results these subjects was dragging down overall ratings.

Mr Joyce wrote: “While inspectors rightly place much importance on these subjects, they do not, as suggested, exercise an ‘overriding influence’ on the overall judgement of a college.”

He said that “a plethora of weaknesses” had been highlighted in the inadequate reports, adding: “I want to reassure colleagues working in the sector that we will never make a decision about overall effectiveness based solely on English and maths provision”.

Last week, Mark Dawe, the chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, hit out at Ofsted’s inspection methods of traineeships in last week’s issue.

And in light of Mr Joyce’s letter, he told FE Week: “His comments are reassuring if they apply to judgements about the delivery of traineeships.

“The programme’s framework makes very clear that progression to an apprenticeship, job, further learning or training is the key measure for success and both Ofsted and the Skills Funding Agency should be giving more weight to these outcomes than qualification attainment.”

FE Week Edition 178: Monday, June 20, 2016

Gill Clipson, deputy chief executive of the Association of Colleges said in last week’s story it was “unfair to expect colleges to help young people achieve the necessary grade C in GCSE English and maths in one year, when they have not been successful after 11 years in school”.

David Russell, chief executive of the Education and Training Foundation, added that Ofsted was “placing more emphasis on maths and English in the 16-to-19 phase”.

“It is a huge government priority, and an area where colleges have a massive challenge,” he said. “Ofsted has no alternative but to say what they see.”

Mr Russell also pointed out that, while funding was an issue, “the bigger challenge is recruiting, training and retaining enough teachers with the right skills and experience to teach maths and English to young people who have not yet succeeded in them”.

The 10 inadequate ratings was a massive leap on the five recorded during the same period last year.

The most recent is Telford College of Arts and Technology, which had its report published on June 14.

The others are Stafford College, City of Bristol College, Mid Cheshire College of FE, North Shropshire College, Greenwich Community College, City College Coventry, Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College, West Cheshire College, and Stanmore College.

AoC and ETF said they had nothing further to add in response to Mr Joyce’s letter.

Sheffield area review recommends two new mergers

The Sheffield City area review has completed proposing just two mergers, almost nine months after it started.

Dearne Valley College will join forces with the RNN Group – which is made up of Rotherham and North Nottinghamshire Colleges – while Barnsley and Doncaster colleges are also set to link up.

The outcomes were announced by Sheffield City Region, the area’s local enterprise partnership and combined authority, on Friday June 17 following the final area review steering group meeting the day before.

FE Commissioner Sir David Collins, who oversees all area reviews, said: “I am very pleased that the institutions involved all contributed so positively to the process.

“The Sheffield City Region’s partnership approach to this important work is very welcome and sets a precedent which other areas will be eager to follow.”

Chesterfield College, which has also been involved in the Sheffield area review, revealed on Monday that it is exploring a partnership with a college outside the area.

Its collaboration with Derby College means it will go through the area review process again.

However, this time it will be as part of the Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire review, which is due to start in November.

The Sheffield City area review was one of the first to be announced last year, and held its first steering group meeting on September 28.

It is only the third to have concluded so far, after Birmingham and Solihull, which finished in March, and Tees Valley, which closed in May.

It was originally chaired by Sir David, but this was subsequently changed to Julie Kenny and Nigel Brewster, representatives from the Sheffield City Region LEP.

The FE Commissioner’s positive comments about the process in Sheffield contrast with deep ongoing divisions in the nearby Manchester area review, which have previously been exposed by FE Week.

John Connolly, chief executive of the RNN Group, said his organisation’s proposed merger with Dearne Valley College was a “good solution for the area”.

He said: “The colleges are adjoining catchments – there’s a bit of overlap between us – and it creates some good opportunities for specialisation and to maintain the breadth of the curriculum that we’ve currently got.”

Chesterfield College principal Stuart Cutforth also spoke positively about the partnership with Derby College.

He said: “Our plans to work with Derby College were born because both colleges share the same ethos, drive and quality approach to ensure we are developing a skilled workforce so it makes sense to make the most of our strengths and geographical location by working together.”

Other recommendations from the review include keeping Sheffield College standalone while it focuses on improving its standards and finances.

Sheffield College’s chief executive Paul Corcoran said the college welcomed the review recommendations, and would “always be open” to working with the other colleges.

The two sixth form colleges involved in the review, Thomas Rotherham and Longley Park, will explore academisation as part of multi-academy trusts in their areas.

Thomas Rotherham SFC said in a statement on its website that it was “happy” with the recommendation, while Longley Park SFC said in its statement that it was “delighted” with the outcome.

Barnsley, Doncaster and Dearne Valley Colleges did not respond to FE Week’s request for comment.

Darlington College goes from inadequate to good Ofsted rating

Darlington College has recovered to an Ofsted ‘good’ rating a little over a year after it was branded ‘inadequate’.

The education watchdog deemed the provider to be ‘good’ across the board and ‘outstanding’ in its delivery of adult learning programmes, in a report released on June 23.

It was previously hit with a grade four across-the-board rating last March, which was all the more devastating because it had tumbled from ‘outstanding’ in 2009.

In the latest report, governors, leaders and managers at the college were praised for making “significant progress in tackling the serious weaknesses identified at the previous inspection”, which were all said to be “now good or improved”.

The curriculum was deemed “well-planned”, “coherent” and meeting “the priorities of the local enterprise partnerships, the needs of employers and the local community”.

Adult learning, the college’s strongest area, was said to often make “transformative changes” in the learners’ lives, and technical and employability skills across the student body were said to be developed well.

Provision for learners with high needs was deemed “excellent”.

The college, which was inspected in May, is a medium-sized general FE college that also provides basic skills for army personnel based locally.

It is set to merge with nearby Stockton Riverside College following the Tees Valley area review, which came to an end in May.

The latest Oftsed report added that to progress to an ‘outstanding’ grade, Darlington needed to ensure that more apprentices “achieve their qualification in the planned time in subcontracted provision”.

Attendance in maths was also highlighted as an area for improvement.

Ofsted recommended that tutors “plan learning to meet all learners’ needs” in these subjects, and also suggested they help apprentices to “extend their English and mathematics skills beyond that of the minimum requirements for their apprenticeship framework”.

The report also raised the issue of the government’s anti-terrorist Prevent strategy, saying that a minority of apprenticeship assessors “do not reinforce or explore modern British values or the ‘Prevent’ duty sufficiently with apprentices”.

Darlington College principal Kate Roe said: “The report is testament to the hard work of every single member of staff who have all pulled together to adapt to change, make improvements and raise standards.

“There have been enormous strides in the quality of teaching, and hard work and determination among staff to achieve the massive progress we have made.”