Latest news from FE Week

Ofsted watch: Providers enjoy grades boost in good week for FE

A host of providers jumped up Ofsted grades in what was a mostly impressive week for FE – but a university technical college with just 143 students came in for criticism.

Two large colleges – City of Bristol College and North Shropshire College – clawed their way out of ‘inadequate’ and have now been rated grade three in reports published June 5.

For the former, which was rated grade four 17 months ago, inspectors recognised that “senior leaders have recruited specialist managers and staff with relevant skills and experience”.

They said the college now had “strong leadership”, while at the time of the previous inspection, it “was in a precarious financial situation – the principal [Lee Probert] was new, the senior leadership team was incomplete”, and staff and learners’ expectations were low.

North Shropshire College, which was rated ‘inadequate’ last January, was graded three for all areas in the latest report, except adult learning programmes which was ‘good’.

It was positive about learners’ personal development, behaviour and welfare, saying “they develop a wide range of skills that support them to move successfully to their next steps into further learning or employment”.

Inspectors added governors and senior leaders had transformed the college’s approach to protecting learners. “A strong culture of safeguarding now permeates the college at all levels,” the report said.

Also showing solid improvement was private training providers Meadowhall Training Limited and Training Synergy Limited, who both went from grade three to two.

Meadowhall, which is based in Sheffield, was given ‘good’ across the board and was recognised for its “ambitious” leaders who have “successfully tackled the areas for improvement identified at the previous inspection”.

Training Synergy, based in London, received ‘good’ in every category except for in personal development, behaviour and welfare, where the provider was deemed ‘outstanding’.

Inspectors said apprentices have an “excellent understanding and appreciation of the significance of adopting and developing professional standards in their learning programme”, and are “highly motivated, enjoy their learning and take great pride in their work”.

To make the jump up to outstanding, the college needs to “further improve retention” by ensuring that all apprentices and employers have a “clear understanding of the programme requirements, and receive appropriate information, advice and guidance throughout the apprenticeship, including for those at risk of leaving early”.

Urban Futures London Limited, an adult and community learning provider, also went from a grade three to two.

Since the previous inspection, senior leaders, managers and staff have “worked tirelessly and successfully to tackle the majority of areas for improvement”, inspectors said.

Total People Limited also received a ‘good’ rating, retaining is grade two from 2013.

The Cheshire-based adult and community learning provider was praised for having the “majority” of apprentices making good progress and achieving their apprenticeship within the planned timeframe.

Inspectors also found that support for learners and apprentices with “multiple and complex barriers to learning is excellent”.

But it wasn’t good news for Sir Charles Kao UTC, which was rated ‘requires improvement’ across the board in its first ever Ofsted inspection.

Inspectors said leaders at the college, which only has 143 learners, have “not done enough to ensure that teaching, learning and assessment are good across all subjects”. Therefore, students’ progress is “inconsistent”.

The watchdog added that some teachers “do not have high enough expectations” of what students can achieve, and “do not manage their behaviour consistently well”. Consequently, inspectors said, some students “disrupt the learning of others”.

CVQO Ltd, an adult and community learning provider operating across England, also received a grade three in its first ever Ofsted inspection.

Inspectors said trustees, leaders and managers do not have “sufficiently reliable data to enable them to identify trends in learners’ achievement, attendance and progress or to evaluate the full impact of their initiatives to improve provision”.

Meanwhile Boots Opticians Professional Services Ltd in Birmingham, maintained a grade three.

Managers at the employer provider “do not have a firm grip” on the quality of teaching, learning and assessment and “how to make ongoing improvements”, inspectors said.

In monitoring visits, Norman Mackie & Associates Limited, and independent training provider in Stalybridge, and Stockport College were found to be making “reasonable progress” following previous ‘inadequate’ ratings in November 2016.

GFE Colleges	Inspected	Published	Grade	Previous grade
Stockport College	04/05/2017	09/06/2017	M	M
City of Bristol College	16/05/2017	05/06/2017	3	4
North Shropshire College	09/05/2017	05/06/2017	3	4

Sixth Form Colleges	Inspected	Published	Grade	Previous grade
Newham Sixth Form College	16/05/2017	08/06/2017	M	M

Independent Learning Providers	Inspected	Published	Grade	Previous grade
Meadowhall Training Limited	09/05/2017	08/06/2017	2	3
Training Synergy Limited	09/05/2017	07/06/2017	2	3
Norman Mackie & Associates Limited	17/05/2017	06/06/2017	M	M

Adult and Community Learning	Inspected	Published	Grade	Previous grade
CVQO Ltd	08/05/2017	09/06/2017	3	–
Total People Limited	08/05/2017	08/06/2017	2	2
Urban Futures London Limited	09/05/2017	08/06/2017	2	3

Employer providers	Inspected	Published	Grade	Previous grade
Boots Opticians Professional Services Ltd	09/05/2017	07/06/2017	3	3

Other (including UTCs)	Inspected	Published	Grade	Previous grade
Sir Charles Kao UTC	25/05/2017	08/06/2017	3	–

Education ministers retain their seats

All the key education figures from Labour and the Conservatives have been re-elected, while long-time FE champion Vince Cable has made a welcome political comeback.

Robert Halfon, apprenticeships and skills minister ahead of the general election, and his shadow Gordon Marsden were returned as MPs for Harlow and Blackpool South with increased shares of the vote.

Justine Greening, education secretary, narrowly held her Putney seat, with schools minister Nick Gibb also returning to parliament, along with Labour counterparts Angela Rayner and Mike Kane.

There was also good news for former business secretary Sir Vince, who told Liberal Democrats’ conference delegates in 2014 that he was responsible for blocking moves in 2010 to enforce drastic funding cuts for “post-school” training.

He was returned as MP for Twickenham with a 9,762 majority.

Sir Vince – who’s claim about saving the sector from mass cuts was stood up by senior sources – has retained links to the sector, and since November been leading a research project for the National Union of Students into how FE reforms should be tailored for learners.

After his re-election, the 74-year-old praised the influential youth vote, saying: “We’ve all underestimated the force of the younger generation. They really turned out in massive numbers.”

This election shows voters are hopeful about the future

This election has shown that voters are hopeful about the future – colleges can work with that, says David Hughes

After Leicester City, Brexit and Trump I had thought that the surprises were over – that was until the exit poll last night. Once again, politics seems to have changed in front of our eyes.

The only certainty now is that it is wise not to make predictions. The only other thing I am certain about is that I am glad I decided to write this after the results came in, otherwise there might have been some frantic rewriting required.

Throughout this short election campaign, our message at AoC has been simple: For the UK to succeed in a post-Brexit world, this country must be more self-sufficient in skills. As a country we need to develop a culture of lifelong learning and make this the norm in all communities, for all people.

Young people and adults deserve more opportunities and better funding to support their transition to work, retraining, progression to higher level jobs and skills. We have also made clear that colleges are more than ready to make this a reality, but to deliver, colleges need to have the right investment.

Our politics has shifted whilst most sensible people were asleep

The results of last night, I believe, give me optimism that this message resonates with the British public.

The gains made by the Labour Party appear to be built on a rejection of the austerity politics that have seen public services, including post-16 and adult skills, starved of investment.

The funding rate for 16- to 18-year-olds is still 20 per cent below the rates for 11- to 16-year-olds and we have lost over a million adults from learning every year.

The way our political system works, we know that the next government will have to recognise all this. If it is Conservative-led, it will be facing a more confident opposition buoyed by the support for its manifesto commitments. A second election in the autumn, if we have one, would see the main political parties all keen to work out what a more confident electorate wants. Expect a more explicit debate about the right balance between lower taxes and better public services. Yesterday that looked to be impossible, now it looks probable. Overnight, our politics has shifted while most sensible people were asleep.

Early indications also suggest there has been a very strong turnout from young people.

This is good news – engaged young people participating in our democracy, hopeful about the future, should please everyone.

I am proud of the work that colleges across the country have done to encourage voter registration as well as running hustings and debates to engage students in politics.

It is one good example of the role colleges play in helping to build a more inclusive society. Who knows, we may even see voting from age 16 in the future?

For all of us in the post-16 world though, we need to keep all of this in perspective. The government faces tough economic times; Brexit negotiations will be complex, diverting and potentially damaging; public spending will still be very tight if tax returns to the Treasury fall; and there are a whole raft of policy changes halfway through implementation which need urgent attention.

The uncertainty and instability of this result, as I write, might cause problems for all of us as decisions get delayed or deferred. The careful and private work we do with civil servants never really stops, so we will be focusing a lot of our efforts on supporting them to keep decisions on track, to prioritise where ministerial time is spent and to support colleges to continue to deliver to young people and adults.

But I don’t want to be gloomy – this election has shown that many voters want hope, positive ideas and proposals. We can work with that. Colleges are all about making hope a reality for students and communities.

By David Hughes, Chief executive of the Assocation of Colleges as part of our 2017 election coverage

Don’t bring back the education maintenance allowance

Labour manifesto pledge: Reintroduce the 16-19 Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA)

Adam Bradford argues AGAINST

I am a passionate believer in the power of education to unlock potential and change young people’s lives for the better. It is actually for that reason that I am very surprised at Labour’s announcement to potentially bring back Education Maintenance Allowance for college students.

I am sure for many students and their parents this policy announcement will have been music to their ears. But what does a reintroduction of EMA actually represent?

The cold, hard truth of the matter is that youth unemployment is still high. Economic prospects for our generation are uncertain and it is my strong belief that our education system is preparing students for 21^st century jobs, some of which do not even exist yet. So why are we incentivising and subsidising our students by giving away tax payers’ money so they can buy fast food and cheap alcohol in their college years? I am making a broad generalisation here but through my experience in college and speaking at colleges across the country for the past eight years, I can clearly see a gap between the intent of EMA and its actual usage.

READ MORE: Students are struggling. They need the EMA!

It would be fantastic to live in a world where we can believe these payments would support transport to and from home, basic meals and study supplies. The sad reality is that millennials do not see it as such.

I had a conversation with Hattie Wrixon, founder of UnisNotForMe, a website that promotes person-focused careers and the other options available to students besides the traditional higher education options. She said to me: “Interestingly enough, we did a quick poll on Twitter to see the general consensus of making university free again and the majority of people said they thought it was not a good idea. We should be focusing our efforts on providing the best possible route and start for our students – whether that is academic or vocational.

“Teachers must stop concentrating on exam ‘grades’ but instead the journey of their students. Often students are put under such pressure to pass exams that if they don’t, they’re considered a failure.

Why are we giving away tax payers’ money so students can buy fast food?

“Sometimes we need to remind ourselves that failure only means not reaching your goal and everyone’s goals are unique to the individual. For example if someone wanted to get 11 A*s at GCSE and only got ten, they might consider that a fail. However, someone who was told they would never pass their English literature exam and manages a C – now that might be considered a great success!”

Hattie makes a good point that Labour might be hosting the wrong conversation here. What we really need is a government and sector leaders who promote the best possible life outcomes for young people; above and beyond grades, performance tables, benefits and perks.

Yes, EMA might make the college experience more manageable and palatable for students, particularly those from low-income households. I still ask the question, how do we teach these young people the resilience and financial management skills they need for the real world? I go so far as to liken this system to the benefits system: free money is not a reality in the working world – so why should it be an option and a perceived reality in our younger years?

Now, as educators and developers of young people, let’s think: does throwing money at our students make them resilient, independent and enterprising – ready for the tough challenges of the 21^st century world?

Adam Bradford is a social entrepreneur and Queen’s Young Leader from Sheffield

Did Brexit REALLY make a difference to the election outcome?

The effect Brexit had on the results varies wildly from place to place and can’t be distilled into a simple conclusion, says Gemma Gathercole

In the early hours after an election and before the results come in, you hear various commentators coming up with their own ideas about what has happened with the vote. In the aftermath of an election result which has delivered a hung parliament, those debates will certainly continue.

One of the stories of election night will be the massive fall in the UKIP vote share, down 10.8 per cent in the popular vote.

The implications of Brexit and how that affected the election result should not be underestimated, but as with the referendum result itself, it’s difficult to come to a single definitive conclusion.

In polls conducted by YouGov since the referendum there’s been a largely consistent picture of those who think Britain was right or wrong to vote for Brexit. When Article 50 was triggered, 44 per cent thought Britain had been right to vote for Brexit, and 43 per cent thought it was wrong. YouGov pinned these narrowing figures on those who didn’t vote in the referendum being more likely to favour remain. However, in poll figures released on June 7, both were tied at 45 per cent.

The implications of Brexit and how that affected the election result should not be underestimated

So can we assume that voters’ views on Brexit played an important part in their decisions at the general election?

Let’s examine the results in a few seats. Although the referendum results weren’t taken at constituency level, we can work from the closest overlapping areas.

Despite being knocked from its traditional first-seat-to-declare position, the result for Houghton & Sunderland South gives us an insight. Although the seat remained Labour, the vote saw a significant increase (11.3 per cent) in favour of the Conservatives. While not mapped to constituency boundaries, the Sunderland referendum vote was 61.3 per cent in favour of leaving the EU. This suggests that at some level, Brexit may have impacted the overall vote in Sunderland, despite the seat not changing hands.

In Sheffield Hallam, Nick Clegg lost a seat that has been held by the Liberal Democrats since 1997 to Jared O’Mara from the Labour party. The Lib Dems presented the most pro-EU option in this election. While Sheffield as a city voted narrowly (51 per cent) in favour of leaving the EU, the Labour vote gain in this seat was +2.6 per cent. While still comfortably in third place, the Conservative vote increased by 10.2 per cent. Could this indicate a lack of appetite among Clegg’s constituents to continue fighting the referendum result?

In Cambridge, a seat won by the Liberal Democrats in 2005 and 2010, and a city that voted overwhelmingly in favour of remain, the Liberal Democrat vote share actually decreased. The Conservatives made little headway, with an increased Labour majority being the headline.

There are 650 seats in parliament and we don’t have the space to go through all the results, but here are just a couple more to paint a larger picture.

The Lib Dems retook Bath and North East Somerset from the Conservatives, after Bath recorded almost 60 per cent in favour of remain.

Bristol voted in favour of remain by over 60 per cent. Yet Bristol North West was a Labour gain with an over 16 per cent increase on their vote and a fall in the Conservative share.

So the referendum and party responses had no impact?

It would be difficult to argue that. After all, one of the stories of election night will be the fall of UKIP’s vote share. However, there hasn’t been a universal swing back to another party.

And there’s another referendum that seems to have had a significant impact on the results: the proposed second independence referendum in Scotland. The resurgence of the Conservatives in Scotland and the return of Labour seats, a net loss for the SNP of 21 seats, suggest a rejection of another referendum. Sometimes more voters are like Brenda from Bristol!

With voting patterns varying hugely from place to place, it may be that the only conclusion is that there’s no easy conclusion. There will be many factors that we’ll debate over the next weeks and no doubt Brexit will still be front and centre.

By Gemma Gathercole, Head of funding and assessment at Lsect as part of our 2017 election coverage

May’s ‘Strong and stable’ was nothing but a cheap slogan

May’s ‘strong and stable’ leadership was a cheap slogan – and her failures should be a warning to leaders everywhere, says Shane Mann

Theresa May deserves this result. I hope it will be a learning opportunity for the many and not the few: the prime minister has failed as a leader. The mantra of “strong and stable” leadership is nothing more than a cheap slogan. Her premiership will be defined by arrogance and naivety, and as an affront against democracy.

Since the referendum last June I have refrained from throwing my computer at the wall on countless occasions, infuriated by the behaviours of Number 10, such as blocking my journalists from accessing ministers to ask questions to which the sector deserves answers. When Team May entered Downing Street, FE Week and FE Week teams noticed a distinct quietening of communication with the press. Countless media bids to interview ministers and senior civil servants were rejected due to “diary commitments”.

I knew first hand that ministers wished to speak and have an open dialogue, but the powers that be had other ideas.

When the general election was called, it was made clear to my team that all political enquiries were to be directed via Conservative Party HQ. FE Week readers will know from last week’s edition that we attempted on multiple occasions to interview the skills minister Robert Halfon; requests that were continually rejected. In our general election supplement published in May, we depicted a gagged Justine Greening in the space reserved for a Conservative comment piece, when both Labour and the Lib Dems managed to supply a comment regarding their education manifesto pledges.

Her premiership will be defined by arrogance and naivety

None of these problems existed before; sure we had to pester, but we always got a reply. We as the media had fair opportunity to scrutinise and ask questions. This evasion of scrutiny was perpetuated with lack of detail in the manifesto, refusals to speak to journalists, pathetic answers on the campaign trail and sending your number two to the leaders’ television debate.

When the election was called, at first I could appreciate the prime minister’s aim. It was right for her to call an election. The country needed to be heard; we had a new, unelected prime minister and were still are on the brink of an enormously challenging departure from the EU. But what made me uncomfortable was Team May’s belief they could seize an enormous majority, of the like that no party should have.

Ultimately, what this election has shown us how out of touch the prime minister and her team had become from the country.

There is a lesson here for all leaders and aspiring leaders in our sector. I’ve met with May-eque, Corbyn-esque, and even Farron-esque leaders in our sector. Thankfully on the way I’ve also met with lots of inspiring, decent, in-touch leaders – who make you wonder why they aren’t running the country.

This election has cemented my firm belief that to lead you must bring all of your team with you, and be open and transparent, and welcome their questions. Where leaders in our colleges and providers have created gilded offices and long narratives of their own achievements before their institutions’, they have typically fallen on their swords, either through a poor Ofsted, financial chaos or some personal scandal. Take note: simply saying you want something is just the beginning.

Leaders must inspire and embrace all of their staff – even the annoying ones, just as decent constituency MPs do weekly.

Now I am not saying that Corbyn has shown the competence to lead the country. He is still far from perfect, and I am sceptical of the team around him. I had little faith in Corbyn when the election was called and I felt sad for MPs such as Wes Streeting, who was doing incredible work in his constituency, Ilford North, but with polls stacked against him it didn’t look good.

But what Corbyn has shown in abundance is compassion and determination and maintained a fair amount of openness with the press.

The football season is over, but fear not, one of the greatest theatrical sporting occasions is upon us this weekend as we watch the prime minister duel with her own comrades to keep the keys to Number 10.

One thing is certain: the naughtiest thing May has ever done is lie to the country about her ability to provide strong and stable leadership.

By Shane Mann, Managing director of Lsect, publisher of FE Week and FE Week

Election night 2017: The constituencies to watch if you work in FE

It’s been one of the most eventful and uncertain election campaigns in recent history, and now it’s almost over.

The polls will close at 10pm tonight, and this will be closely followed by exit polls before constituency results start to trickle in from around 11.30pm.

In case you were worried we hadn’t done something really nerdy for a while, we’ve produced a handy one-page guide to the politicians to look out for as the results come in.

Potential reshuffles aside, many of the people listed below will to continue to play an important role in the education and skills agenda in the new parliament.

You can download the PDF by clicking on the image below.

Further education and adult learning should be free

Manifesto promise: Scrap fees and loans in further education by doubling the Adult Education Budget

Emily Chapman argues FOR

When I ran to be Vice President for Further Education at the National Union of Students’ National Conference this year, I ran on a manifesto of ensuring funding for Adult Education and ESOL was ring-fenced and that the concept of lifelong learning became central to any government’s FE agenda. Having myself returned to education at the age of 25, I know just how important lifelong learning is, so I’m pleased to see that Labour’s manifesto includes a commitment to scrap fees and loans in further education, by doubling the Adult Education Budget.

Everyone should have the right to access further education, at any stage in their life. For many people, adult education and lifelong learning provides a much-needed second, third or even fourth chance. It supports the most disadvantaged to enter and return to work, gives people agency over their lives and allows them the opportunity to change their career path and learn new skills.

Time and time again, research has shown the incredible contribution adult education and lifelong learning makes; to the individual, to the economy and to society. Yet these benefits have been consistently overlooked by a government who, until very recently, was committed to pursuing a higher education agenda, rather than a skills-based one.

READ MORE: Education shouldn’t be free for all. Here’s why…

Over the past ten years adult education has been consistently side-lined and its budget subjected to unprecedented cuts. As a result, colleges have been forced to severely narrow the curriculum they provide to adult learners and there are now around 1.5 million fewer adults participating in further education than there were 10 years ago – a fall of 38%.

This dramatic drop in adult learners is unsurprising. Whilst Advanced Learner Loans are ostensibly about supporting adults to gain Level 3 qualifications and above, they are not accompanied by adequate maintenance support. Learners are expected to take on debt to cover both their course and living costs. In an economy where wages are stagnating and the cost of living is rising, it is inevitable that older learners would turn away from adult education, fearful of the debts they would have to take on in order to better their lives.

Labour’s commitment to scrapping advanced learner loans and reintroducing grants has the opportunity to reverse some of the damage done to lifelong learning over the past ten years. Not only will it provide support to older workers and learners from more deprived backgrounds to actually access further education throughout their lives, it also has the potential to completely alter the way lifelong learning is conceived in society.

Everyone should have the right to access further education

Rather than being seen by the majority as just language classes and pottery courses, adequate investment would signal a move towards recognising the incredibly important role adult learning plays in social mobility; in creating communities; in improving the mental and physical wellbeing of its participants and in re-skilling workers throughout their lives.

But whilst this funding and investment would be an important step forward, it’s not enough on its own. There needs to be a cohesive and coherent lifelong learning strategy that recognises the need for quality, impartial careers information, advice and guidance. The Learning and Work Institute’s surveys consistently show that we are more likely to see adults in learning who already have qualifications, than those who don’t, and so adequate IAG will be critical.

The vote to leave the European Union last June has realigned the focus in education policy and I’m pleased that both Labour and the Conservatives have recognised that there needs to be a much greater focus on, and investment in, further education. I’m hopeful that the commitment to adult education will extend beyond June 8.

Emily Chapman is Vice president for further education at the National Union of Students

Scrapping the education maintenance allowance was a mistake

Labour manifesto pledge: Reintroduce the 16-19 Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA)

Shakira Martin argues FOR

Scrapping the education maintenance allowance scheme in England was a mistake. Plain and simple. The coalition government did a U-turn on their education policy centred on ‘fairness and equality of opportunity for all’. Against all their rhetoric it took away from those who needed the help most. Labour’s commitment to reinstating the scheme if elected next month are a step in the right direction on the road to recovery for FE.

EMA made a significant difference to those from low-income backgrounds, covering essentials such as food, books and transport. It wasn’t perfect but it eased educational disadvantage and scrapping it has had major repercussions on students from lower-income families. At the time of implementation in 2004, financial constraints were seen as a barrier to involvement in post-16 education, it aimed to directly reduce the cost of education as a means for raising their participation (including influencing retention and attainment).

READ MORE: Why should we give away tax payers’ money so students can buy fast food?

Many students were struggling then, and they’re still struggling now.

We know from our own research that many find it difficult to cover their course costs with half stating that they had considered dropping out due to financial worries. This manifesto finally says to post-16 learners that our politicians are ready to invest in young people again and provide a real ladder to opportunities, skills and jobs.

The introduction of a 16-19 bursary fund to ‘replace’ it didn’t even come close to filling the dark hole that cutting EMA left behind, at just a third of the previous budget dedicated to young learners it barely scratches the surface when tackling the needs of students in hardship. Many are faced with a postcode lottery, depending on the area in which they live means they could be awarded strikingly different amounts. And that’s only if they’ve been told about the fund to begin with, with many being told to only apply for funding ‘if they need it’ – firmly placing the burden on the student.

The introduction of a 16-19 bursary fund didn’t even come close to filling the dark hole that cutting EMA left behind

It’s clear that the overall budget of the post 16 bursary and its discretionary nature are inadequate to meet the needs of FE students. For several years NUS has been calling for a new and improved EMA, which is why we’re particularly pleased to see that Labour has pledged to re-introduce the payments awarded to 16-19 year olds if elected on 8 June.

It isn’t the first time Labour has declared its promise to poorer students, back in October 2016 at Labour Party conference, shadow Education Secretary Angela Rayner spoke about restoring EMA. An unknown on both occasions is exactly how much Labour would commit to the reintroduction of payments, going back to the old scheme would result in means-tested weekly payments of £10 – £30 for those from households earning less that £31,000.

It has been close to 7 years since the government announced it was removing the allowance for those studying in England. Inflation is real. To adequately keep up we’d need to see weekly payments of around £40 and increase the family income threshold and maintain a small discretionary fund for emergencies.

Currently young learners are not receiving the crucial financial backup they need to get to their place of learning and thrive within it. We need to be supporting those who rely on further education institutions, not shutting them out.

Shakira Martin is President-elect of the National Union of Students