Kelvin Hopkins, chair, All-Party Parliamentary Group for Sixth Form Colleges

With his softly-spoken and self-effacing manner, Kelvin Hopkins MP might seem an unlikely candidate for prompting one of the biggest ever upsets in British politics — but appearances can be deceiving.

The leftwing MP for Luton North since 1997 and chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Sixth Form Colleges (SFCs), which has backed calls for SFCs to not be subject to VAT, was first to nominate Jeremy Corbyn for Labour leader last June.

“The nominations opened at 12, and I was in there at five past,” he says.

The day that Corbyn was elected party leader was “the best of my political life, because finally the neoliberal, pro-capitalists had been beaten by the party membership,” says Hopkins, who is a former college teacher and long-time governor at Luton SFC.

While he acknowledges that Corbyn has had a difficult time, Hopkins remains a supporter and says: “Jeremy has been doing extremely well, better and better every week.”

Hopkins was born in 1941 in Leicester to Joan, a medical secretary, and Harold, a renowned physicist who invented fibre optics and the first zoom lens.

Following his parents’ divorce when he was seven, Hopkins was brought up by his father and his second wife, Christine, an artist.

They were, Hopkins says, “a left-wing socialist family”, and he remembers asking his father questions about politics at the age of just nine.

Hopkins grew up in High Barnet, where he attended Foulds County Primary School and later Queen Elizabeth Boys Grammar School.

But despite his father’s insistence, at the age of 14, that he should study science, Hopkins wasn’t destined to follow in his father’s academic footsteps — not least because he discovered a passion for playing music.

“When I was young, I was a jazz musician, so I spent most of my energy playing jazz, and even when I was a student, at times I was playing five nights a week in gigs,” he says.

His face lights up as he describes the height of his jazz career, when — during his time at the University of Nottingham in the 1960s — he played saxophone as part of the interval band for a performance by the Woody Herman Orchestra.

He recalls that they were a great American jazz orchestra and his band played in the big downstairs bar, while members of Woody Herman’s group sat along another wall drinking as we were playing.

I have always lobbied for FE

“At the end of the evening I walked out of the fire escape with my tenor saxophone and felt like one of them,” he says. “I thought, ‘It doesn’t get better than this’.”

It was around this time that Hopkins married his wife Patricia, in 1965.

The two met when Hopkins was “about 17 or 18, very young” when they were both doing the same Christmas job.

He recalls that she proposed as it was a leap year, but admits “it was a bit of a joke, really — I bought the ring and I said, ‘You pretend.’”

The couple have two children, Daniel and Rachel, aged 46 and 43, and two grandchildren, Sophie and Emma, aged eight and seven, whom Hopkins is clearly besotted with.

“They’re wonderful, bright and funny and always make me laugh,” he says.

Hopkins “did eventually do a degree at Nottingham”, graduating with a 2:1 in politics, economics and maths with statistics in 1969.

A career in trade unions was the natural next step for Hopkins, and he worked in research for the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and Nalgo (which later became Unison) from 1969 until 1997.

His work involved writing “a whole series of publications for them, speeches for the general secretary, motions for conferences, speaking for them”, which he describes as “the political side, not the negotiating side. It was fascinating, and I loved it”.

In the middle of his time at the TUC, Hopkins took a couple of years off from the trade union to teach politics, economics and statistics at St Albans College, from 1971 until 1973.

He says: “I saw this job advertised, applied and got the job. And I thought that I’d always wanted to do a bit of teaching, and it was wonderful.”

He recalls his students fell into two groups — those doing A-levels from middle class backgrounds and those doing day release who were alienated and fed up with being forced to go back to college.

“The cultural difference between the two was so great,” he says. “It just reinforced my socialist view that we’ve got to try and break these divisions down, and FE is the place where you can do that.”

He talks passionately of challenging the perceptions of his day release group, who “all assumed I was Conservative because I wore a suit, had a degree and read the Guardian”, via the medium of newspapers.

It took about six or seven weeks before “one lad in the front row” realised he wasn’t a Conservative, Hopkins says.

“I opened their eyes — just because it’s a tabloid and simple language doesn’t necessarily mean it’s Labour, and just because it’s a thick newspaper with lots of words in doesn’t necessarily mean it’s Conservative,” he explains.

Though he only taught at the college for a little over two years, Hopkins’ support for the sector stayed with him.

He’s been a governor at Luton Sixth Form College (LSFC), where Daniel and Rachel studied, since 1993, and before that from 1981 to 1984.

“Both my children in their time were chair of the student council, which are therefore student governors,” he says. “My wife also was a parent governor at different times.”

Hopkins has used his time in parliament to lobby extensively for SFCs and wider FE.

“The first speech I ever made in here was about SFCs, and the way that they are not taken seriously,” he says.

“They were the geese that laid golden eggs. And of course I lobbied for FE in broad terms, general terms, always.”

From 2001 to 2010 he was co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) for further education and lifelong learning, and he’s now fighting for SFCs as chair of the all-party parliamentary group.

It was set up in 2010 “because SFCs need defending, I think — they’ve been marginalised by successive governments, but are brilliant institutions”.

One focus for the group has been the campaign for SFCs to not be subject to VAT.

The recent announcement that SFCs can convert to become academies is, Hopkins says, “a way of them [the government] trying to save face” over the VAT issue, which “the government has refused time and time and time again to allow SFCs not to pay”.

Hopkins’ political style is, he says, to “tell the truth as I see it” and to apply “constant, constant pressure on particular issues”.

With reforms to SFCs and FE high on the government agenda, there are sure to be plenty of opportunities for Hopkins to apply that “constant, constant pressure” in the coming months.

IT’S A PERSONAL THING

What’s your favourite book?

Lord of the Flies by William Golding – a politically metaphorical novel about the fragility of democracy and the ever-present threat of fascism.

What do you do to switch off from work?

Listen to music, collect (and occasionally drink!) wine; collect antique glassware; watch sport; cook.

What’s your pet hate?

Cruelty — of any kind.

If you could invite yone to a dinner party, living or dead, who would it be?

JK Galbraith — the great economist and writer.

What did you want to be when you were growing up?

I made model aircraft as a boy and wanted to design aircraft. I actually spent two years in the aircraft industry in early adulthood and much enjoyed it.

CURRICULUM VITAE

Born:

1941: Born in Leicester

1944: Moved to High Barnet

Education & Career:

1946 – 1959: Attended Foulds County Primary School and Queen Elizabeth Boys Grammar School, High Barnet

1965: Married Patricia

1969: Graduated from University of Nottingham

1969 – 1970, 1973 – 1977: Worked in TUC economic department

1971 – 1973: Taught economics, politics and statistics at St Albans College

1977 – 1994: Worked as policy and research officer for Nalgo (now Unison)

1981 – 1984, 1993 – present: governor of Luton Sixth Form College

1997 – present: MP for Luton North

2001 – 2010: co-chair for further education and lifelong learning

2010 – present: Chair of APPG on sixth form colleges

 

Click on the image for a larger version

timeline-kelvin-hopkins

 

 

Left to sink or swim 

Mick Fletcher reflects on the findings of the House of Lords Social Mobility Committee’s report on improving the transition from school to work.

If I have one big criticism of the important new report from the House of Lords Social Mobility Committee it is that the title ‘Overlooked and left behind’ implies neglect of those young people not on the A-level route to higher education.

In fact, what the report documents in impressive detail is better described as abuse.

Provision for this group of young people has not been overlooked — rather it has been subjected to an endless stream of ill-thought out interventions accompanied by a deliberate and systematic reduction in the resources available to support them.

Disadvantaged young people have not so much been left behind as thrown overboard and left to sink or swim.

The findings of the enquiry will not come as a surprise to those working in FE, but they still make shocking reading.

They set out clearly how the FE sector, already less well-resourced than 11-16 schools, has borne the brunt of education cuts.

They remind us of the further cut for those aged 18, cynically justified by the claim that they have already benefitted from the meagre remains of the enrichment budget.

Disadvantaged young people have not so much been left behind as thrown overboard

They point up the contrast between the 15 hours teaching per week, which is all that English FE can afford with three years of 30 hours per week that is the norm in many of our continental counterparts.

The committee is also right to highlight the destruction of independent careers information advice and guidance, the last step in which was the delegation of responsibility to schools without a budget to do it properly and every incentive to offer partial advice.

It is right to highlight the corrosive effect of inter-institutional competition, ramped up and distorted by league tables and high stakes inspection.

Most important of all perhaps, it pinpoints the gaps in government policymaking — not just the damaging division between BIS and DfE, but also the lack of a vision for anything other than universities and apprenticeships.

While the committee is clear about the problems and how they work together to frustrate attempts to improve social mobility, their recommendations lack some of the power of the analysis.

In some respects, they risk allowing policymakers to wander off down the same blind alleys as in the past.

They talk for example of the need to make the system of vocational qualifications more coherent, one noble baroness going so far as to describe current arrangements as gobbledygook.

Yet the report itself notes that the low visibility of many vocational qualifications is in large part due to constant churn driven by previous unsuccessful attempts to standardise and simplify.

The last thing FE needs is a further bout of qualifications ‘reform’.

In a similar way, repeating well-worn clichés about the need to increase the status of vocational education misses the point.

It is not vocational education that has low status, but occupations like care work and plastering and the training that leads to them.

Well intentioned advocacy of the need to raise the status of the vocational will once again be hijacked by engineers to justify more investment in higher technical training — which may be a good thing, but is something else entirely.

The real message of the report perhaps is not headlined in a specific recommendation, but it is there if you look for it.

It is clear from analysis of both English practice and that in more successful jurisdictions that the problem is not that we are doing the wrong things.

Everyone agrees we need to focus on English and maths (though not just GCSE), on building stronger local links between education institutions and employers, providing quality work experience; and providing clear impartial guidance to young people.

We don’t need another ‘reform’ programme or another attempt to push busy employers into a so-called ‘driving seat’.

We just need institutions that are much better resourced and educators who are allowed to get on with it.

Colleges agree ‘hub and spoke’ London proposal could work

The 157 Group’s proposals for a ‘hub and spoke’ approach to provision at level 3 and above in London have been given qualified support by several non-member colleges in the capital, as well as the Association of Colleges (AoC).

On Twitter, Ian Pretty, chief executive at the 157 Group, described the proposals published on Tuesday as a “huge opportunity to ensure that London is rising to the skills demand”.

It called for single colleges to act as hubs for training at level 3 and above in key industries, including housebuilding, creative industries and financial services.

These hubs, or technical institutes, would form a single point of contact for employers in that particular industry, while other colleges across London would act as the spokes, or satellite centres.

“It is good to see that the 157 Group’s manifesto for the London mayoral elections reflects the priorities identified in the AoC London manifesto,” an AoC spokesperson told FE Week.

However, the spokesperson warned against creating additional institutions where provision already existed.

“It is important for colleges to retain their autonomy so they can continue to provide education and training at all levels for anyone who wishes to study there,” the spokesperson added.

The 157 Group’s proposals, ‘Skills for Work, Skills for London’, call for Boris Johnson’s successor as London mayor to have accountability for training at levels 3 to 5.

“London faces its biggest skills challenge at levels 3 and above,” the report said.

“A 32 borough or subregional solution will not work. It needs a London-wide solution led by the mayor,” it added.

Ian Ashman, the principal of Hackney Community College, said that the proposals were an interesting contribution to the debate over “the issue of specialisation, as well as how we better meet the needs of priority sectors”.

“I believe we colleges need to lead the debate about what should be in the core offer in each locality,” Mr Ashman added.

Peter Mayhew-Smith, principal of Carshalton College and Kingston College, said that “a collaborative approach, drawing colleges together around a specialist hub with strong HE and employer links would be vastly preferable to single institutions working alone”.

Sam Parrett, principal of Bromley College and Greenwich Community College said that, while she was “in favour of a hub and spoke model”, she believed “a more market-driven, less prescriptive approach should be considered, to ensure that colleges can adapt to the needs of their local area, rather than having to focus on only one specialism”.

Ms Parratt also warned that, without improved transport links in outer London boroughs, “our students would be unable to benefit as greatly” from the proposals.

A spokesperson for the 157 Group told FE Week: “A main point we are making is that this type of sector institute should be collaborative across many institutions, a hub and spoke model with many colleges and providers across London specialising in aspects of the overarching sector provision.

“This idea does not limit choice for the learner, it enriches provision. As the document specifies, this model works for colleges as it is agile and cost-effective and it is beneficial for learners as it leverages the full capability London providers have to offer.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills declined to comment on the proposals. A spokesperson for the Mayor’s office was unable to comment due to pre-election rules.

It isn’t just about the money

Carolyn Woolley explains her college’s approach to the problem area of recruiting and retaining sufficient numbers of maths and English teachers.

Among the many challenges that FE faces, attracting the very best teaching talent is certainly one of them.

There is huge demand for talented teachers across all educational sectors, with a particularly scarce supply of English and maths teachers.

As a major employer in our borough, we are not only in constant competition with other schools and colleges, but with industry too.

It’s ultimately a race as to who can get the best talent as quickly as possible.

As a result, we are always looking for ways to ensure we find, and ultimately attract, the right people to teach and inspire our diverse student community.

There is no doubt that teaching maths and English at our college and indeed many other colleges around the UK, is a great proposition.

By a college’s nature, students have generally chosen to be there, meaning they are keen to learn, listen and develop.

This in turn leads to success and real rewards for both the teacher and student.

Maths and English skills underpin all vocational disciplines and are simply essential for career success in any industry.

Being part of such a crucial element of a student’s learning journey is not only rewarding, but the reason that so many teachers choose to enter the profession in the first place.

Our innovative approach to teaching and learning appeals to many aspiring and/or trained teachers — the development of our maths and English provision, for example, and our continuous focus on securing successful outcomes for learners of all ages and abilities.

A shortage of teaching talent inevitably pushes costs up for a college, which is an additional challenge at a time of real austerity

A shortage of teaching talent inevitably pushes costs up for a college, which is an additional challenge at a time of real austerity across the sector.

However, in my experience, the best individuals are not incentivised by money alone.

A range of non-financial benefits such as a good work-life balance, a secure employer, continuous CPD and flexible working are all an essential part of the ‘package’.

We constantly review our offer, to ensure it remains both appealing and competitive to prospective candidates.

Crucially, teaching at an FE college offers a unique opportunity to move between age groups and develop the skills needed to teach people of varying abilities and with different goals.

This makes for an excellent developmental opportunity, bringing with it the chance for talented individuals to progress quickly and advance a very successful career.

But of course, financial incentives are important too.

These have to be finely balanced with the ever-growing cutbacks our sector is having to make.

At Bromley, we have implemented a range of incentives to help us attract the right staff from both the FE sector and from industry.

As well as top-scale salaries, we also offer an annual £4k R&R allowance, pension scheme, gym membership and generous annual leave scheme together with many other benefits.

For those FE colleges struggling to recruit, particularly in — but not only – maths and English, it is vital to consider what makes you unique, rather than simply trying to compete on pay alone. The consideration has to be how you can improve your offer, or indeed make it more interesting, than your competitors. Look at it from a personal perspective; where would you like to work and where would you take your talent? Money will only ever be one facet of the decision.

Recruitment challenges can be addressed by providing the right working environment, the right leadership and the right package of both financial and non-financial benefits. We must also pull together as a sector and wax lyrical about the many benefits a career in FE can bring.

We all want to feel like we have made a difference as well as advancing our own careers. There is no better place to do this than in FE — an environment which encourages aspiration and changes many lives for the better.

Dear Dr Sue (Edition 169)

On the third Monday of every month Dr Sue, Holex 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 1:

As part of the college’s teaching and learning quality strategy, we have a system of link governors. I am keen to engage in this part of the governor’s role but find it quite daunting. I have no problem talking to the accountant about risk management, but my mind goes blank when it comes to curriculum and quality matters. What tips do you have?

I can see how you may find this daunting. However, you will find that once you have made the arrangement and met up with programme leaders and course tutors the conversation will flow.

Tutors are always keen to talk about their students and their achievements.

Before you meet, it might be useful to look at the latest Ofsted report and the college’s self-assessment, so that you have some background information and an understanding of the improvement agenda.

It is good practice for there to be some standardisation around link governor visits

It is good practice for there to be some standardisation around link governor visits (the clerk may have a pro-forma or visit form for you to complete).

You may also want to have a quick word with the principal before your visit to see if there are any hot issues you need to be aware of.

It’s best to structure your conversations around where they are now, what’s the vision, how they are progressing on their own improvement plan, what they see as strengths and how they measure their effectiveness — and how they are managing to integrate maths and English.

Link-Governors-Image-web

You may want to ask about progression — where do their students go, what are the links with employers and universities and how do they help their students into employment or further learning?

You may also want to ask what they think are the biggest challenges.

Try to avoid being used as a channel for lobbying for more resources. A good tutor will always take the opportunity to explain why they need new equipment etc, so just be ready for it.

Lastly, try to visit events such as end-of-year shows. Seeing students at work is the most enjoyable part of a governor’s role, so enjoy it.

Tutors will be appreciative that a governor is taking interest in their work.

 

Question 2:

In the light of recent remarks by Ofsted, my local authority (LA) is thinking about reviewing the adult and community learning service governance arrangements and establishing how they fit with the LA scrutinising committees. Can you advise on best practice?

You are right that Ofsted has recently drawn attention to ACL governance, but we need to put it into perspective.

The proportion of providers judged to be good or outstanding for overall effectiveness according to their latest inspection was high at 87 per cent (116 providers were good; four outstanding).

This figure compares well with general FE colleges (77 per cent) and independent learning providers (79 per cent).

When you review the latest reports, the vast majority of learners at local authority providers benefit from well-planned and sometimes inspirational teaching

When you review the latest reports, the vast majority of learners at local authority providers benefit from well-planned and sometimes inspirational teaching, learning and assessment and achieve qualifications as planned or make good progress towards their learning goals.

However, in some instances it has been difficult for inspectors to form a positive opinion of governance, mainly because many of the established forms of governance have been removed or changed.

There are now many different types.

Some services have a traditional governing body with delegated powers from the LA, others have advisory boards which provide the employer and learner voice and some have accountable officers, lead councillor members.

Nearly all have scrutiny committees.

All these types can be effective as long as the body, in whatever structure, has authority to challenge and change, a clear understood identity, and the role is understood and respected by senior executives, managers and staff.

 

Question 3:

I appreciate you have had lots of questions about area reviews but, like many other governors, I am still struggling to decide what is the best sort of partner for us. Could you advise?

First go back to basic principles.

There have now been many words written, data in abundance and lots of advice offered but, when it comes down to it, you need to decide whether you are looking for a partner to enhance the student experience, improve quality and/or make your college more resilient to future funding changes.

If you are already graded as Ofsted ‘good’ you may want a partner who can help you achieve ‘outstanding’

Simply list the issues you want to solve and/or your new vision of the future and then list the characteristics you are looking for in a partner.

If you are already graded as Ofsted ‘good’ you may want a partner who can help you achieve ‘outstanding’.

OFSTED-good-rating-web

If that’s the key issue, you may not need to merge and could consider a strategic partnership with an outstanding college who could help support staff training and the development of learning materials.

If your vision is to move to a technology enabled curriculum, you may want to look for a strategic partner among the universities or in the private sector.

But, if your issue is with your financial position, you may want to consider merging with a partner who can help sustain your future and is experienced in restructuring, right-sizing/down-sizing and financial/curriculum planning.

Community centre transformed

Good-willed City College Norwich students have colourfully transformed the café and garden area at a local community centre.

The student-led community project involved a group of 14 students, who are on a Ready2 course, working intensively over three weeks at Silver Road Community Centre.

The walls of the café have been re-painted and brightly coloured curtains have been fitted.

Level one art students helped out their peers by decorating the walls with paintings, construction students assisted with DIY work, and plants were donated by the college’s foundation horticulture group.

The group raised more than £400 for the project from sales of greetings cards that they made and sold across the city.

Ready2 student Jazmin Beaumont, aged 18, said: “Seeing the final finish makes all of the hard work worth it. To see the difference that it will make to elderly people and younger people who use the community centre makes me feel really happy.”

The community project was an element of the Ready2 course, which is designed to help students develop a range of employability, enterprise and life skills.

Lucky bulldog saved by surgery

Caring animal management students at North Lindsey College raised more than £800 to pay for the treatment of an abandoned dog.

The students named the Victorian bulldog Lucky (pictured) after it was found dumped in woods in Harrogate.

Lucky had some bad injuries including a prolapsed uterus and was taken straight to the vets to undergo emergency surgery.

The money for the operation was raised by the students through crowdfunding on Just Giving.

Lucky is now being looked after in a temporary home with animal management curriculum leader Laura Johnston.

Ms Johnston, who often brings Lucky to the college with her, said: “Lucky would have had major problems and probably lost her eyesight without the surgery. She enjoys being at the college with students and has helped in a variety of lessons.”

Students work with Lucky in practical sessions including grooming, health checking, administering medication, and also in theory lessons covering animal nursing, animal husbandry and animal behaviour.

The multi-million-pound ‘cowboy’ trade in subcontracting

> ‘No win no fee’ brokers raking in up to five per  cent commission fees on seven figure contracts
> Government says the SFA will look at ways to ‘limit the use of brokers’ after seeing investigation

The government is reviewing the use of subcontracting brokers after an FE Week investigation found huge sums of public cash meant for frontline learning is being hived off in commission.

In what is the first exposé of this lucrative but little-known industry, we found brokers typically charge subcontractors up to 5 per cent of the government funding for matching them to a prime provider.

A number of the firms involved do not have official websites outside of social media and stick to advertising subcontracting opportunities through closed groups on LinkedIn.

FE Week has found evidence that they are widely used and potentially being paid millions of pounds in commission fees from the public funding pot.

After being shown the evidence and asked to respond, a government spokesperson said: “The Skills Funding Agency (SFA) is reviewing to strengthen their funding agreements to limit the use of brokers.”

She added: “Where the SFA has evidence that a lead provider has ineffective processes and controls for managing their subcontractors, or their subcontracting represents poor value for money which constitutes a breach in our funding rules, they will take action.”

FE Week found an advert, with Essex-based consultants EEVT Ltd, attributed to a company called The Funding Brokers Ltd, which could not comment before publication.

The advert said: “We have been providing this service for over three years, securing in excess of £100m in the process for our clients.”
At 5 per cent commission, for example, the firm could have earned up to £5m over this period.

The ad continues: “We work on a no-win no-fee basis whereby we will provide our support free of charge to the point of contracting.”
FE Week understands prime providers often turn to brokers out of desperation in order to avoid losing funding.

Ian Wood, managing director at Newcastle-based provider NCT Skills, said he worked as lead consultant for Hull-based Purple Hearts Limited from April 2013 to September 2014, which offered brokering services, before it went into liquidation last July.

He explained: “You get a situation where a prime college/provider gets towards the end of a funding window,” he said.

“They haven’t spent their allocation and know that the SFA or Education Funding Agency (EFA) will take it back off them unless it is used, so they need to find subcontractors to take on provision quickly.

“The primes will often put messages on LinkedIn, or other social media, themselves to find subcontractors.

“But a lot do it through brokers because they do all the hard work with due diligence checks on the subcontractors before some sort of agreement is signed.”

BIS warned the SFA about this sort of ‘short-term’ trading in contracts in its Skills Funding Letter last March, saying: “While we appreciate that you have worked with the sector to enhance the controls around subcontracting in the last two years, there continues to be levels of short term tactical subcontracting that are causing concern.”

In its most recent funding letter to the SFA in November, BIS went further stating: “For 2016/17 you will want to ensure that sub-contracting practices are consistent with the need to achieve value for money in the sector, and to continue to take action against providers who are either operating unacceptable practices, or failing to provide clear and timely information.

“I would like you to report to me the controls in place by the end of March 2016 to protect the interests of learners and employers.”

The government spokesperson, who was also representing the Department for Education and Department for Business and Skills (BIS), also told FE Week on April 14: “Providers must not subcontract to meet short-term funding objectives.

“The SFA’s funding rules are clear that providers who decide to use subcontractors should ensure their arrangements add value to the provision, that public funding is used to directly support learners and sub-contractors are selected fairly and have sufficient capacity, capability, quality and financial standing to deliver the services.”

This amounts to ‘Topslicing of topslicing’

Broker fees have been criticised as a further waste of skills funding — in addition to lead providers retaining millions in management fees through a process known as “topslicing”.

This practice, under investigation by the National Audit Office, has been the focus of an FE Week campaign since its launch in 2011, and was the subject of “recent compliance work” by the SFA.

It involves lead providers retaining government funding — usually called management fees — before finding a subcontractor to do the training for the remaining sum.

In one case, as reported by FE Week in November, Learndirect retained more than a third of its total government funding in management fees, pocketing nearly £50m.

Ian Wood, who according to LinkedIn worked for Hull-based brokering firm Purple Hearts Limited before it went into liquidation last July, was highly critical of large sums being diverted from frontline training.

He said that brokering amounted to “further topslicing of topslicing”.

“My main role wasn’t involved with sourcing brokered funding myself at Purple Hearts, they had a dedicated team for this, but I know how it works,” he added.

“You generally see brokers charging five per cent of monthly drawdown, which I personally think is too high, as the money should go directly to the learners training — especially bearing in mind that the prime will have already taken a cut of the funding through management fees.”

Response from provider associations

Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) chief executive Mark Dawe blamed an “imperfect or restrictive funding system” for providing an opportunity for “intermediaries” to thrive.

He expressed concern after being shown adverts by FE Week indicating that millions of pounds allocated for learning was potentially going to brokers and called for an SFA crackdown.

Mr Dawe said: “In cases like these, where intermediaries appear, it is often reflects an imperfect or restrictive funding system.
“It suggests the SFA need to review their allocation system and the need to have a more flexible system of in-year reallocation.”

The Association of Colleges was less prepared to pass judgement.

When asked for its views on brokering, a spokesperson told FE Week: “Colleges have used subcontracting arrangements for many years to ‎ensure they offer high quality education and training.

“The apprenticeship subcontracting rules have become increasingly stringent and it is for individual colleges to decide how they comply with these rules.”

Easy money for ‘cowboys’

A broker contacted by FE Week complained about rival “cowboys” out to earn easy money.

Birkenhead-based funding4training was one of the few brokers FE Week came across that has an official website.

Its services were also publicised by Essex-based consultants EEVT Ltd, which regularly promotes brokering firms through its online newsletters.

One such newsletter advertisement for funding4training stated its 5 per cent broker fee was “negotiable depending on the provider”.

The firm’s director of sales and business development, Benn Carson told FE Week his firm was different to other, more disreputable competitors.

He said: “There are a lot of cowboys doing this work and it’s easy to be tarnished with the same brush, which is why I set myself high standards and make sure the presentation is right, by running a professional looking website.

“A lot of people are running around thinking they can make a quick buck, but that is not how it works if you do it properly.”

He added: “I offer a bespoke service to the client, where there is a lot of time and due diligence that needs to be put in.

“I don’t like to be called a broker. The service I offer is outsourced business development. Clients favour this set-up as they pay on results only.”

A testimonial on the funding4training website — allegedly from Westminster Kingsway College — said it could “confirm Benn has referred two really good providers to us both of which we have contracted with”.

When asked by FE Week why it used a broker, a spokesperson for the college said it was unable even to confirm if the testimonial was legitimate.

She added: “This kind of contract would be commercially sensitive information, so we would be unable to provide details in time for your deadline [before FE Week went to press on April 14].”

FE Week also asked EEVT Ltd why it advertises brokers.

Its managing director Steve Lawrence said: “Brokering is not something that I personally agree with and we don’t do it — but it’s something the market has created and readers of my newsletters want to know about.

“I don’t necessarily trust all brokers, which is why I try to publicise a selection of them, rather than just one, to give providers a choice.

“Lead providers used to do all the due diligence checks on potential subcontractors, such as checking their track record and turnover, but what happens with this now is the broker will often do that for them as part of the service, but the charge goes onto the subcontractor. It works for the prime contractor’s benefit and I wish it was not there.”

Putting our reputation on the line

The director of a firm that provides brokering highlighted the care it takes with recommending the right subcontractors to primes because its “reputation is on the line”.

The website for The Leadership Team, in Yorkshire, offers its services to large training providers.

It states: “We may be able to help you access funding from the SFA either directly or via one of our many ‘prime provider’ clients that already have an SFA contract”.

When asked about its brokering services, company director Tracy Myles told FE Week: “We are not just a funding broker, although we do sometimes introduce some of our smaller clients to larger ones for their mutual benefit.

“We do conduct financial and quality due diligence on any providers we recommend to our prime clients as it is our reputation on the line.

She added: “Our funding brokerage fee varies between 2 per cent and 5 per cent, depending on what other services we are providing.
“The fee is from the sub-contractor but in our case none [of it has to be paid] upfront and only as and when funds are drawn.”

——————————————————————————————————————

Editorial – Call the sheriff

Subcontracting brokers are not doing anything illegal.

But with commission percentages on million pound public sector contracts that would make estate agents blush, can it be justified?

What our investigation found was a growing and unregulated multi-million pound largely hidden market, with one broker labelling others as ‘cowboys’.

This is nothing short of shocking, so why hasn’t the SFA stepped in before now?

I first raised the issue of people touting SFA subcontracts on LinkedIn with then-chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) Geoff Russell in 2012.

He responded on email saying he was “not sure what the issue is” and went on to add the SFA had “intentionally created a system motivated by market forces.”

It’s a relief, therefore, that the government has in the last two skills funding grant letters told the agency to root out this tactical subcontracting and get its house in order.

And it seems after seeing some pretty startling evidence from our investigation, they have rightly added limiting the use of brokers to the list of SFA tasks.

Nick Linford