Ofsted watch: Outstanding rating highlight of positive week for FE

The new year’s first outstanding Ofsted verdict for an FE provider was handed out this week, with two independent learning providers also retaining their ‘good’ grades.

Birkenhead Sixth Form College was given the highest possible rating across the board from the education watchdog, in a glowing report published Monday (January 30).

It was just the second provider of its kind to have been rated grade one, since the introduction of the common inspection framework in September 2015.

Inspectors, who visited in December, praised leaders at Birkenhead for their “unrelenting focus in developing high expectations” of staff and students – with the latter becoming “young adults with a thirst for learning” as a result.

The 1,400-learner SFC’s performance on English and maths was found to be “exceptionally strong”, with “a very high proportion” of learners enrolled on GCSEs in these subjects “improving the grade they gained at school”.

Meanwhile, independent learning provider Business Management Resources (UK) Ltd kept its grade two following a full inspection early in January, but published Wednesday (February 1).

Inspectors found that “a high proportion” of apprentices at the Telford-based provider achieved their qualifications on time, with many of those sustaining employment or achieving promotion as a result.

“Apprentices benefit from high expectations and are motivated well to achieve,” the report noted.

Another independent provider, The Motor Insurance Repair Research Centre, also retained its ‘good’ grade, following a short inspection carried out in early January and published today.

No general FE college inspection reports came out this week, although the outcome of a monitoring visit to Stockport College – the first since its grade four in November – was published today.

It recognised that the leadership team had produced a post inspection action plan which relates “directly to the main areas of recommendation identified in the inspection report”.

However, it was still found that managers do not prioritise key action points “according to their urgency”, while improvement is needed to the accuracy and use of the college’s system for monitoring learners progress.

No adult and community learning, employer provider or other FE and skills provider inspection reports were published this week.

 

Sixth Form Colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Birkenhead SFC 07/12/2016 30/01/2017 1 2

 

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Business Management Resources (UK) Ltd 10/01/2017 01/02/2017 2 2

 

Short inspections (remains grade 2) Inspected Published
The Motor Insurance Repair Research Centre 11/01/2017 03/01/2017

FE Week victory: apprenticeship rules ban brokerage

Public funds cannot be used to pay brokers’ fees, the Skills Funding Agency has officially ruled.

In its final rules for apprenticeship funding published this week, the SFA has at last clamped down on the sorts of shady dealings which have seen private bodies and brokers cream off millions of pounds via commission fees.

The decision represents a big win for FE Week, after we exposed the dodgy way brokers have been charging up to five per cent of every deal to match subcontractors with government-funded providers.

The rules now state that “funds in an employer’s digital account or government-employer co-investment must not be used for… specific services not related to the delivery and administration of the apprenticeship”. Provisions explicitly cover the recruitment and continuing professional development of staff involved in apprenticeships, company inductions, managing agents and those providing a brokerage service to an employer”.

Our initial investigation back in April found numerous brokers advertising subcontracting opportunities through closed groups on LinkedIn.

In one of those most alarming examples, FE Week found an advert with Essex-based consultants EEVT Ltd, attributed to a company called The Funding Brokers Ltd.

It read “we have been providing this service for over three years, securing in excess of £100 million in the process for our clients” – meaning that at five per cent commission, the brokers could have earned up to £5 million.

The ad continued: “We work on a no-win no-fee basis, whereby we will provide our support free of charge to the point of contracting.”

In response to our investigation, in its first bid to “limit the use of brokers”, the SFA said last April that it would “review” funding agreements – but then it fell silent.

It wasn’t until FE Week deputy editor Paul Offord’s investigation went on to win the prestigious CIPR award for Outstanding Further and Vocational Education Journalism in November, that we heard anything new, after we pressed the SFA to explain what had officially been done to address the issue.

The agency eventually revealed it would be “strengthening” its rules so that government money could no longer be used to pay brokers’ fees from May 1 this year. It also warned it would “take action” against any provider found breaking these rules.

The government’s apprenticeship funding agreements originally said: “Funds in an employer’s digital account or government-employer co-investment cannot be used for specific services not related to the delivery and administration of the apprenticeship; including company induction, bespoke or additional training or assessment not needed to meet the apprenticeship requirements.”

The promise of tougher stance was warmly welcomed by sector leaders in November, shortly after FE Week first learned the change was going ahead.

Mark Dawe, the boss of the AELP, said: “With the levy’s arrival and the new subcontracting rules, no one should complain if brokerage fees become a thing of the past.”

David Hughes, his counterpart at the AoC, agreed, saying it was “good to see them delivering” on the initial pledge the SFA had made to FE Week 10 months ago.

Leave ESOL to the experts

We are morally compelled as a nation to do our absolute best to help immigrants who struggle with speaking English, to integrate smoothly into our rich melting pot of a society.

It’s such an important policy area, in terms of helping secure jobs and preventing significant numbers of people from feeling isolated.

That’s why I feel just as frustrated as Jenny Roden and Sue Pember that provision is being undermined by competing government departments.

DCLG seems to think it should be delivered by unpaid “small voluntary and community groups”.

I’m inclined to think they should leave it to the professionals at FE colleges, who have taught ESOL for decades. I hope and suspect ministers at the DfE agree with this.

Everything needs to be pulled together and made the sole responsibility of the department dedicated to education.

It’s hard to understand why there isn’t a national strategy already in place. Drawing one up and increasing funding should be a key priority.

Our new college principal is alienating staff. What should we do?

Once a month, Dr Sue, Holex’s director of policy and external relations, answers your questions, backed by the experience of almost a decade as principal of Canterbury College, in addition to time served in senior civil service posts at central government departments covering education and skills.

Question One: New principal

I am a new principal with little experience of governance. I have read the Code of Good Governance for English Colleges and talked to the clerk; what more do I need to do to facilitate a productive relationship?

Answer: First you need to go into this with the right frame of mind, which you seem to have. Governors will rely on you to be their lead advisor as well as the accountable officer.

Don’t spin as it will inevitably unwind

Second you need to put time into this side of the job. Good relationships are built on the ability to work openly and cooperatively with your governors from the beginning. Work with them on deciding what’s important to them, what type of paperwork is needed and how you can help them make sense of data and college performance information.

It’s a governor’s role to challenge, so don’t be defensive. Proactively pre-empt difficult questions by raising them yourself and assuring governors you have the right mitigating action in place. That way, they will gain confidence and can be supportive of your actions. Don’t spin because it will inevitably unwind, share the bad bits as well as the good.
And thirdly, go out and shadow other executives at their boards. See how others do it. It doesn’t have to be a college – it could be a university, a large health authority or housing association. The main attributes of good board and executive relationships are the same whatever the sector.

 

Question Two: Alienating staff

I took on the chair’s role of a failing college two years ago and my first task was to appoint a new principal. The transformation has been first class and our inspection report was full of praise. However, senior staff are showing signs of stress. I wouldn’t say the principal offends people, but he is not making friends or allowing staff to express their views. How do I tackle this?

Answer: Leadership and college ethos start with the governors. You brought in someone to turn round the college and they have done that.

Staff will use the success as a springboard to move on

It is not unusual when an organisation needs to be turned round quickly for a chief executive to take on an ‘I know best’ management style.

Having a centrally imposed framework and standards gives staff the clarity they need, especially after a period of uncertainly, but it only works for a short time.

It’s now time to modify behaviour and get your principal to move from an instructional leadership to one of shared collaborative ownership where he offers as much praise as criticism and shares the success with others around him. If you don’t do that the most able staff will use this newfound success of the college as a springboard to move on.

One way for your principal to consider new leadership styles is to attend one of the thought leadership sessions run by the leadership foundations.

 

Question Three: FE handbooks

I am a governor for a school as well as an FE college. the revised schools’ ‘Governance handbook and competency framework’, is 130+ pages, compared to 23 in the Code of Good Governance for English Colleges. Are we missing something in FE? 

Answer: No I don’t think so. The Code of Good Governance for English Colleges is similar in length and content to the Scottish and Welsh Codes and shares the same format with the University Sector Code.

I am taken by the section on principles and personal attributes

The schools’ guidance tries to cover all matters whereas, in FE, many of the issues are referred to in separate guidance, such as the financial memorandum.

The new criteria are interesting and I am taken by the section on principles and personal attributes. The principles and suggested behaviours and statements about time are similar to those in the College code. However, they have cleverly added an easy-to-remember section that encompasses the seven C’s.

“All those involved in governance should be: Committed, Confident, Curious, Challenging, Collaborative, Critical and Creative.”

These are all words that could be attributed to excellent governors in FE colleges. 

 

Ofsted denies going soft on employers despite IfA notes

Ofsted has been forced to deny it would reduce its inspections of apprenticeships employer-providers to “samples”, despite the secret release of new guidance suggesting otherwise.

According to briefing notes leaked to FE Week from a recent stakeholder event for the Institute of Apprenticeships, Ofsted is slated to “continue to inspect training providers and sample inspection of employers”.

Confronted with our findings, a red-faced spokesperson for the inspectorate insisted that it “is not planning to change how we inspect training providers and employers”.

They said: “We will continue to observe on-the-job as well as off-the-job apprenticeship training to judge overall quality of training, learning and experience.

“Our inspectors visit some employers’ premises as part of the inspection process to observe and speak to apprentices and trainers in their place of work.”

The Department for Education however declined to comment, and told us to refer all our enquiries back to Ofsted.

FE Week reported last June that firms taking on apprentices had been advised by the AELP to stick “to their core business” and use experienced providers – after Citroën UK was humiliated with an ‘inadequate’ rating following an inspection.

The watchdog’s damning verdict on the car manufacturer meant that a quarter of employers inspected under the new common inspection framework launched the previous September had been awarded the lowest possible rating.

Organisations engaging with the apprenticeship programme for the first time under the [apprenticeship] levy may be better off sticking to their core business

The news provoked AELP boss Mark Dawe into a dire warning.

“Those organisations engaging with the apprenticeship programme for the first time under the [apprenticeship] levy may be better off sticking to their core business and instead using the services of an experienced training provider,” he said.

It soon emerged that Jaguar Land Rover, the British car manufacturer and employer-provider often lauded by ministers for its apprenticeship scheme, had itself been hit with a shock grade three rating after its own Ofsted inspection.

Concern remains among colleges and ITPs that the government wants Ofsted to go easier on employer-providers, for example in terms of performance monitoring and inspection, because ministers are understood to want more firms with apprentices running their own training.

Paul Joyce, Ofsted’s deputy director for FE and skills, attempted to allay such fears at the AELP’s annual conference last June.

He insisted there would be no special treatment for employers that become providers in order to use their apprenticeship levy funding, after the new system goes live from April this year.

He told delegates that inspections would carry on “regardless of where that provision is delivered”.

“I can assure you we will not have a two-tier inspection system,” he added.

A DfE spokesperson told FE Week at the time that Mr Joyce’s comments on not having a two-tier approach “are correct” and said the government “will be inviting feedback on the administrative process”.

She added that ministers and civil servants “continue to work closely with Ofsted who welcome feedback to ensure that their inspection approaches are appropriate.”

Education leaders call for co-ordinated national ESOL strategy

Two of the country’s most senior educators have called on the government to produce a coherent national strategy for teaching English to immigrants, and put a stop to wasteful competition between different ministries and departments.

At present, responsibility for English as a second language is split between the Department for Education and the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Jenny Roden, the co-chair of the National Association of Teaching English and Community Languages, and Sue Pember, director of policy at adult learning provider membership body Holex and former senior civil servant responsible for FE funding, have said that the situation is failing tens of thousands of learners who desperately want to learn the language.

The DCLG provides funds for a selection of short-term English language projects for non-native speakers, and the DfE provides separate funding for ESOL classes in FE – which has been heavily cut alongside the adult education budget.

Between the 2012/13 academic year and 2015/16, the DCLG handed out almost £8.5 million for projects designed to “engage isolated adults”, according to the apprenticeships and skills minister Robert Halfon in an answer to a written parliamentary question submitted in January.

A DCLG spokesperson told FE Week these projects are generally delivered by unpaid “small voluntary and community groups” – as the department fears learners may otherwise “be deterred from attending classes delivered by local colleges in larger, more formal settings”.

Around 39,800 adults have received teaching so far, and the focus is on people with “the lowest levels of English” rather than those “seeking work”.

Meanwhile, funding for the DfE’s ESOL classes, which the FE sector has been delivering for decades, has significantly declined since 2009.

DCLG-funded projects, which are short-term and targeted at certain groups, do not provide the sustainable funding which ESOL badly needs

Ms Roden warned that the six projects, funded to the tune of £8.45 million over four years by the DCLG, were unlikely to reach enough of the people who need them, particularly while college programmes continue to suffer.

“Unfortunately, DCLG-funded projects, which are short-term and targeted at certain groups, do not provide the sustainable funding which ESOL badly needs,” she said.

“The systematic reduction in ESOL funding from the Skills Funding Agency since 2009 has left providers struggling to provide even a basic service, with some closing down their provision completely.

“We believe that ESOL learners deserve better than this; what is needed is a strategy for ESOL, as exists in Wales and Scotland.”

Read more: What FE Week’s deputy editor had to say

Dr Pember, who was formerly the top skills civil servant, told FE Week that she too believes there is an urgent need to establish a coherent strategy for English language teaching.

“If we are to meet the government’s stated aims on integration, we really need an English language policy for England,” she said. Recent announcements about new funds for refugees are welcomed but these seem to be done in isolation from the main body of activity.”

In December 2016, a report on social integration authored by Dame Louise Casey found that English skills are “fundamental” to improving community cohesion and opportunities for immigrants, but identified “a significant gap in funding for pre-entry and entry-level English language courses”.

This isn’t the first time senior figures in the sector have called for better ESOL provision. Martin Doel, the former boss of the AoC, pointed out in January last year that there had been a 50 per cent drop in funding available for ESOL courses between 2008 and 2015 – a massive fall of £160 million.

He made the observation in the wake of a controversial decision by the-then prime minister David Cameron to provide £20 million for English language tuition geared towards helping Muslim women integrate into British society.

Meanwhile in October, hundreds of college staff and students expressed their frustration over ESOL cuts at the Houses of Parliament.

NATECLA will carry out a survey with the charity Refugee Action to assess the effect of cuts to ESOL funding nationally, with results expected in September.

DfE silent on FE commissioner intervention reports

A stop appears to have been put on publication of FE commissioner intervention reports, despite growing numbers of failing colleges.

What’s more, there is no sign of the FE commissioner’s 2015/16 annual report, even though previous reports have been published in November or December.

The last intervention report, into City of Liverpool College, was published in October, although the document itself was dated August 2016.

FE Week believes that up to 18 colleges should have been subject to intervention by the FE commissioner and his team since then.

But when we asked about the missing reports, the Department for Education was unable to give any reason for the hold-up, and insisted they would be available in due course.

Julian Gravatt, AoC’s assistant chief executive, suggested the delay was related to the recent publication of 18 area review reports – which were also overdue – because “this may be where the government’s focus currently lies”.

Richard Atkins, who took over as FE commissioner in November, told delegates at last year’s AoC annual conference that he and his team were “still finding the same things now that we found in 2013 [during interventions]”.

We’re still finding the same things now that we found in 2013

Intervention is triggered in one of three ways: an ‘inadequate’ Ofsted rating, a financial notice of concern from the Skills Funding Agency, or a failure to meet the SFA’s minimum standards.

Since the publication of the last intervention report, 10 colleges have been given Ofsted’s worst rating, while eight have been issued with financial notices.

Of the 10 grade-four colleges, seven have previously been subject to intervention – though it’s not clear whether any of those processes had completed, and therefore whether a new intervention had been triggered.

City of Liverpool College became the first college to return to the FE commissioner’s oversight in early 2016.

The DfE refused to say whether any of these seven colleges had joined City of Liverpool in returning to involvement by Mr Atkins and his team.

Instead FE Week was told that the details would be in the reports when they were published.

Mr Atkins said at the AoC conference that there had been around 50 interventions since 2013, and that there were around 20 colleges with which he and his team were currently involved.

A total of 46 reports have been published, based on interventions at 40 colleges and six adult and community learning providers.

Annual reports by Mr Atkins’ predecessor Sir David Collins, in 2013/14 and 2014/15, included a recap of the previous year’s interventions, and a summary of lessons learned and common issues.

The 2013/14 report was published in November 2014, while the 2014/15 report was issued in December 2015.

The FE commissioner role was created in 2013 with the aim of tackling underperformance in failing colleges through the intervention process.

It was later expanded to include leading on the area reviews of post-16 education and training, which began in September 2015.

Sir David held the post for three years until his retirement in November, when he was replaced by former Exeter College principal Mr Atkins.

A Freedom of Information request by FE Week in December revealed that Sir David had been involved in 49 interventions and 22 area reviews between 2013 and 2016, and had worked twice as many days as had been originally planned.

Mr Atkins said at the AoC conference that he hoped his workload would be “lighter after March” when the area reviews are due to complete.

Carlisle College becomes NCG fifth FE college member

NCG has confirmed it will absorb yet another provider in the north following months of talks.

Further consolidation is also on the cards for London’s colleges, with two mergers involving five institutions moving forward.

Carlisle College is to become the fifth FE college member of NCG, when it joins the group in April.

The college emerged from the Cumbria area review with a recommendation to merge with Lakes College, but this move was rejected in favour of a return to talks with its previously mooted merger partner NCG.

The prospect of a merger between Carlisle College and Newcastle-based NCG was first raised last March, and came after the Cumbria-based college turned to its county council for a £700,000 loan in January 2016 to help address a “need for short-term cash-flow support”.

Its chair David Carter said: “The principal and governors see the merger with NCG as the best solution to securing the future success of Carlisle College and we are keen to benefit from the support, expertise, investment and resources of NCG.”

Joe Docherty, NCG’s chief executive, said the group shared the college’s “focus on providing what employers and students in Carlisle need to develop skills for their local economy”, and that he was “pleased to be able to back that with the expertise and capacity of a major national group”.

Down south, meanwhile, Tower Hamlets College and Hackney Community College will be joined by Redbridge College from April 1, after the merger was signed off by the colleges’ governing bodies.

The group also has a new name – New City College – following approval by the Department for Education.

The latest link-up, which follows an earlier merger between Tower Hamlets and Hackney colleges in August, means the group is now the capital’s third largest FE college, according to a statement from the group.

Group principal Gerry McDonald described the merger approval as “very good news”.

“It will lead to an even more robust organisation which allows flexibility for local innovation and the tailored support for students that our communities need and expect,” he said.

Consultation has also opened on a partnership between Barnet and Southgate College, and Waltham Forest College.

The consultation runs until March 1, with the aim of merging by August 1.

The two colleges had been in discussion about a possible three-way merger involving the College of Haringey, Enfield and North East London, but this was “shelved by agreement” in October.

The sticking point in the three-way link up was differing approaches to governance and management, according to a statement put out by CONEL at the time.

The principal-designate of the merged college is David Byrne, who currently leads Barnet and Southgate.

Ann Zinkin, the college’s chair, described the partnership as a “strategic merger of equals”.

“Our ambition is to create a new and vibrant college that is better able to meet the economic and social challenges that London, our local boroughs and the wider country face,” she said.

Paul Butler, who chairs Waltham Forest, said the merged colleges’ vision was “to be an exciting place to learn”.

All five London colleges were involved in the recent area reviews of post-16 education and training in the capital.

The London reviews are understood to have ended in November, but the final reports have yet to be published.

How we reversed our college’s deficit budget

Garry Phillips describes how his college pulled itself back from financial difficulty and an Ofsted ‘inadequate’ rating, following an intervention from the deputy FE commissioner.

Ealing Hammersmith and West London’s College has appeared in FE Week several times over the last few years – and not always for the best reasons. 

The college found itself in financial difficulty in 2013, receiving a notice to improve for financial health, after suffering from a deficit budget for several years, which rose into the millions of pounds. 

Moreover, the quality of outcomes for students were not up to standard; a fact that was highlighted by a grade four Ofsted inspection in 2015. That inspection sparked an intervention from the deputy FE commissioner, just when the area reviews also started. Oh, and should I mention the f-word (funding)?

It is safe to say that the college hit some rough seas, in a perfect storm of events that left one route: change had to happen.

The challenge was to make the transformation quickly and sustainably, so the most important stakeholders – the students – received positive outcomes.

We had to stop any financial bleeds

It was around this time that I joined the college and, along with the board, I felt the best place to start was with a basic ‘why, what and how’ approach. The ‘why’, for any college, could only be about the students; the ‘what’ examined what we were good at as a college; and the ‘how’ considered how we could deliver on our overall reason for being – our commitment to students.

Once we had laid out the answers to these questions clearly, we knew what to change.

Firstly, we needed to save £20 million in costs, so we had to stop any financial bleeds. One example was late enrolments. As a college it was custom for us to accept over 750 late enrolments. Not as January starts or part of any NEET intervention strategy – just for the numbers. I am sure readers will understand the impact of this on the group dynamics, learning and student outcomes, not to mention the issue of delayed funding on our bank balance. So this stopped. 

We also rationalised our own internal duplicate provision. This meant removing underperforming provision and that which did not lead to further or higher education or employment – including some apprenticeships, as these additional courses did not correspond to ‘why’ we did this.

We also introduced a more robust student advice and guidance process to ensure that the right student is on the right course, at the right level, to enable them to achieve.

None of this was easy, and possibly the hardest part was having to reduce staff numbers. However, we refocused on CPD and a cultural change programme that we named the ‘West London Way’, which enabled staff to tell us what they needed to succeed – and we listened. As a result, we have some state-of-the-art technology, new facilities and the chance for staff to update their own skills.

Staff costs previously represented 83 per cent of our income. They are now at a more acceptable 63 per cent and we are predicting another year of financial surplus. Staff sickness has dropped from four per cent to 2.7 per cent and 89 per cent have told us they enjoy the work that they do, which is pretty good when you bear in mind the journey we have been on. 

There are also ambitious plans to build new accommodation on one of our sites. 

But all this means nothing if we are not having a positive impact on student outcomes. Signs there are more than encouraging. The interim visits from Ofsted have recognised the improvement in this area and the impact of the Quality of Teaching, Learning and Assessment is at 85 per cent good or better. In November Ofsted concluded that we had made ‘significant progress’ in the improvement of learner outcomes.

For the first time in several years, student outcomes are above the last known national rate at 85.4 per cent. English and maths achievement for functional skills is 17 per cent above the national average and the college overall attendance rate now stands at 89 per cent.

There is still a lot of work to do in building on the green shoots of our growing success, but we are managing change effectively and feel that we now have a learning organisation that students and staff are truly proud to be a part of.

 

Garry Phillips is CEO of Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College