Hull College Group has announced the departure of its chief executive Gary Warke, bringing to an end weeks of speculation after the FE Commissioner exposed a £10 million deficit there over four years.

A statement was sent to FE Week 15 minutes ago on behalf of the chair of governors Pat Tomlinson.

She said: “On behalf of the college corporation, I can confirm that Gary Warke, group chief executive, has decided to leave the college to explore new career opportunities.

“This coincides with a point where the area based review process is virtually complete and the group embarks on a new strategic plan.

“The corporation would like to thank Gary for his service to the college and commitment to FE and wish him every success. In turn, Gary wishes the college well for the future.”

She added: “Michelle Swithenbank, as deputy CEO, together with the leadership team will lead the college forward to develop and deliver those new plans.”

It comes after FE Week reported on February 14 that the group had repeatedly refused to publicly back Mr Warke, after he was urged to resign following a damning FE Commissioner report.

Commissioner Richard Atkins’ team was sent in to carry out an emergency assessment, after the Skills Funding Agency issued it with a notice of concern last November.

The resulting report, published in early February, warned that the senior leadership team had not succeeded in addressing a steady decline in financial performance, recognising a “cumulative deficit of around £10 million over the past four years” with its operating performance.

It added that “a further deficit in excess of £1m is forecast for the current year.”

It sparked widespread dismay and a call by the University and College Union for Mr Warke  to stand down.

A spokesperson for the union claimed at the time that “at an extraordinary staff meetings held at the college today, the chair of governers Pat Tomlinson was vague about CEO Gary Warke’s position.”

UCU regional official, Julie Kelley, told FE Week this morning: “The recent report from the further education commissioner made it quite clear that Mr Warke’s position was no longer tenable.

“Staff and students need a new management team in post prepared to put the educational needs of local people first. A good college is one that offers a varied curriculum and we hope that Hull College will now reassess its primary function and focus on supporting staff to deliver education to students.”

The SFA issued Hull with a notice of concern on November 11 last year, triggering the visit from Mr Atkins’ team.

The subsequent report explained that the notice was issued because the college had been rated ‘inadequate’ by the SFA for financial health (based on its 2016 to 2018 financial plan) and had also requested exceptional financial support.

It revealed that “the college intends to put in place a different management structure in early 2017”, including a newly appointed “‘turnaround director’ to help to deliver financial recovery”.

It added: “Although the senior leadership team has a range of skills and experience, it has not succeeded in addressing key issues facing the college, including steady decline in financial performance and loss of market share.

“There is concern at all levels of the organisation that the college lacks strategic vision and strong, resolute leadership and that this is frustrating and demotivating for staff.”

Mr Atkins’ report made a number of recommendations, including instructions for the corporation to “respond accordingly in relation to leadership and governance”.

FE Week previously reported, in May last year, that Mr Warke had been accused of trying to bully a member of the shadow cabinet for supporting a staff strike action.

Karl Turner, who is the MP for Kingston upon Hull, joined “angry and demoralised” Hull College workers on the picket that week in a row over pay and a controversial new lesson observation system.

He subsequently called for an investigation into Mr Warke, after he was allegedly sent a “threatening and derogatory” letter. Mr Warke declined to comment any further on the matter.

More than 200 passionate supporters of lifelong learning packed-out the official launch of FE Week’s #SaveOurAdultEducation campaign in the Houses of Parliament today.

The event saw powerful speeches from influential politicians, including apprenticeships and skills minister Robert Halfon, and FE sector leaders.

#SaveOurAdultEducation is demanding three things from the government.

First of these is that advanced learning loans debt should be written off, where blameless adult learners have been left unable to complete their courses if their training provider goes bust.

It comes after FE Week reported last month revealed that the Skills Funding Agency was investigating the demise of John Frank Training.

The provider went into liquidation on November 30, leaving no assets, despite recording a profit of £1.3 million in the first half of 2016.

The collapse meant that hundreds of students who had taken out FE loans to train with the London-based provider were left with hefty debts but no course.

One of these, Asim Shaheen, 49, who was unable to complete a level three hospitality and catering course which he had funded with a loan for over £8,000, confronted Mr Halfon about this just before the event started this afternoon.

Mr Halfon told him: “I will talk to the SFA about your particular case, I know they are doing everything they can on this.”

Asim, who later addressed the full room asking “how can they not have had a contingency plan in place for this?”, then requested that the minister should look into the wider issue for all learners affected. The minister agreed.

Mr Marsden referenced the issue of student loans left with unwarranted debts in his speech, saying: “The numbers are really mounting up. Action must be taken to help them.”

The campaign is also calling on the government to consult on a proper adult education strategy, one that does not disappear under the political weight of apprenticeships and devolution.

Ms Pember said in her speech today: “It’s really wrong now that we don’t as a society understand the benefits of adult education.

“We know as educators that it works. It improves not just productivity, it helps to improve health. If you put people onto adult education classes instead of putting them on anti-depressants, its saves the government money for example.

“We need a proper cross-government adult education strategy that lasts 20 years.”

Her words were echoed by Ruth Spellman, chief executive of the Workers’ Educational Association, who said in her speech: “Adult education is so important. The government needs to understand it is something that benefits the vast majority of the population.”

The third demand of the campaign is for the introduction of FE maintenance grant loans for adult learners, which would make retraining possible for many more older people, by helping cover their living costs while studying, something that is already available to mature students in higher education.

FE Week revealed before Christmas that the Department for Education had indefinitely delayed a decision on whether to extend maintenance loans to FE.

Mr Marsden told those at today’s event: “Extending maintenance loans to FE would be of key importance to achieving parity of esteem with higher education.”

David Lammy, an MP who was minister for skills in 2007 and 2008, and who has recently called for a return to widespread “night schools”, also spoke at the #SaveOurAdultEducation launch.

According to government figures, there are around 1.5 million fewer adults aged 19 or over participating in FE, than there were during Mr Lammy’s stint as minister, when the figure stood at 3.75 million.

He also led an adjournment debate in the House of Commons this afternoon on the future of adult education.

He conceded today: “Successive government have failed to get adult education where it needs to be.

“Many people across the country in their 30s and 40s can’t afford to leave their job and go to university. They need to retrain through adult education.”

He claimed Mr Halfon had previously played a “trick” by implying spending on adult education was in a healthy state, because that would also entail including apprenticeships funding in the calculations – which often aren’t relevant to older people.

Mr Halfon denies this and told guests at the campaign launch that the government’s industrial strategy, released on January 23, which committed to exploring “ambitious new approaches to encouraging lifelong learning”, showed he supported their aims.

FE Week editor Nick Linford spoke of his pride in the “fantastic turnout” today.

He said: “The government has been too quiet for too long on adult education. I really hope our campaign will make a big difference.”

The government exams watchdog has voiced fears that responsibilities within the current apprenticeship system have become “blurred”.

In its response to the operational plan for the Institute for Apprenticeships, published this morning, Ofqual branded the “responsibilities and accountabilities” in the system “blurred”, adding that it was “crucial” to make the landscape “clear and easy to navigate”.

“We consider it essential that the operational plan draws effectively on the strengths of the partner organisations and minimises duplication”, the report said.

“This is crucial if we are to enable apprentices, employers and those involved in developing and delivering apprenticeships to understand the system, use it effectively, and have confidence in those securing quality.”

The government’s consultation on how the Institute for Apprenticeships proposes to carry out its functions ran from January 27 to February 27, and feedback is currently being analysed.

Ofqual’s response particularly highlighted the need for “immediate clarification” of the role of external quality assurance.

It said: “The operational plan fails to make the distinction between the EQA function and the substantial regulatory powers that are uniquely available to us as a statutory regulator.

“Where an apprenticeship end point assessment falls within a regulated awarding organisation’s scope of recognition, we will regulate the EPA, no matter who is providing the EQA.

“In doing so, we will provide the same degree of quality assurance to EPAs that we give to the qualifications we regulate.”

The Institute for Apprenticeships should be working with Ofqual and other key partners in the system to develop “an appropriate EQA landscape”, it added.

The aims of this would be avoiding “duplication of responsibilities”, minimising “regulatory burden” and securing “value for money”.

The regulator also proposed the building of “productive working arrangements” with sector and professional bodies, where they are chosen to deliver EQA, in order to provide “assessment expertise and regulatory powers”, and help the system of quality assurance to be more “consistent”.

“Where Ofqual is not involved in regulating EPAs, the Institute will want to be satisfied that the quality assurance function enables similar levels of assurance and control over standards to be applied,” it warned.  

Sally Collier, Ofqual’s chief regulator, said: “Our response to this important consultation underlines our commitment to support the IfA in ensuring that assessments within apprenticeships are consistent and of high quality.”

Currently, when employer Trailblazer groups submit their assessment plans for new apprenticeship standards, they must choose one external quality assurance organisation out of four options: Ofqual; the Quality Assurance Agency, which generally deals with higher education qualifications; a professional or sector body, which the Trailblazer group can create themselves if desired; or the Institute for Apprenticeships itself (see slide below).

On February 7, FE Week reported that the Institute for Apprenticeships would charge apprenticeship assessment organisations for external quality assurance of new standards, despite Ofqual keeping the service free.

Speaking during a webinar on January 6, Peter Lauener, shadow chief executive of the IfA, said that it was acceptable for the Institute to charge for the service because “the principle of a regulator charging bodies in the industry for regulation is not uncommon at all”.

Mr Lauener confirmed that if the Institute was chosen by employers to provide this service it would charge, but “any end point assessment the Institute provides itself would be provision of last resort”.

In the recent 200th edition of FE Week, Gemma Gathercole, head of funding and assessment at FE Week publisher Lsect, argued that the assessment community is calling for Ofqual’s role in apprenticeships to be extended.

She warned that “it is not common for the regulated to be calling for their regulator to have more power”, adding “we are adding further complexity into a system that almost everyone already thinks is too confusing”.

Another 100 learners appear to have been left with heavy student loans debt but no qualifications to show for it, after their training provider under investigation by the Skills Funding Agency went bust.

FE Week is demanding justice for them and hundreds of others left in the lurch – through our new #SaveOurAdultEducation campaign which is calling for all students’ advanced learning loan debt to be written off, if they are unable to complete courses after training providers go out of business.

The latest case affecting 100 students is with Hampshire-based Edudo Ltd. It went into voluntary liquidation in January, after the company’s “assets and business” were sold to Learning Republic Group Ltd last November.

Edudo boss Ronan Smith is also the only director listed on Companies House for Learning Republic Group, which was incorporated last July.

FE Week asked the SFA if it was checking out the circumstances surrounding the demise of Edudo, which was launched in 2011 and allocated £500,500 in advanced learner loans by the SFA as of September, and what it was doing to help the students affected.

A spokesperson said in response that there are approximately 100 learners affected, and it is “working closely” with the SLC to ensure they complete their learning.

This indicates that each of the students have been left on average with just over £5,000 loans debt.

It comes after FE Week last month revealed that the SFA was investigating the demise of John Frank Training.

The provider went into liquidation on November 30, leaving no assets, despite recording a profit of £1.3 million in the first half of 2016.

The collapse meant that hundreds of students who had taken out FE loans to train with the London-based provider were left with hefty debts but no course.

Now commenting on the demise of Edudo, an SFA spokesperson told FE Week it had terminated its loans agreement with the provider.

“Our priority is to support the learners affected to complete their learning with minimal disruption, working closely with the Student Loans Company,” she added.

The SFA said it will look carefully at any irregularities with the case.

A statement was also released to FE Week on behalf of the former board of directors of Edudo.

It said: “In recent years, the trading environment for the company was increasingly difficult given funding changes.

“The board of directors of Edudo, on professional advice and with great sadness, appropriately concluded that the company could no longer continue to trade.

“On November 24, 2016, the company’s assets and business were sold to Learning Republic Group.

”This was considered by the board of directors of the company, on independent corporate advice, to represent the best outcome for creditors and learners.

“Additionally, it secured the jobs of the company’s staff who transferred to the new business, providing an opportunity for Learning Republic to offer continuity for and to the benefit of each and every student under its the care of Edudo.”

The statement added that “for some months” the board of directors, and its advisors, have been and remain in “proactive engagement” with the SFA.

The agency, though, told FE Week Learning Republic Group is not a provider on the register of training organisations, and does not hold a loans agreement with them.

This means it is unlikely Learning Republic Group will be able to complete the training of former government-funded Edudo learners.

A spokesperson for liquidators RSM said the company was formally installed in the role on January 13 and “during the period of its engagement, RSM have received and responded to requests for information from the SFA”.

“The liquidators have received the full cooperation of the directors of Edudo Ltd in responding to such requests.”

The SLC declined to comment on Edudo’s demise.

The parliamentary launch for #SaveOurAdultEducation, which will have both skills minister Robert Halfon and his shadow Gordon Marsden speaking, takes place this afternoon.

Researchers at the influential Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) have contrasted cuts to 16-18 funding with “spending shifting towards earlier in youngsters’ lives” in the last 25 years.

The IFS today publish a report into education spending and are keen to point out that despite school funding cuts hitting the headlines in recent weeks, in the last 25 years they “have done rather well in terms of funding per pupil” with spending “set to be at least 70% higher in 2020 than it was in 1990.”

By contrast, they say the “bigger story” is that 16-18 funding in school sixth forms and colleges has been “continually squeezed” with “spending per pupil set to be no higher at all than it was in 1990.”

The report, ‘Long-Run Comparisons of Spending per Pupil across Different Stages of Education’, was funded by the Nuffield Foundation and the IFS claims it is the first time “consistent data on day-to-day or current spending per pupil on different stages of education in England over a long time period” has been published. The report does not include research on adult further education funding.

Luke Sibieta, one of the report authors and an Associate Director at the IFS said: “The actions – as opposed to the rhetoric – of both Labour and Conservative governments suggest that they agree 16-18 is a low priority area for spending. Why they think that is unclear”.

The report concludes that “The overriding challenge for the 16–18 sector concerns the long-run stagnation in the level of resources available. By the end of the current Spending Review period in 2019–20, we expect that spending per student in further education will only be just above the level seen 30 years ago at the end of the 1980s.”

Angela Rayner MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Education, said “cuts to further education especially are leaving behind thousands of young people that want to pursue technical skills and education and the Tories are once again proving themselves to be the party of the few not the many.”

A Department for Education spokesperson commented on the IFS findings, saying: “We are transforming post-16 education and investing £7 billion to ensure there is a place in education or training for every 16 to 19-year old who wants one. As a result we have the lowest proportion of young people not in education, employment or training since consistent records began in 1994. This supports future economic growth, by meeting the needs of our economy and helping everyone, regardless of background, get onto the ladder of opportunity so they can fulfil their potential.”

The IFS report comes a little over a week before the Spring Budget on 8 March, with the Association of Colleges already calling on the government to increase the 16-18 national base rate as well as shift spending on education and training from 4.3% now towards 5% of GDP to “introduce fair funding for colleges.”

New Institutes of Technology could be based at “wholly new” institutions, not just existing FE providers, a Department for Education briefing document leaked to FE Week has revealed.

In January, the release of a green paper called ‘Building Our Industrial Strategy’, confirmed that £170 million of capital funding would be spent on IoTs.

At the time the DfE indicated that they would be based at existing providers.

The latest document, seen by FE Week, goes into far more detail about the “next steps” for IoTs, including confirmation that they could be established as “a wholly new institution”.

The DfE document, which has not been made public yet, states that the delivery model will not be “one size fits all” because of the “nationwide variance in skills needs and provision”.

Instead, bidders looking to establish an IoT will be able to “adopt models best suited to their local needs”.

Different delivery and governance models provided include “extending technical education provision from within an existing high-performing college”, “delivery through partnerships of FE and HE”, or “a group of employers partnering with an education provider to create an IoT”.

And a further option would be to establish “a wholly new institution where there is evidence that existing providers cannot meet higher level STEM skills needs”.

The government first announced plans for the institutes in July 2015, then again through its Post-16 Skills Plan in July 2016.

Until now it has also been unclear whether independent training providers would be able to get involved with setting up new IoTs, through applying for the £170 million which will come as capital funding across the next three years to 2019/20.

However, this latest update from the DfE indicates that IoT bids “can be submitted by the lead partner of a consortium, who could be either an FE college, higher education institution, private training provider or employer consortia representing more than one employer; or by the local enterprise partnership or combined authority.

The document does state that the DfE expects “the majority of proposals to emerge from the area review process which has stimulated many local areas to consider how an IoT could best be established to meet their specific needs”.

It adds: “In most cases, these are based on a FE College working collaboratively and innovatively across further and higher education and industry usually as part of a consortium.”

Proposals, it says, should be supported “in most cases” by an FE college, “unless there is robust evidence that this is not appropriate for the local area”.

Backing from the local economic partnership or combined authority and local employers identified as potential “anchor partners” is required as well.

The paper warns bidders: “We would not expect to see competing bids which duplicate provision in an area and we would expect the requirement that bids are supported by the LEP or Combined Authority to ensure this does not happen.”