The 157 Group is set to rename and announce new ‘ambitions’ next month, less than a year after completing a strategic review.
It comes just 10 months after the group, which has over 30 college members, completed a strategic review which included six themes, such as “diversifying revenues” and responding to the “devolved skills agenda”.
The group’s planned new direction is said to be in response to the “evolving” technical and professional education landscape in FE following the Government’s Post-16 Skills Plan published in July, but full details will not be revealed until October 19.
The group has already seen a significant shift in direction under its chief executive Ian Pretty (pictured), who took over from Dr Lynne Sedgmore last September.
In January, Mr Pretty told FE Week that he was of the view that there is “little to be gained from spending an awful lot of time on trying to affect a policy decision”, a big change from the membership body’s original purpose, which was created in 2006 after a recommendation in the Foster Review of Further Education the year before.
The name “157 Group” comes from paragraph 157 of the review which called for “a greater involvement of principals in national representation, in particular those from larger, successful colleges where management capacity and capability exists to release them for this work. There is a strong need for articulate FE college principals to be explaining the services they give to society and how colleges can make a significant contribution to the economy and to developing fulfilled citizens”.
Under Mr Pretty’s leadership, the group has taken on new members after previously restricting numbers. They have also moved away from claiming to represent only high quality colleges, allowing Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College to remain members despite it being hit with an inadequate Ofsted rating last December.
This evening three national newspapers have reported our apprenticeship funding analysis along with a letter to the Skills Minister signed by over 50 MPs. FE Week editor, Nick Linford, explains how we’ve ended up here and suggests the Treasury should hand back some of the £1.5bn apprenticeship savings in order to fully-fund 16 to 18-year-old apprentices.
For the benefit of those that struggle with understanding further education policies, let’s first talk about schools. Imagine the Government decided they didn’t want to pay for school sixth forms. Instead, the Treasury will take back all their £22bn and instead fund through a new tax on the top two per cent wealthiest parents in the UK.
Then imagine the Government announces a ‘simple’ way for all parents in England to spend the tax collected via negotiating with the school’s sixth form, pupil by pupil, the price to teach them. There is no consultation about the level of this ‘simple’ price, which does not include the current extra funding for both pupils in deprived areas and school sixth forms located where staff and land costs more.
The ‘simple’ price chosen is a much lower rate, more than 50 per cent less than the current rate and because price negotiation between parent and school is now required a parent will often pay even less.
The Government defend the much lower price by saying it makes it ‘simple’ for parents.
They also point out that the new parent tax for the 2 per cent wealthiest means more money overall for school sixth forms, the poorest parents won’t have to pay at all and there is a £1,000 per pupil incentive paid to the parent and the school.
Finally, imagine FE Week crunched the numbers and found this ‘simple’ solution to the pricing issue meant schools were facing per pupil funding cuts of between 30 and 50 per cent, even assuming the parents pay the upper limit of the new ‘simple’ price.
Now repeat the paragraphs above but delete the word imagine and replace the words ‘schools sixth forms’ with ‘colleges and training providers’, ‘£22bn’ with ‘£1.5bn’, ‘tax’ with ‘levy’, ‘parents’ with ’employers’, ‘pupils’ with ‘apprentices’, ‘wealthiest’ with ‘largest’ and ‘poorest’ with ‘smallest’. Then you have a paragraph which represents what the government are introducing next May.
Its truly shocking. Just imagine Theresa May even considering a ‘simple’ school formula that cut per pupil funding in every school sixth form by even a single percentage point, let alone double digits. It. Would. Not. Happen.
The Treasury will make a £1.5bn annual saving by switching the total source of apprenticeship funding to an employer levy. Perhaps half of that £1.5bn saving could be used to improve social mobility by fully-funding 16 to 18-year-old apprentices?
Halfon is new in post and is probably being advised to ignore complaints about rate cuts from the Labour Party and training providers. But can he afford to ignore employers, those that these reforms are meant to be putting ‘in the driving seat’?
What does the Institute of the Motor Industry think, which includes BMW and Bentley Motors on their board? Well last week, on their website under the headline “new apprentice funding arrangements are car crash says IMI” their chief executive said: “These proposed funding levels will leave some vital apprenticeships with up to 50% less funding. Employers around the country will struggle to get training places for their apprentices under this system”
Hopefully Halfon will at least listen to employers and bring some of his celebrated campaigning skills to the task, like those he used to battle his own government from the backbenches over fuel duty increases and hospital car parking charges.
Where will the extra money come from? Well, the Treasury will make a £1.5bn annual saving by switching the total source of apprenticeship funding to an employer levy. Perhaps half of this £1.5bn saving could be used to improve social mobility by fully-funding 16 to 18-year-old apprentices?
So Mr Halfon, let’s not allow this to be a ‘car crash’ for social mobility, just a temporary hole in the road that you can persuade Theresa May and your old friends at the Treasury to fill.
Tougher rules surrounding the quality requirement for apprenticeship providers have been called for by the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP).
The association has today published its response to a government consultation, on funding proposals for how the system will work after the new apprenticeship levy for large employers is launched next April.
The Department for Education confirmed — through last month’s updated levy guidance — that providers rated inadequate for their apprenticeship provision are set to be banned from the new register, meaning they will not be able to run the training.
However, AELP has gone further and said in its consultation response that “a grade four overall in Ofsted, or a grade four in leadership and management, should raise enough concern to exclude the provider from the register”.
This would probably affect general FE colleges — which provide a wider range of courses — more than independent training providers that often only run apprenticeships, so would be more likely to have the same overall Ofsted grade.
The AELP currently has 806 members, including more than 40 colleges.
Its response added that “all providers should be treated and assessed the same” and “subject to the same tests, particularly financial viability and quality / Ofsted”.
“Poor financial performance indicates poor leadership and should be a concern, as should an overarching poor Ofsted grade,” it stated.
This should “exclude an organisation from the register, no matter what type of institution (e.g. college, independent, charity) they are”.
The Association of Colleges (AoC) was quick to reject AELP’s claims on Ofsted ratings.
Gill Clipson, AoC deputy chief executive, said: “Colleges are complicated businesses, delivering a diverse range of education and training, and an overall Ofsted grade is not a reliable measurement upon which to base a decision about inclusion in the register.
“The inspection process as it stands currently is optimised for direct classroom teaching, most commonly found in schools, and not the complex nature of work-based learning.”
She added: “We have significant reservations about the use of such a blunt instrument as an Ofsted grade, whether this is in relation to an organisation’s overall effectiveness or specifically the delivery of apprenticeships.”
More than 50 Labour MPs have urged skills minister Robert Halfon to reverse apprenticeships funding cuts exposed by FE Week.
The group led by David Lammy, former minister for higher education and MP for Tottenham, have all signed a letter to apprenticeships and skills minister Robert Halfon describing the potential cuts as “devastating” for apprentices in deprived areas.
This follows publication of FE Week research last month, which exclusively revealed that proposed funding changes could mean a fall of around 30 per cent in funding to providers for 16 to 18 year-old apprentices, and over 50 per cent for those in the poorest areas of central London.
It called on Mr Halfon “in the strongest terms to think again and reverse them”.
Mr Lammy’s letter — which was co-signed by 53 other Labour MPs — said the cuts would “hugely undermine the government’s pledge to create 3m apprenticeships by 2020”.
Robert Halfon
It added the move would “entirely contradict the prime minister’s promise to ‘help anybody, whatever your background, go as far as your talents will take you’, in order to create a country and an economy that ‘works not for a privileged few, but for every one of us’”.
The written plea to Mr Halfon echoed Mr Lammy’s comments in an interview with FE Week on August 23, when he said: “I have one question for the government in response to these cuts: why are you shafting working class kids?” The proposed funding rates for apprenticeships were published by the Skills Funding Agency on Friday August 12, 2016.
FE Week’s analysis showed that, as an example, the two most popular apprenticeships measured by total 16-18 year old starts – level two apprenticeships in business administration and in construction – would face cuts of between 27 per cent and 52 per cent, dependent on location.
Mr Lammy’s letter raised special concerns over the removal of the ‘disadvantage uplift’ — which is additional funding provided for apprentices living in deprived areas.
He commented that this move was a “stark contrast” to the fact that the changes would mean funding for older apprentices who live in wealthier areas and work at larger employers would be increased in many cases.
He wrote: “We fear that the impact of these funding cuts will be devastating in deprived areas, where unemployment rates are already well above the national average, especially amongst young people.
“Taken in combination with the recent scrapping of maintenance grants to support young people from low income backgrounds who hope to go onto higher education, we are acutely worried that these cuts will do real damage to the life chances of many of our constituents.”
The point is of particular significance to Mr Lammy as his constituency, Tottenham, would be one of the hardest hit by the new funding rates.
The letter acknowledged other comments from FE Week’s reporting, in which Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, warned that many providers are likely to cut back or “withdraw provision altogether” if the proposed rates are implemented.
Mr Lammy supported Mr Dawe’s remarks, adding: “Cuts of this nature will mean that apprenticeships will simply no longer be viable in terms of basic delivery, and providers will certainly not be able to offer the high quality programmes that our apprentices need.”
He wrote to Mr Halfon earlier this week to say he was “extremely concerned at the potential adverse effects for social mobility stemming from the proposed new apprenticeship funding methods”.
Apprenticeships and Skills Minister Robert Halfon said: “This government is doubling investment in apprenticeships because we know they create a ladder of opportunity for our young people. Through the new levy £2.5 billion will be invested in apprenticeships by 2019-20 – twice what was spent in 2010-11. That means more money going in to the system and more money on average per apprenticeship.
“We want to encourage employers to take on young people. That’s why they won’t have to pay more to give a 16 –to 18-year-old their first step on the career ladder and why we’re proposing to give employers an extra £1,000 for every young apprentice they take on. This will help to ensure every young person, regardless of background or ability, has the chance to take their first step into work.”
The full list of signatories can be found below:
David Lammy MP Rushanara Ali MP Dave Anderson MP Jonathan Ashworth MP Ian Austin MP Tom Blenkinsop MP Paul Blomfield MP Ben Bradshaw MP Karen Buck MP Liam Byrne MP Ruth Cadbury MP Ronald Campbell MP Sarah Champion MP Rosie Cooper MP Jim Cunningham MP Nic Dakin MP Thangam Debbonaire MP Jack Dromey MP Gill Furniss MP Mary Glindon MP Roger Godsiff MP Lilian Greenwood MP Helen Hayes MP Mark Hendrick MP Sharon Hodgson MP Kate Hoey MP Kate Hollern MP George Howarth MP Imran Hussain MP Helen Jones MP Peter Kyle MP Holly Lynch MP John Mann MP Madeleine Moon MP Siobhain McDonagh Jim McMahon MP Lisa Nandy MP Kate Osamor MP Jess Phillips MP Steve Reed MP Emma Reynolds MP Marie Rimmer MP Joan Ryan MP Steve Rotheram MP Yasmin Qureshi MP Virendra Sharma MP Ruth Smeeth MP Wes Streeting MP Gareth Thomas MP Stephen Timms MP Karl Turner MP Stephen Twigg MP Catherine West MP Daniel Zeichner MP
An indefinite teaching ban has been imposed on a former Bournemouth and Poole College lecturer — after he was found to have sent inappropriate messages to a young female student.
Michael Browne was employed by the college, in Dorset, from September 2009 until July last year, as an applied ICT programme leader and teacher.
He was found by the National College for Teaching and Leadership (NCTL) to have engaged in inappropriate communication with the 17-year-old student, leading to the imposition of a prohibition order by education secretary Justine Greening’s office.
A new report by NCTL explained that this means he is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and “cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England”.
A spokesperson for Bournemouth and Poole College told FE Week today: “Mr Browne was dismissed in July 2015, following a period of suspension and investigation, in accordance with the college’s policies and procedures relating to professional conduct.
“We have a clear and public safeguarding policy supported by robust procedures that we adhere to.
“We responded immediately to concerns brought to our attention and involved the local authority’s designated officer and also the police.” He added: “Detailed information was passed to all the relevant authorities in full cooperation with them.
“Our first and foremost concern is always for the safety and wellbeing of our students, and we continued to support the student to the completion of her studies.”
The NCTL professional conduct hearing heard that Mr Browne had exchanged messages with the student via his personal email address and mobile phone, and asked her in May last year to delete their conversations.
He said in one, it was claimed, that sleeping with her was on his “bucket list”.
Mr Browne was accused of sexual motivations for his conduct. But while he admitted his email messages included sexual language, he denied his actions were sexually motivated.
He did however accept that his behaviour amounted to unacceptable professional conduct, which could bring the profession into disrepute.
The student was interviewed by the police after allegations were made in May 2015, and while no criminal charges were brought, the emails were examined and disciplinary proceedings were conducted by the college.
The emails were also given as evidence in the NCTL hearing, and a video recording of the police interview of the student was played in private.
The panel found Mr Browne unable to explain the content of, or why he had sent, some of the emails which had sexualised comments, leading to the conclusion that his conduct had involved an element of sexual gratification.
It did, however, accept his claim that he had no intention of engaging in a physical relationship with the student.
He was found to have fallen “significantly short of the standards expected of the profession”, including the responsibility of teachers to “uphold public trust in the profession”.
Mr Browne will be able to apply for the prohibition order to be set aside from August 2018, in which case a panel would meet to discuss whether to lift the ban.
Jayne Millions, who made the decision to impose the order on behalf of Ms Greening, said: “In my judgement the panel’s recommendation is the right one. Mr Browne’s behaviour is such that a prohibition order is appropriate and proportionate.”
Large employers are auctioning access to their future apprenticeship levy pot to the highest bidding training provider, the Association for Employment and Learning Providers has claimed.
Their response, which was based on feedback from 100s of its members, said: “Such a policy encourages inappropriate behaviour and, for example, we are already seeing employers asking providers to pay them to have access to their levy – this has to be wrong.”
Under the current proposals, unveiled mid-August, all apprenticeship frameworks and standards starts from May 2017 will be funded up to one of 15 bands, ranging from £1,500 to £27,000, with employers negotiating the final price with training providers.
“Fundamentally we still believe negotiating a price for education and training is wrong. There is no other part of Department for Education’s education and training system where the rates for delivery are not set. We believe that keeping negotiated funding will lead to a fall in quality of provision and impact the social mobility agenda.”
The AELP response also called for current funding rates for apprenticeship frameworks to be maintained until there is an equivalent replacement standard.
The proposed rates for frameworks, which the Skills Funding Agency said are designed to simplify funding arrangements, are based on the current adult funding rates and don’t take into account the different uplifts and discounts that currently exist.
The AELP said it had received a “high volume of concern” from providers about planned funding rates for 16- to 18-year olds, which it said were “not adequate”.
The disappearance of the area uplift and disadvantage uplift from funding rates would mean that “learners with most need will be abandoned and areas such as central London will become apprenticeship deserts,” it warned.
The AELP response also called for a delay to the full introduction of the new Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers as well as the removal of proposed employer cash contributions for level 2 and 3 provision.
AELP has also said the timeframes were “too tight” and called for a phased transition to the new register, with non-levy paying employers being able to use providers from the existing register until August 1.
It said: “Without appropriate transition we believe the whole system will collapse as there will be insufficient time between March 2017’s confirmation of a provider’s ability to deliver apprenticeships and enabling starts from May 1.”
Speaking about the AELP response, chief executive Mark Dawe (pictured) said: “We believe AELP’s concerns about the proposals can be simply resolved as we have suggested in our response and it is right for the government to press ahead with the levy and its apprenticeship policy.
“Some aspects of the reform need to be phased and introduced later than April 2017 to ensure a far less risky transition.
“We are ready to share solutions with ministers and officials to assist in the successful implementation of reforms for a skills programme which is so vital for Britain’s economic future and for promoting social mobility.”
Serious concerns about funding cuts for 16-18 year old apprentices have been raised by shadow skills minster Gordon Marsden, in a letter to apprenticeships and skills minister Robert Halfon based on FE Week research.
He referred directly to our analysis, published last month, which showed that proposed funding for apprentices from that age group would lead to current rates to providers being cut by around 30 per cent, rising to over half for those living in most deprived areas of central London.
The letter warned that the proposals “offer a damaging lack of support for young apprentices and further weaken proposed attempts to widen participation”.
Mr Marsden added that he was “extremely concerned at the potential adverse effects for social mobility stemming from the proposed new apprenticeship funding methods”.
“These changes have the potential to cause catastrophic consequences for young people in the most deprived areas,” he added.
Mr Marsden also pushed Mr Halfon (pictured left) for an answer on when the relevant impact assessment of the funding changes would be published.
He said the plans showed “little awareness of the equality implications” or the risk of “potentially putting off more small employers from taking on young people in this age range”.
Mr Marsden’s concerns, he added, were motivated by both his role as shadow skills minister and as MP for Blackpool, “where getting small employers on board is crucial to our local economic wellbeing”.
In speaking to FE Week before sending the letter, he also said: “If you had designed something deliberately to produce perverse incentives in the apprenticeship programme, you couldn’t have done it more brilliantly.”
Mr Marsden told FE Week that he intends to follow up on his letter in Monday’s parliamentary questions to Mr Halfon.
On August 23, David Lammy, former minister for HE and MP for Tottenham, also spoke out in response to FE Week’s research — slamming the prime minister for the proposed funding cuts.
He asked why the government was “shafting” the future of working class kids, saying that the impact of the potential cuts would be “devastating” for young people in deprived areas like his constituency.
As a result of current factors such as additional funding for 16 to 18 apprentices and a ‘disadvantage uplift’ for apprentices living in a deprived area, the highest funding levels at present go to 16 to 18 apprentices living and working in Tottenham.
The proposed funding changes bypass these other sources of money, and therefore would mean Tottenham and other central London areas were hit the hardest – potentially losing up to 50 per cent of their current funding for this age group.
In comparison, monies for many learners aged 24 and over would go up, particularly those living in affluent areas outside the South East and working for large employers.
Mr Lammy concluded the cuts would “hugely undermine” the government’s target to create 3m apprenticeships by 2020, and “entirely contradict” Theresa May’s promise to boost social mobility.
Mr Marsden today received an acknowledgement of the letter from Mr Halfon’s office, which said it would provide a comprehensive response “shortly”.
The future of the apprenticeship advisor post to the Prime Minister remains uncertain, as a spokesperson for Nadhim Zahawi has today told FE Week he is no longer in the role.
Mr Zahawi was appointed to the role in November last year by former PM David Cameron.
This was to support the conservative manifesto pledge to deliver 3m apprenticeship starts by 2020.
Today’s confirmation, by a spokesperson from Mr Zahawi’s constituency office in Stratford, comes after Number 10 refused for several weeks to be drawn on who his replacement would be — or if the post would even continue under the new Prime Ministership of Theresa May.
The PM’s press office had repeatedly declined since July to provide any information on who, if anyone, would be in the post for the coming academic year.
And after requesting an update from the Cabinet Office this afternoon, FE Week was even told that while “the PM appoints a number of advisers to different roles; we wouldn’t necessarily keep a list of them”.
One of Mr Zahawi’s responsibilities as PM advisor had been to co-chair the Apprenticeship Delivery Board — so it would appear that role has also become vacant.
The board is run by the Skills Funding Agency, which acts as a secretariat, but it would not be drawn today on the board’s membership — other than to say that a small number of extra members would be recruited.
He also launched the Primary Futures Apprenticeships scheme, which aims to help pupils make a connection between what they learn in the classroom and how it relates to the world of work.
Mr Zahawi spoke of his hopes for a much-improved apprenticeship system, during a profile interview with FE Week in March.
He said: “I want to get to a place where, when I’m long gone from here, when we’re all long gone, the system just works — where I don’t meet young people who say to me, ‘Oh, I fell upon it [an apprenticeship] by accident’.
“The options are there for young people. It’s not just the traditional route of going to university — there is another route here which is aspirational, and can lead to a great career.”
Changes to how the government collects data charting student progress after they finish key stage five courses have dramatically improved success rates for colleges compared to schools.
Destination data showing levels of progress to sustained education, employment, and training in the year after learners complete A-levels and other level three qualifications — sat by 16 to 18-year-olds — were previously only based on information from educational institutions and local authorities.
But a report published today by the Department for Education (DfE) explained that figures for 2010/11 to 2013/14 have now been updated to include extra information from HM Revenue & Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions — taking into account tax and benefits records.
This produced much improved results for FE colleges.
The report stated: “For 2013/14, the proportion of students in sixth-form and other FE colleges progressing to sustained destinations is revised upwards by 19 percentage points to 87 per cent.”
This, it added, “compared with 91 per cent in mainstream state-funded school sixth forms, reducing the apparent gap in outcomes between the two sectors from 11 percentage points to just four percentage points”.
The document added colleges had shown “the larger increase” for the proportion of students progressing directly to sustained employment.
It said the figure had been “revised up by around 20 percentage points to reach 27 per cent or 28 per cent”, for each of the academic years covered.
The proportion also increased for schools, but less dramatically.
It said: “Schools have been revised upwards by 13 percentage points, up from 7 per cent to 20 per cent [for 2010/11, 2012/13, and 2013/14], except in 2011/12 where the employment destinations for schools now show a clear dip corresponding to the spike in education destinations.”
The revised data also showed the proportion of college students thought to have made no tangible progress — as there was no sustained destination for them —remained flat at 12 per cent over the first three years recorded, before falling to 11 per cent in 2013/14.
That was down from 14 per cent for the same academic year under the old data.
The report added: “Previously schools showed little change over time [for students with no sustained destination] with eight or nine per cent of students not sustaining an education or employment destination.
“With additional employment data this is reduced by one percentage point in each of the last three years.”
David Corke, director of education and skills policy at the Association of Colleges, welcomed the use of more “sophisticated” data collection.
He said: “The latest set of destinations data demonstrates the significant impact that colleges have when it comes to students’ progress at the end of their course.
“The data is now more sophisticated because previously it was missing the information from HMRC. Including this data demonstrates how good colleges are at helping students get into sustained employment.”
