The Skills Funding Agency has written to all colleges and independent learning providers to make sure they are aware of data compliance with funding rules.

Dawn Ward (pictured), chair of the SFA’s data and management information advisory group, sent the letter as part of a new in-year financial assurance monitoring process.

Just before Christmas in 2014, more than 700 FE providers were outraged when they were warned by the SFA’s deputy director Una Bennett that they faced a shock clawback on that year’s funding after the agency “identified some provision that has been incorrectly claimed”.

But following outcry on the funding agency’s Feconnect online forum, where some stakeholders claimed the warning had caused “sleepless nights”, SFA director Keith Smith issued an apology for the letter.

Subsequently, nearly 100 providers were asked to repay funding, with the remaining 601 providers who had been contacted spared from a reclaim.

In this week’s letter, Ms Ward wrote: “It is important that as a sector we now make sure our data is accurate before the end of the funding year 2015/16.

“If the SFA has identified records in a monitoring area, you must review this data and determine whether you need to make any data corrections. You should make these in your next ILR submission.

“You must ensure that you have the evidence to justify the funding claimed where the data is correct, including your subcontractors’ data.”

Ms Ward said the SFA must have “confidence” in funding claims and are taking this action to “ensure we work effectively together to reduce the volume of data errors” at the end of the year.

She added: “If you have data errors at the end of the funding year following the closure of R14 ILR return, the SFA may recover funding and conduct assurance visits for specific issues.”

The SFA said records must be corrected before the close of the R14 ILR data submission on October 20 this year.

The SFA has also published the key findings from its Provider Financial Management and Assurance work in 2015/16.

One of the most significant findings from the report was that providers were unable to evidence the delivery of learner support for which they received funding.

An FE Week Twitter poll on the opening day of the AELP conference asked whether Skills Minister Nick Boles should announce that apprenticeship reforms would continue or not post-Brexit.

Of the choices available, most opted for scrapping them — which was not a view shared by the delegates we spoke to (see below).

Mr Boles then indicated in his speech to delegates that the government planned to press on with plans for the levy due in April, and wider reforms.

We also asked conference delegates, and a selection of sector leaders, for their wider views on the British public’s decision to leave the European Union through the referendum on June 23.

See vox pops pdf.

VOX POP QUESTION:

Is the government right to plough on with apprenticeship reforms? Or should it pause – or even scrap them altogether?

---

David Phillips
Director of product marketing,
City & Guilds

“I think pausing very briefly and just reconsidering the implications of Brexit. I don’t think it will make any difference; I think we’ll carry on. But now is a good time, if any, just to do a sense check.”

---

Claire Buckland
Head of Uni@Work,
Coventry University

“More than ever we need to have the opportunity for young people to be invested in. The timescales are very tight, but people are starting to gain momentum behind it now, and it would be foolish to abandon it at the last minute.”

---

Jeanette Rosato
Finance director,
TSP Learn

We’ve completely geared up for this; we’ve been talking to employers for months, we’ve been raising expectations – we can’t now go back and say, “actually everybody, what we’ve been talking about, that’s not going to happen.”

---

James Bishop
Managing director,
TSP learn

“There is certainly a lack of consistency in some of the messaging, so for that reason: stay on course, stay on target.”

---

Professor Daniel Khan
Principal,
St Patrick’s College

“Now that we voted to leave the EU there’s even more crucial demand for skills training, because a lot of the employment opportunities filled from abroad will now have to be filled by local people.”

---

 

Anne Wright
Operations director,
Workpays

“We’ve waited long enough – we all need to keep the momentum going with our own teams and keep our own workforces stable.”

---

Neil Smith
National sales manager,
Blackpool and the Fylde College

“I think in the wake of all the uncertainty over Brexit, the sensible thing to do is to press on with policies you’ve already put forward.”

---

Julie McCracken
Social inclusion team leader,
Genius Within

“It helps to mitigate against panic reaction, and it’s a really
good thing that we’re going to be focusing on growing our own talent.”

---

Sue Wright
Director of employer services and partnerships, Huntingdon Regional College

“The apprenticeship reform is unaffordable in the long term without that kind of employer contribution, but I’m still worried about the timing.”

---

Sharon McCluskey
Employer and learner engagement officer,
Children’s Link

“I think we’ve known this is coming for a while and – while there is resistance – now we’re on that journey, I think abandoning or pausing it now would only throw everything into more tumult.”

---

Click image to view pdf

Post-16 education and skills area reviews have so far gone “surprisingly well”, according to Nick Boles, who has admitted he expected them to be “more painful, more quickly”.

The skills minister’s positive comments to the Association of Employment and Learning Providers conference on Monday however contrasted with his plea two weeks earlier, for colleges to co-operate more with Greater Manchester steering group chair Theresa Grant, following a string of FE Week revelations about clashes over possible mergers.

All bar two of the first wave of area reviews are now thought to have finished – although not all have published their outcomes (see table).

The earliest steering group meetings for wave one were held way back in September.

Guidance published by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills at the time gave a typical timescale of three to four months for each review – but this was extended to four to six months when the guidance was updated in March.

Only one area from the first wave actually managed to complete by the six-month deadline – Birmingham and Solihull, which ended in early March, proposing one merger.

The Association of Teachers and Lecturers subsequently branded it a waste of time and money, because it had only resulted in “limited change”.

Tees Valley’s review completed in May, seven and a half months after it started, with three proposed mergers.

Sheffield City became the third area to announce its outcomes last month – almost nine months after its first steering group meeting – which included just two merger proposals.

FE Week understands that both the Solent and Sussex reviews have held their final steering group meetings, but the recommendations from these reviews – which both began on November 5 – have not yet been published.

A statement issued on June 24 by Ms Grant said the Greater Manchester review was in its “final stages” – but it did not include any recommendations, nor did it say if the review had held its final steering group meeting.

Mr Boles was forced to urge the colleges involved to take her comments on board and “grasp the [merger] opportunities more boldly”, during a parliamentary debate on FE in the area on June 15.

The West Yorkshire area review, which began on November 16, is expected to hold its final meeting in July, according to a spokesperson for one of the colleges involved.

Martin Doel, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, challenged Mr Boles’ optimism about the area reviews.

He said there had been some “concerns” about the early reviews; “late and inaccurate data was presented to colleges, along with weak administrative arrangements and lack of analysis to support any options being put forward by the FE Commissioner’s team.”

He also warned of the “significant risk” that colleges involved in the later waves would be “preoccupied” by the reviews “when they should be preparing for apprenticeship growth and other policy developments”.

James Kewin, deputy chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, said that sixth form colleges had dealt with the reviews “incredibly well”.

But he said that timing had been “one of the biggest challenges” to the process, and called for more flexibility through both the review process and the implementation phase.

“Rushing colleges through a four-month process is not conducive to sensible, long-term decision-making,” he said.

BIS has now announced all the colleges involved in the first three waves of the reviews, as well as indicative areas for the fourth and fifth waves.

All area reviews are expected to be completed by March 2017.

The principal of Cornwall College has resigned, according to a statement from the chair of the board of governors exclusively revealed to FE Week.

Amarjit Basi, who has been principal and chief executive of The Cornwall College Group since 2013, will leave his post on July 31, when his deputy Raoul Humphreys will become acting chief executive and principal until a new permanent replacement has been found.

FE Week has seen a statement from Philip Rees, chair of governors at Cornwall College, about Mr Basi’s resignation, and expects the information to be released to staff and stakeholders at the college shortly.

It said: “It is with regret that the board of governors of Cornwall College has accepted the resignation of Amarjit Basi.

“Amarjit has been the principal and chief executive officer of the college for the last three years, during which he has led the college to change its direction and structures, delivered a very good Ofsted inspection outcome and overseen the merger with Bicton College.

“We wish him well with the next stage of his career in further and higher education.

“The Board of Governors will immediately put in place the process of recruiting a new principal and CEO, and in the meantime has asked Raoul Humphreys to become acting CEO and principal from when Amarjit leaves on 31 July 2016 until that process is complete.”

Cornwall College has been plagued with funding troubles in recent months, receiving a notice of concern from the Skills Funding Agency for in financial concern in April.

A spokesperson for the college told FE Week at the time: “The college was required to give a three year financial forecast, which has been in place since last summer.”

Then in May, FE Week reported that the University and College Union (UCU) had called on Mr Basi to take a pay cut to show solidarity with up to 60 staff set to lose their jobs through cutbacks at the college.

The college told FE Week that the cuts were “part of reductions to back office and management to reduce our cost base, as well as some teaching posts, which are affected due to reduced recruitment on some courses”.

FE Week has also seen a comment from Mr Basi on his decision to leave Cornwall College, saying: “I have found my three years at the College both rewarding and challenging, and throughout my time I have been privileged to work with many outstanding colleagues.

“At the same time, those who are close to me will recognise that the past few months have highlighted for me, that my true passion lies in teaching, learning and organisational development, and it is this direction that I wish to pursue the next stage of my career.”

Mr Basi’s leadership has been singled out for criticism in the past, on top of the recent challenges faced by Cornwall College.

In 2015, a report from the FE Commissioner condemned what was described as his “expansionist policy” while at the helm of his previous place of work, New College Nottingham (NCN).

Sir David Collins, who visited NCN in February last year, said: “During its recent history in each year since 2006/07, the college had delivered an underlying surplus until 2013/14 when it recorded a significant deficit, the magnitude of which was not anticipated by the senior management team and not communicated to governors.

“There were a number of reasons for this deterioration in the college’s financial position but the key ones were the expansionist policy of the previous principal, which involved diversification into a number of unprofitable non-core activities.”

During Mr Basi’s time as principal, NCN became a founding member of The Gazelle Group, an association of colleges which cost £35,000 a year in membership fees.

 

 

The outgoing boss of the Association of Colleges has launched into a plea for sector unity — after warning providers to be careful when they “slag off” the opposition.

Martin Doel (pictured), who will be replaced by the current Learning and Work Institute chief executive David Hughes from September, pulled no punches during his speech to the Association of Employment and Learning Providers conference on Monday (June 27).

He warned that infighting would cause the whole sector to “suffer”, just a week after the AELP’s boss Mark Dawe told FE Week that financial assistance for colleges could put “apprenticeship organisations in direct competition with independent training providers”.

Addressing a packed conference room, Mr Doel said: “I have quite often have the experience of colleges thinking that they are gaining the benefit by criticising other colleges and I’ve heard of independent training providers criticising other ITPs, and ITPs criticising colleges.

“For what it’s worth on my reflection, short-term that might give you some advantage; long-term all of us suffer in the training and education market, because we are destroying value in our own industry, which is a shared industry.”

He added: “Be careful when you’re seen to slag off the opposition in order to win.

“It’s a kind of Mourinho moment [the Chelsea manager who was sacked last season after losing the support of his players], in terms of actually concentrating on how well your team plays and actually competes in that market.”

Despite Mr Doel’s comments, the AoC was not subsequently willing to give any examples of the criticism between providers that he described.

He spoke out after the AELP claimed last month that 76 per cent (378,170 of 499,900) of all apprenticeship starts in 2014/15 were shown to be delivered by ITPs rather than colleges.

The association published the analysis using Skills Funding Agency data, obtained through a freedom of information request.

Skills minister Nick Boles spoke on the matter at the AoC annual conference last November, asking principals: “Why on earth are you letting these guys [ITPs] nick your lunch?”

But after hearing the AoC chief executive’s conference speech, Mr Dawe was keen to stress his organisation was focused simply on equal treatment, and did not support backbiting.

He told FE Week: “There is nothing to be gained for any type of provider to be critical of another — especially when there are official government measures, inspections and data to provide an impartial judgement of performance.

“We have also said many times that the best delivery involves a strong partnership between a college and providers meeting the needs of their local employers.

“Our concern is that the government itself may be trying to tilt the playing field away from independent providers in the face of the challenges now affecting the sector as a whole.”

Mr Dawe previously discussed the issue with FE Week before the conference, when he explained that he wanted a “level playing field” for public and private providers.

He said at the time: “We are concerned that the government is providing financial assistance to colleges to help set up apprenticeship organisations in direct competition with independent training providers.”

Angela Rayner, the MP for Ashton-under-Lyme and a former care worker and union representative, has been appointed the new shadow education secretary, FE Week understands.

Sources in the Labour Party have exclusively confirmed to our sister title FE Week that Rayner, who entered Parliament at the 2015 general election, has been promoted to the role at the head of the opposition front-bench team. She is the third politician to serve in the role since Sunday.

Rayner previously served as an opposition whip and shadow pensions minister in Labour’s frontbench team, but was promoted to the role of shadow women and equalities minister on Monday following a mass-exodus of MPs unhappy with Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.

Lucy Powell, who had served as shadow education secretary since September, was one of 11 shadow cabinet members to resign on Sunday, and her replacement Pat Glass stepped down on Wednesday after just 50 hours in post.

Before she entered Parliament, Rayner worked for Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council as a care worker and subsequently served as convener of UNISON North West.

Ofsted’s new chief inspector has pledged to remove the “blanket of concern” over FE that many believe have been left by her predecessor.

Amanda Spielman (pictured), who has been selected by the government to succeed Sir Michael Wilshaw when his term ends in December, told MPs on the education select committee on Wednesday that FE is a “very strong area of interest” of hers.

Ms Spielman, currently the chair of Ofqual, said she had “spent quite a lot of time” working on vocational qualifications and “things that primarily affect FE” during her time at the exams regulator.

Asked by Stephen Timms, the MP for East Ham, why she thought the sector was doing “so badly”, Ms Spielman said: “Changes throughout the system have obviously had a very specific impact in FE. GCSE resits are clearly a very live area of concern.

“There is a great deal of teaching and capacity required in FE that has not been required in the past, so that is reshaping their agendas.

“A lot of FE colleges are very big, very complex organisations doing a lot of different things. The more things you pull together into a picture, the harder it is for everything to be good simultaneously.

“That may be part of the reason — I don’t know yet — but I want to make sure that what I say is properly discriminating, and that it looks at the components and the causes.

“I don’t want to express a blanket concern; I want to express an informed view that really highlights the places where things are needed.”

Ms Spielman’s views will come as a welcome reprieve to the FE sector, which has been repeatedly been talked down by Sir Michael.

The chief inspector provoked a huge backlash when he laid into the sector during an appearance before the select committee on March 2 — claiming it was “in a mess”, and that 16- to 19-year-olds should be taught in schools, not colleges.

During this week’s hearing, which was a statutory part of the recruitment process, Ms Spielman also told the cross-party group of MPs that she wanted to have “discussions” about scrapping the outstanding grade when she starts in January.

Asked by chair Neil Carmichael for her personal view on the grade, she admitted she was “quite uncomfortable” about “some of the effects I see it having in the system”.

When pressed specifically on whether she would like to see the grade scrapped, she said: “It’s something I would like to see fully discussed.”

She also responded to criticism of her lack of teaching experience after MPs discussed the concerns of teachers who had written to them.

She accused some teaching unions of being “opposed in principle to the existence of a chief inspector” and said there had been a “huge amount of positive reaction” to her selection, including from the likes of the Association of School and College Leaders and the National Association of Head Teachers.

MPs will now report back on Ms Spielman’s appearance and make a recommendation to the government on whether or not she should be appointed.

The FE sector could be facing a “fire sale” of FE colleges, according to shadow skills minister Gordon Marsden, after a leaked government report indicated that they could be sold off to the private sector.

A draft document seen by FE Week, called ‘Framework for due diligence in the FE sector following area reviews’, looks ahead to a post-area review world for colleges.

The most worrying section was titled ‘Acquisition of an FE college by a private sector organisation’.

It reads: “Private sector organisations such as private training providers may be interested in the acquisition of FE colleges.

“They may have different benchmarks and parameters as to what is acceptable in terms of both curriculum and financial performance of the college involved.”

After learning of the report, Mr Marsden said: “It’s alarming that people are already turning their minds to how they can sell off what are in many cases historically public estates to whoever. It would be wrong if BIS was just able to run a fire sale.”

The document, dated June 2016, also raised questions about the impact of private sector involvement on colleges’ VAT exemptions.

It said: “There is a significant and increasing number of private sector organisations operating in FE.

“Not all providers are exempt from VAT and collaborative arrangements with non-empt providers could have a significant impact financial models.

“Mergers, joint ventures and other collaborative arrangements could alter the status of the provider. This needs to be investigated.”

The news comes in the same week as a report by London Work Based Learning Alliance called for a level playing field among providers in London, and warned against a state owned monopoly.

BIS guidance, published in March, revealed for the first time that the government is planning to introduce an insolvency regime for colleges.

It said that, following the area reviews, the government planned no longer to bail out colleges in financial trouble, but would instead allow them to go bust.

When FE Week asked the Association of Colleges’ chief executive Martin Doel about the principle of private sector firms buying up colleges, he reacted with alarm.

“Private organisations should not be able to asset strip colleges’ buildings and facilities or pick and choose students or courses according to how much profit they might generate,” he said.

“Any private sector organisation that wanted to buy a college must be required to adhere to the same rules as a college already does and meet the same duties and responsibilities to students, staff and community.”

But Mark Dawe, the Association of Employment and Learning Providers’ chief executive, who has previously called for a level playing field for all providers, said: “If the government is genuinely looking for the right solution to give a long term sustainable future to a failing college, it should be open to consider all propositions.”

FE Week contacted a number of private equity firms to see if they would be interested in buying colleges, given their previous education investment portfolios, but they all declined to comment (see table).

The University and Colleges Union, which published a report in 2012 calling for greater regulation of private equity firms in the education sector, warned against such firms getting their hands on FE colleges.

A spokesperson warned that private equity firms in America had been “shown to offer derisory rates of graduation, crushing levels of debt and of course dubious value”.

She added: “We see little merit in allowing them greater access to the UK education sector.”

BIS declined to comment.

—————————————————————————————————

Editorial – Keep profit out of colleges

What should the government do when a college goes bust?

This isn’t a hypothetical scenario, as it happened to K College in 2013.

After tens of millions in bail-outs, a desperate Skills Funding Agency held a tendering process and open days to flog-off the five campus assets and contracts.

No deal was done, but subsequently two neighbouring colleges have successfully taken over the sites and provision.

What this showed was that with government support, the college sector was capable of rescuing and restructuring itself.

And there should be more college takeovers like this where needed – forced if necessary.

Every community deserves a not-for-profit college and the tax paying public should expect it to be financially efficient.

Both should be possible.

So when colleges go bust the first in the queue with a rescue plan shouldn’t be those with profit motives.

It should be successful colleges, with short-term financial support where needed.

Nick Linford