The National Union of Teachers (NUT) has defended itself after the Sixth Form Colleges Association (SFCA) said an upcoming strike would be “ill-timed and ill-judged”.
The NUT ballot, which closed on February 29, showed 86 per cent of members in favour of strike action, from a 44 per cent turnout.
It means that union members are set to embark on strike action at sixth form colleges across the country on March 15, which SFCA chief executive David Igoe warned would be highly disruptive for students preparing for summer exams.
When invited by FE Week to respond to the criticism, NUT deputy general secretary Kevin Courtney said: “The NUT strike action is part of the ongoing campaign to ensure teachers and therefore students get a fair deal from the Government.
“We have gone way past the point of sitting on sidelines. Many college principals are supporting our campaign and we will continue to work with SFCA wherever we can.”
He added: “Alongside the deterioration in teachers’ conditions, if we do not reverse the [Government funding] cuts, it is young people’s 16-19 education that is being put at grave risk.
“Many colleges face closure or unsuitable mergers putting many jobs and local education at risk.”
A total of 1,689 NUT members took part in the ballot, with 1,453 voting for the strike action and 235 against.
The question put to members was: “In order to persuade the Secretary of State for Education to increase presently inadequate funding levels which cause detrimental changes to terms and conditions within the sixth form college sector, are you prepared to take a day’s strike action?”
Mr Igoe told FE Week after the ballot result was announced that SFCA had “no problem standing alongside the NUT in a campaign to improve the funding levels for sixth form colleges”.
“However, we consider this strike action to be ill-timed and ill-judged,” he added.
“It comes at a critical time in preparing students for public examinations in the summer and any disruption to that learning is regrettable.”
A Department for Education spokesman said: “Any strike action is disappointing. The disruption caused by strikes holds back children’s education and damages the reputation of the profession.
“We recognise the importance of investing in education which is why, thanks to the difficult decisions we have taken elsewhere, we have been able to protect core 16 to 19 funding.
“At the same time we have ended the unfair difference between post-16 schools and colleges by funding them per student to ensure that all young people leave education with the skills they need to thrive in modern Britain.”
South Staffordshire College and South Thames College have joined the 157 Group, the body has revealed.
The announcement was made by 157 Group today on Twitter.
It tweeted: “We are delighted to announce two new colleges @southstaffs and @SouthThamesColl, bringing the 157 Group to 30 fantastic members.”
Graham Morley, chief executive principal of South Staffordshire College, said: “We are delighted to be joining the 157 Group. As a business facing organisation we are committed to connecting with similar organisations who share our vision, values and principles.
“We are looking forward to making a significant contribution to the work of this group for the benefit of those we serve.”
Both South Staffordshire, which was last inspected in April 2013, South Thames, which was last inspected in May 2012, are rated good overall by Ofsted.
It comes after FE Week reported on March 1 that City College Plymouth (CCP) had become the second college to join the 157 Group since it exclusively revealed that it planned to expand to FE Week in January
In 2013-14 a host of UK providers jumped at the chance to take part in a programme in Saudi Arabia that provided the opportunity to share their expertise overseas. The UK government promoted the ‘Colleges of Excellence’ programme widely, calling the huge contracts secured by providers a “£1 billion exports win for UK education” and championing involvement in the region.
The ‘winning’ UK institutions set about establishing their new colleges in the region, with the aim of furthering vocational education and training in Saudi Arabia for men and women. But two years on, the programme has not lived up to expectations and an FE Week investigation has uncovered grave financial problems at some of the colleges taking part.
With the projects in Saudi struggling to recruit students and some colleges in the region being forced to close, some UK providers are now mired in damage control. FE Week senior reporter Alix Robertson examines the extent of the problems.
Lincoln College — a challenging overseas venture
Lincoln College has included a significant loss associated with a contract in Saudi Arabia in its accounts for 2014/15, FE Week can reveal.
The accounts, which all colleges submit each year to the Skills Funding Agency (SFA), show that involvement in the Colleges of Excellence (CoE) programme has led to the college facing financial challenges.
Al-Aflaj colleges’ governor Zaid Al Hussein and Paul Batterbury, dean of Lincoln Al-Aflaj College at Lincoln College International, Lincoln College Group, at colleges’ opening ceremony in October last year
FE Week understands that this is likely to result in an SFA financial notice to improve.
In March 2014, Lincoln College was awarded a huge contract worth £250m from the CoE programme, a scheme designed to improve technical and vocational education and training in Saudi Arabia. Winning the opportunity to go to the Middle East and run three new colleges was seen as a coup for the college. However, after recruitment problems led to two of the colleges in the Al-Aflaj region being closed down, the costs began to mount up.
Commenting on the colleges’ finances, a spokesperson for the SFA said: “We make judgments on the financial health of colleges based on colleges’ financial plans and their published, externally audited, account statements.
“We are currently in discussion with the college about their end of year financial position.”
The CoE programme was promoted by the UK government as a good opportunity for both the education sector and the economy. Lincoln College had to compete against 50 other applicants from across Europe, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand for the contract.
The successful bid meant it would be responsible for Lincoln Al-Aflaj Female College of Excellence, Lincoln Al-Aflaj Male College of Excellence and Lincoln Al-Muzahmiya College of Excellence, with a focus on developing English language skills in a vocational context.
At the time, the managing director of Lincoln College International (LCI), Simon Plummer, saw great potential for the project.
He said in a college press release dated March 13, 2014: “We aim to replicate the success we’ve had in the UK in Saudi Arabia and help the 4 per cent of under 30s who are currently unemployed to find jobs.
“Staff and students in the UK will also benefit as we will be able to ensure that surpluses resulting from this five-year £250m contract will be used to further improve the facilities at its campuses in Lincoln, Newark and Gainsborough.”
Lincoln planned to initially employ 100 staff across the three Saudi colleges (primarily UK residents), with further recruitment drives in December 2014 and April 2015.
However, in January 2016, less than two years into the programme, Lincoln College announced via its lincolnksa.com (Lincoln Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) website that its two Lincoln Al-Aflaj colleges would be closed by the end of the month.
A statement on the website said: “Unfortunately, the number of students able to participate in this unique education in Al-Aflaj is not sufficient and, in agreement with CoE, we have taken the decision to close both Lincoln Al-Aflaj Colleges.
“Our intention is to close the colleges to students this trimester, with the last day of teaching later this trimester.”
FE Week questioned the college further on the closures, and received the following statement from an LCI spokesperson: “By mutual agreement, two colleges in Al-Aflaj were closed during this trimester, enabling us to concentrate our focus on enhancing further our work in Al-Qatif for our learners there and maximising benefits to the wider Lincoln College Group.”
Lincoln College — board minutes reveal ‘surprise’ at loss from venture
After the college closures, FE Week analysed Lincoln College’s board meeting minutes, finding that the extent of the financial impact of the Saudi project is still unclear.
Minutes from December 15, 2015 confirm the reasons given for the college closures in Saudi Arabia, stating that, in Al-Aflaj, “the local population would not bring in the student numbers to support the college, particular due to the other provision in the area (vocational college and university) and it was felt the due diligence had not been effective”.
They emphasise that because the college is the only provider operating as a single entity in Saudi Arabia, the risk is bigger than for other providers, who have partnered with other organisations and therefore spread the risk.
Crucially, these minutes record that the chief executive officer “explained a verbal agreement had been reached to: close both colleges; give free choice of new college/s; defer the bridging loan repayment until March; undertake a joint review; consider contract extension”.
FE Week questioned Lincoln College on these points and the nature of the “bridging loan” in particular.
A spokesperson for the college refused to comment on the size of the loan and whether it would be paid in March, saying the figures were commercially sensitive.
When asked by FE Week if the “free choice of new college/s” meant Lincoln would be taking on new projects in Saudi, despite having to close two colleges, the spokesperson said: “We would consider other colleges should the opportunity arise and should due diligence and process conclude they were viable”.
The minutes from December 15, 2015 also highlight a “deficit” in the college’s KSA finances.
They state: “The COO [chief operating officer] will be visiting KSA in February to follow up on the rebuilding of the financial model. The Chair asked for an indication of when the finances would move into the positive and the COO responded that within the five year contract there would not be a deficit.”
When this point was queried with Lincoln, the LCI spokesperson said: “These accounts spanned an 18-month period and not the usual 12-months. They included unforeseen exceptional costs.”
He added that these “exceptional costs” were related to the “initial mobilisation and recruitment for a male college, which was discontinued by CoE and replaced with the female college in Al-Qatif”.
The spokesperson said other problems included the fact that members of staff recruited for the male college were not transferable to the female college and costs were incurred by “damage to IT Infrastructure”.
He added the college is seeking compensation for these losses from CoE.
FE Week also found in minutes from a meeting on December 10, 2015 that the loss recorded against KSA was “a surprise” to the college’s Finance Committee. The minutes state that after this an agreement was made to keep the committee updated through “monthly management accounts”.
Going back to Lincoln’s early involvement with the programme, minutes from a May 20, 2014 meeting refer to the College Board agreeing to secure “£5.7m credit with NatWest Bank”. FE Week asked the college whether there were any concerns about repaying this loan.
The LCI spokesperson said: “Minutes referring to £5.7m of credit simply relate to the initial bond taken out to mobilise our colleges in the Kingdom at the start of the contract.
“In relation to our ability to meet loan repayments; our Al-Qatif college is forecasted to make enough surplus funds to repay the loan.”
Of Lincoln College’s overall involvement in the CoE programme, he said: “LCI has been in constructive discussion with CoE for some time over the re-negotiation of our offering in KSA.
“The initial framework allocated providers with a mix of large colleges in areas with significant recruitment potential and smaller ones in more rural locations.
“It was anticipated that across each provider’s portfolio, there would be balance. This has proved not to be the case — a fact recognised by CoE, who have been proactive in approaching providers to re-negotiate terms with them.”
Hertfordshire colleges facing financial ‘losses’
A Hertfordshire college consortium may also be facing serious financial challenges as a result of involvement in the Saudi Arabia CoE programme, FE Week has found.
The Hertfordshire Vocational Education Consortium (known as Hertvec, or Hertfordshire London Colleges in Saudi Arabia) won a five-year £225m contract from the CoE in April 2014.
The consortium would run three Colleges of Excellence in Saudi Arabia, with a total capacity of 2,000 students each. As with Lincoln College, this presented significant challenges and questions remain about the impact on the Hertfordshire group.
Hertvec began as a partnership between Hertford Regional College (HRC) and North Hertfordshire College (NHC) supported by the University of Hertfordshire and Samama Holdings Group, a Saudi Arabian company specialising in construction and facilities management.
However, following an enquiry from FE Week, a spokesperson for the University of Hertfordshire confirmed that the university pulled out shortly after the bid for the contract.
She said: “The University of Hertfordshire was part of the initial bid proposal process regarding the three colleges in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
“However after careful consideration, the University decided not to participate in the organisation, delivery or administration of the colleges … We have no involvement of any kind with these colleges in the KSA.”
And on analysing the board meeting minutes of NHC and HRC, FE Week found that the CoE programme may have jeopardised other relationships within the consortium —as well as causing financial concerns.
The NHC Corporation Board meeting minutes from September 7, 2015, state: “We have agreed with HRC a 90 day option, to mid Sept, to replace them as a partner in Hertvec. HRC have agreed to pay 60 per cent of the losses to date and also make a one off payment of £250k to NHC.”
FE Week contacted HRC and NHC to clarify this, asking whether it meant that HRC is no longer part of the Hertvec consortium and the CoE programme.
The enquiry also asked whether HRC had been replaced by another provider, what the root of the “60 per cent” of losses was, and whether this and the one off payment of £250k had now been paid to NHC.
The individual colleges declined to comment.
Questions were also raised by the content of HRC audit committee minutes from March 16, 2015. The minutes state that “the Chair queried when the college might expect to be paid the £713,000 due from the Saudi Arabia project” and said “everything was now in place for the College to invoice for this sum” and “funding should be available this month”.
However, they also say this depended on a member of the leadership team in Saudi arranging “the release of the funding as the loan to Hertvec from the mobilisation funds [had] still not been confirmed”.
FE Week put this to HRC and NHC, asking who the £713,000 was owed to, why it was owed and whether the money was received, but the individual providers declined to comment.
Instead, a statement was issued from Hertvec, saying: “We believe that the success or otherwise of a business like Hertvec should be considered over the medium to long term.
“As should be expected for a contract of this nature our first year was a challenging one, from which we take many invaluable lessons. Over that period we have also made huge progress in building three vibrant institutions in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia working with local employers and stakeholders.
“We remain committed to our work in the Kingdom and are working with CoE to make sure that the programme realises its objectives. We will not be making any further comments on Hertvec or the wider CoE programme at this time.”
‘Unrealistic assumptions’ says former advisor
FE Week asked Tom Bewick, an expert on overseas skills ventures who advised the Saudi government in 2012, for his views on the findings of the investigation.
Tom Bewick
He said: “I’m not surprised if some UK providers are getting into difficulties with the CoE programme.
“The Saudi approach of heavily weighting contract payments on job outcomes resulted in some very crude and unrealistic assumptions being made about the relative growth and maturity of the Saudi labour market.
“The danger is that many of the skills and employment forecasts they were working to are no longer relevant, particularly when you consider that the price of oil has dropped significantly and the Saudi economy is now struggling.
“My advice to any UK provider that’s developing market opportunities overseas is to make sure that they do proper due diligence, and crucially, employ only those who have the locally trusted business knowledge and relationships. Despite the downside risks, I do still think it is important for FE colleges to look to grow by exploiting international market opportunities.”
Background to the £850mcolleges of excellence programme
In April 2014, then Minister of State for Skills and Enterprise Matthew Hancock announced that UK education providers had won four contracts worth £850m to establish 12 technical and vocational training colleges in Saudi Arabia.
In total, 100 colleges were to be set up across Saudi Arabia as part of the Kingdom’s CoE programme.
UKTI Education, jointly set up by the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) and UK Trade & Investment (UKTI), took responsibility for bringing together consortiums to bid for the contracts, working in 2013-14 to raise awareness amongst education providers across the country.
By April 2014 UK education providers were responsible for operating 16 of the 37 colleges let at the time, valued at more than £1bn.
This included successful bids from TQ Pearson and the Nescot consortium (North East Surrey College of Technology; Highbury College, Portsmouth; Burton and South Derbyshire College; the University of Hull; and Birmingham City University) in the first wave of the programme in 2013.
The groups taking on contracts in 2014 were Lincoln College; Hertvec; the Oxford Partnership, comprising Activate Learning, GEMS Education Solutions and Moulton College; and FESA, a further consortium of UK colleges and training providers.
Mr Hancock said at the time: “I visited Saudi Arabia earlier this year in support of UK bidders and am particularly pleased that they will soon be offering high quality practical skills training to an additional 24,000 Saudi students.
“I look forward to seeing the UK’s education and training presence continue to grow in Saudi Arabia and internationally.”
In December 2015, FE Week reported that the English colleges involved in the CoE programme could be facing severe financial issues as their projects were proving less popular than expected, after an article appeared on the topic in Education Investor.
Alongside raising financial concerns, the report said TQ Pearson had dropped out of the programme in June last year and was understood to be in a legal dispute with CoE.
Other providers involved hit back at claims that the scheme might lead to bankruptcy, but UKTI Education conceded that CoE had “encountered challenges”.
The Government has pushed back its consultation over plans to close the Sheffield base for hundreds of civil servants with “a huge amount of FE expertise”, FE Week has learned.
The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) was accused of launching an “FE brain drain” after unveiling plans in January to close its Sheffield office (see right), which it is feared could lead to nearly 250 people losing their jobs.
Lois Austin, the PCS full-time official for BIS covering the Sheffield office, told FE Week on Thursday (March 3) that widespread opposition to the plans to centralise the department’s policy-making in London had forced BIS to delay its consultation by two months.
She said: “They told us back when all this was first announced that the consultation over the closure of the Sheffield office should be completed by the start of March. But we’ve now been told that it will be May 2, which shows how shaken up they are by the scale of opposition to this.
“They’re saying that centralising to London will save money and improve policy decisions.
“But we asked Permanent Secretary [for BIS] Martin Donnelly for evidence of the analysis they have done to prove this and no one from his team has been able to provide this.”
Mr Donnelly held strained talks with representatives from PCS on February 29 and further talks between the union and senior BIS representatives took place two days later, Ms Austin added.
It comes after a former senior employee at BIS told FE Week the planned closure of the Sheffield office, where they produce most BIS data on FE and skills, would amount to an “FE brain drain”, as “they all have a huge amount of FE expertise and it looks like everyone will lose their jobs”.
The source claimed that BIS had not offered sufficient resettlement packages to make moving to London a viable possibility for many Sheffield staff, and failed to take into account the number of part-time female staff, who would find moving south near impossible.
A BIS spokesperson told FE Week on Thursday: “There are ongoing discussions with staff members and their representatives to support staff affected, but any specifics would be confidential and so we can’t comment on anything individuals might have said.”
Mr Donnelly has previously said: “The decision to close Sheffield by 2018 has not been taken lightly. It is my top priority that all our staff are fully briefed and consulted on the process. We will provide comprehensive support to all those facing a potential change or loss of job.”
The government will be providing cash to help colleges to implement area review recommendations – but has made it clear that no more money will be made available once these are completed.
The updated guidance is almost twice as long as the previous version and includes a number of lessons learned from the first area reviews.
Colleges will be expected to seek alternative sources of funds for implementing any changes but “in cases where the required funding cannot otherwise be secured there is a restructuring facility available,” the guidance says.
Cash from the fund “is being made available to reflect the one off nature of the restructuring of the sector, through area reviews, to achieve long-term sustainability”.
“A key objective of the reviews is that they result in resilient institutions in each area, and therefore no further Exceptional Financial Support will be available for colleges following the implementation of review recommendations in the relevant area,” the guidance continues.
As previously reported in FE Week, the “default position” of the facility, which is being held by the Treasury, is that “it will be provided as a loan on commercial terms” and it will “cover only a proportion of the total costs”.
In exceptional cases, the guidance states, cash may be available as a non-repayable grant.
Skills Minister Nick Boles is understood to have said during an event for the Association of Colleges (AoC) on Wednesday that grants of between £50,000 and £100,000 would be available from the facility.
A spokesperson for BIS has confirmed that the grants will be either £50,000 or £100,000 “depending on circumstances”. More detail will be published shortly, the spokesperson added.
The updated guidance was welcomed by Martin Doel, AoC chief executive, who said it was more comprehensive.
“It would have been useful to have the guidance at the start of wave one, but now it has been published it can be used by colleges going forward,” he added.
The guidance also features an expanded section on the area review process, as well as a number of lessons learned from the first wave of reviews.
These include the importance of “early engagement between colleges on options” and “early communication between the colleges and the LEPs [local enterprise partnerships] and LAs [local authorities]”. The role of LEPs and LAs in the area reviews in setting out the “economic vision” and “skills base” needed is now stated in the updated guidance.
The “critical role” of banks, as colleges’ creditors, is acknowledged, with the guidance stating that the government has “initiated national level discussions” with the banks.
The guidance also reveals that the government is “proposing to introduce an insolvency regime for FE and sixth form colleges,” which would come into effect once the area review process has finished.
A new section on implementation “highlights some key issues for colleges in the implementation phase”, which it describes as challenging. These include the ‘in principle’ decision, appointing the right people to lead the colleges and the stages of implementation ahead of merging.
“Fuller implementation guidance” should be published in the spring.
Other changes in the new guidance include an extension in the area review timescales, from three to four months in the initial guidance to four to six months, and the removal of the option for “proactive proposals” for area reviews.
The guidance also covers the option for sixth form colleges to convert to academies, full guidance for which was published by the Department for Education in February.
The Sixth Form Colleges Association declined to comment on the updated guidance.
Shane Chowen calls for greater recognition of the impact welfare cuts will have on FE students.
The parliamentary process isn’t one that lends itself to straight forward explanation at the best of times.
But when complicated and contentious pieces of legislation work their way through Westminster, it’s all to easy to get caught up in the process and the politics and lose sight about the practical realities that new laws and regulations will have on people’s lives.
I often use this column to call on leaders in our sector to involve themselves more in the public policy debates surrounding the lives of learners, not just those directly affecting their institutions, and do all they can provide spaces for learners themselves to use their experiences to improve the quality of policy that is affecting their lives.
Looking to welfare, figures published in July 2015 showed that the number of benefit claimants enrolling in FE courses has risen to 650,000, up from 480,000 in 2009/10.
The overall number of learners in that time has decreased substantially, so as a sector, an increasing proportion of our learners are on benefits.
The majority claim Job Seekers Allowance (JSA) or Employment Support Allowance (ESA).
Theatre aside, reforms to the welfare system are happening alongside reforms to FE and skills and both impact on the lives of learners and their ability to access the support they need to get on in life
This is why the passage of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill is really important to our sector.
The bill seeks to increase a number of policies to help the Government meet its commitments to reduce spending on benefits, achieve full employment and half the disability employment gap.
Putting to one side for a moment whether you think current public spending on welfare is acceptable or not, we everyone in FE can probably agree that getting more people into good jobs, particularly helping to find more and better employment opportunities for people with disabilities, is laudable.
However, the Government is struggling to convince members of the House of Lords to agree to one element of the bill in particular.
It’s the plan to reduce the amount people on ESA, who are ill or disabled but deemed fit for ‘work-related activity’, down to the same level as JSA, which is a cut of about £30 a week for new claimants.
Opponents of the cut in ESA argue that cutting the incomes of disabled people will hinder rather than help them to find work, whereas proponents argue the changes won’t affect current claimants and people with severe health conditions and disabilities will continue to receive higher levels of support from elsewhere in the benefits system.
Having passed through the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the bill which includes this controversial cut in benefits to disabled people, is now at the stage known as ‘ping pong’ where measures that both houses disagree on are passed back and forth either until there is agreement, or until Ministers use measures to pass the legislation without consent from the Lords.
Theatre aside, reforms to the welfare system are happening alongside reforms to FE and skills and both impact on the lives of learners and their ability to access the support they need to get on in life.
That’s why I would like to see both agendas work much closer together over the coming months and years.
In particular, more recognition is needed through area reviews of the provision that people on benefits need — 88 per cent of which are level two and below, alongside what employers say they need.
Also, look out for a government white paper on disability, health and employment expected soon and contribute.
Shane Chowen is head of policy and public affairs at the Learning and Work Institute
Doctors told county-level hockey fanatic Nichola Hay’s parents that she would probably never play sport again after removing a tumour from her knee — but she refused to accept this and was running around again after a year.
She credits the steely determination instilled into her by this frightening experience — along with nurturing skills developed through being the oldest of four children and raising two daughters of her own — with helping to prepare her for a successful career in training.
Hay invited me to the offices of her firm Outsource Training & Development, in the leafy London borough of Kensington, for her profile interview.
The 50-year-old clearly felt comfortable on her home patch and had prepared well — I noticed that she had made several pages of notes in a little jotter pad beforehand.
She certainly managed me well — providing coffee and plenty of biscuits is always a good starting point when dealing with a hungry journalist.
Hay was born in Frimley, Surrey, to middle class parents Elizabeth, now aged 65, and father David, 66.
She still lives close to them in Surrey, as do her siblings Heidi, 47, Rachel, 43, and David, 35.
I was almost a second mother to my brother David
“I think being an oldest child gives you good management skills, especially as I was almost a second mother to my brother David.
“I definitely mother the people who work for me, to an extent. They know they have to work hard, but you want them to look forward to coming into work, not dread it.”
She added: “My parents set a good example by always working hard. My mum was a great role model, as she always worked while raising her children.
“She was corporate client manager for the Parity training organisation, with big companies like HMRC.
“I took a year off with each child, but worked up to a few days before they were born and never gave up on my career.”
Hay grew up in the Camberley area of Surrey and attended Hawley Primary School and Fernhill Comprehensive.
She said: “Both my daughters Jessica [now aged 23] and Jodie [now 19] went to my primary school.
“My daughter Jodie actually won a competition while she was there to design the school logo, so there’s a lasting link.”
She recalls sport as her main passion throughout school.
“I loved netball, tennis, and hockey. We were also had a pony at home, so I rode a lot.
“I played hockey at county level at under 14 and 16 levels, and later won the Surrey ladies’ league several times with Farnborough hockey club.”
Hay recalls being jolted from her relatively worry-free early childhood when she was diagnosed with cancer aged 13.
“I missed a year at school because I had cancer in my right knee. There was a possibility they might have removed part of my leg through the operation,” she says.
“Luckily they didn’t in the end, but my parents were told that I probably wouldn’t play sport again.
“It made me really determined to prove them wrong, which I suppose set the tone for my career. I wasn’t going to accept what they were saying, and it took me about a year before I could run around again.”
Hay needed another less invasive operation to remove cancer from her leg when she was 18, but has not had a recurrence since.
However, she recalls: “I missed almost a year of education through the first operation, which was particularly tough because I’m dyslexic.
“I eventually had to do English O-levels three times before I passed.”
Hay passed A-levels in sport and business studies, as well as a BTec in business at Farnborough Sixth Form College, before getting her first job aged 18 with the town’s branch of the Co-op bank.
“It was really old-fashioned in lots of ways — so you had little old ladies coming in for milk coupons, who wanted to chat for ages,” she recalls.
Hay was promoted to banking clerk before moving to insurance underwriting firm AUA3 as an accounts assistant before she turned 21. The role of PA to the managing director came up after about six months [at AUA3] and I got the job. “I then became an administrative assistant for the AUA3 underwriters at Lloyds, in London.
“I was one of only three ladies who passed the Lloyd’s underwriters exam at that time.
“It was a very male-dominated world, where lots of deals were done during lunchtimes in pubs that women didn’t go to.”
Hay moved on to ASM, who represented the freight forwarding industry, based at Heathrow, when she was 24.
“I did a bit of everything, from bookkeeping to PA work,” she recalls.
“I mainly worked for general manager Peter Laskow, who treated me like his daughter and taught me everything. He even took me into board meetings and showed me how to run events.
“I also met my husband Neil during this period, because he worked in freight forwarding. We have been married for 23 years.”
Hay moved to Freight Train, a training provider, specialising in the freight forwarding industry, in around 1989.
She recalls: “That was where I had my first experience of training, setting up a YTS programme for freight forwarding in the logistics sector.”
Work challenges paled into insignificance when her first daughter was born at just 27 weeks.
“She was a miracle baby and only weighed 1lb 6oz,” says Hay. “She was in an incubator for eight weeks and came out of hospital weighing 3lb 4oz.”
She adds: “When Jessica was up to four years old, she was very susceptible to infections, so was in and out of hospital.
“I was lucky I had understanding managers. They were flexible and knew I would make up work I missed.”
Freight Train was sold to Quantica in 1993, and Hay worked her way up to operations director by 2005.
She then launched Outsource Training and Development with former Quantica colleague Craig Aitken in 2009.
It is currently training more than 1,000 apprentices across a number of areas, including business, IT, marketing, retail and management.
“It was quite scary going it alone because of all the responsibility,” recalls says. “We employ just under 40 staff and they all have to be paid on time every month.”
Hay also set up a steering group two years ago to help improve knowledge of apprenticeships at Jobcentres.
“It started because we weren’t getting enough referrals for apprenticeships. I found they didn’t know enough about them at Jobcentres. We got the Government on board and it really took off.
“We’ve up-skilled apprentice champions in every Jobcentre in London (more than 140), who concentrate on promoting the programmes and linking people with training providers.”
Hay has, also sat on The Hounslow 14 to 19 Strategic Group since 2013.
“We send apprenticeship experts, for example from training providers and employers, into schools for parents’ evenings or assemblies, for example to explain, their benefits,” she explains. “I must have done over 50 talks myself.”
Hay “jumped at” the opportunity to join the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) a year ago.
“I did it because I’m genuinely passionate about apprenticeships and don’t think independent training providers speak up enough about all the good work we do in the sector,” she adds.
“AELP really make a difference and I wanted to be part
of it.”
I don’t know if I should say this, but I love reading hard — hitting Martina Cole books on holiday. I also really enjoyed Strong Woman by Karren Brady — partly because my family support her club West Ham, and also because of what it says on women in business, apprentices and politics.
What do you do to switch off from work?
I run a little bit and like eating out. My favourite pastime though is spending lots of time with my family.
What’s your pet hate?
It has to be seeing people getting out their mobile phones in restaurants or meetings at work. It’s rude.
If you could invite anyone to a dinner party, living or dead, who would it be?
It would be nice to have [US actor and producer] Bradley Cooper along, as he’s nice looking. Otherwise, I’d want someone from the Government, maybe [Business Secretary] Sajid Javid to discuss what is really happening on the ground with apprenticeships.
What did you want to be when you were growing up?
I would have liked to have been a professional hockey player and competed in the Olympics.
CURRICULUM VITAE
Born
1965: Frimley, Camberley, Surrey
Education
1970: Attended Hawley Primary Infants and Junior School
1977: Moved to Fernhill Comprehensive School
1981: Went to Farnborough Sixth Form College, Farnborough, Hants
Career
1983: Started at Co–op Bank, Camberley, Surrey, Bank Clerk
1985: Began at AUA(3), Lloyds Underwriters, London, as underwriting clerk
1987: Moved to ASM UK Ltd and Freight Train
1997: Became Quantica Training operations director
2009: Launched Outsource Training and Development with Craig Aitken
The Government has faced criticism for rejecting attempts to ensure representatives from all stakeholders involved with apprenticeships — not just employers — are represented on the new Institute for Apprentices. Shakira Martin spells out the case for involving apprentice voices.
The government is once again chanting its refrain of “employers must be in the driving seat”.
The announcement of who will sit on the board of the Institute for Apprentices is all about ensuring employers have their say.
This mantra has been repeated so often you might be fooled into thinking that the government has a clear idea of why this should be the case, and what exactly ‘employer-led’ means.
Yet one of the key aspects of apprenticeships policy, and in fact the reason why the government felt it needed to introduce a levy, is that there is no such thing as a single ‘employer interest’.
Different employers have different interests — they need different forms of training, within different sized budgets, at different skill levels.
The government has confused the admirable aim of ensuring that demand is driven by individual employers’ skills needs, with the belief that in order to do so requires collective employer dominance of the new institute.
But employers are only one of the many stakeholders who matter in apprenticeships.
Countries with successful apprenticeship models, such as Germany, have recognised that a successful and high quality skills policy is a collaborative effort of employers, educators and apprentices themselves.
That’s why I’m disappointed to see the new institute seemingly dominated not only by employer representatives, but by university-educated employer representatives with no direct experience of apprenticeships.
Going forward, I implore the new institute to find a forum for incorporating apprentice voices, and work with the National Society of Apprentices and trade unions to do so.
This might involve an advisory board to the institute, or a national survey of apprentices’ experiences.
There is too much uncertainty for apprentices that their investment will be worthwhile
The government’s approach has consistently overstated the investment that employers make in an apprenticeships, and underestimated the massive commitment that apprentices themselves are making.
Apprentices are taking on poverty wages and investing their time, effort and energy in training and work.
Despite the government’s continued reforms, there is too much uncertainty for apprentices that their investment will be worthwhile.
We are hearing too many stories of apprentices with poor training, poor work opportunities and poor future employment prospects.
Prospective apprentices are effectively rolling the dice when it comes to making a quality choice.
That’s why NUS is continuing to invest in the National Society of Apprentices, which is growing day by day and now represents 150,000 apprentices in 150 different employers and training providers.
Having succeeded in obtaining a substantial increase in the apprentice minimum wage and an entitlement to sick pay last year, the society is now campaigning for a fairer deal for apprentices in many more policy areas.
We would like to see apprentices entitled to discount travel, become eligible for Care to Learn bursaries and have a right to a similar council tax exemption as full-time students. In particular, we are focusing on our campaigns for apprentices in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in the run-up to the devolved government elections this May.
We also want the government to explore wage subsidies for young apprentices on the apprentice minimum wage, by using outstanding funds raised by the levy.
This would enable apprenticeships to be more accessible and appealing, without increasing the burden or risk on employers.
Crucially, we want to see real plans from the government about how it will ensure 3m new apprenticeships progress into 3m secure, well-paid, full-time jobs.
As in all aspects of skills and education policy, ultimately it will be the health and strength of the jobs market that will determine whether we are successful in fulfilling the promises of opportunity and security we give to students and apprentices.
Shakira Martin is vice president of the National Union of Students
The Sub-Committee on Education, Skills and the Economy has launched an inquiry that will look at the merits of government apprenticeship reforms. Neil Carmichael and Iain Wright explain what it will be focusing on and why they keen to collect views from people across the sector.
As a nation, we need to do more to equip our young people with the skills to compete in a modern economy.
Apprenticeships have an incredibly important part to play in achieving this goal and, as chairs of the Education and Business Committees, we are committed to playing a constructive role in helping Government to drive up the numbers of young people earning technical qualifications which are of good quality.
The Government has embarked on a number of reforms affecting apprenticeships.
But there remains considerable uncertainty about how the apprenticeship system is going to work in the future. This makes it an opportune time for the committee on Education, Skills, and the Economy, to examine these matters.
The Government is committed to a target of 3m apprentices by 2020. As part of our inquiry, we shall be examining what the Government is doing to support the delivery of this target.
There is a genuine risk that training schemes will be rebadged to ensure the 3m target is met
While we welcome the Government’s commitment to boost the numbers of apprenticeships, the apparent lack of consultation with industry in setting the 3m target is worrying.
Given that industry will largely be responsible for delivering on this target, the issue of industry engagement on, and rationale for, the 3m target will certainly be an area of interest for our inquiry.
Boosting the numbers of people going into apprenticeships is vital but we also need to create a system which delivers with the very best standards in technical qualifications.
In a recent report, Ofsted said some learners on low-level, low-quality programmes were unaware that they were even on an apprenticeship and asked if these apprenticeships were really worthy of the name.
There is a genuine risk that training schemes will be rebadged and that apprenticeships will be watered down to ensure the 3m target is met.
As part of this inquiry we will want to examine issues around the quality of, and minimum standards for, apprenticeships, and how these standards can be enforced.
The Government has said it will establish an Institute for Apprenticeships which will be a “new employer-led body to set apprenticeship standards and ensure quality”.
Skills Minister Nick Boles has been keen to stress that the new body will be very much at arm’s length from the Government, but precisely what role the institute will play is not yet clear.
Employers and providers will have concerns about the move away from frameworks and as a committee we shall be examining how the new body will operate and how it fits within the wider education and training landscape.
The Government’s proposed apprenticeship levy is another area in need of urgent scrutiny.
There is still a distinct lack of detail on how the levy is going to be implemented and we shall be asking questions of ministers and hearing from industry and stakeholders about their views on the levy.
For businesses, colleges and students to have little idea of how the apprenticeship system is going to work in the future is hardly an ideal model on which to both increase the numbers of apprenticeships and to ensure that we have good quality technical qualifications.
Apprenticeships can provide valuable technical qualifications and a wonderful and exciting introduction to the work-place.
However, evidence from our careers advice inquiry so far suggests apprenticeships are not being well promoted by schools.
Colleges, for their part, often provide an important interface between business and education.
While Nick Boles has said it is not Government policy to “somehow drive people into” apprenticeships, we consider it vitally important that greater efforts are made to provide information about apprenticeships and encourage people, especially young people, to pursue this route if it suits them best.
The FE sector has an important role to play in helping to deliver good-quality apprenticeships and we are keen to hear your views, ideally before the written evidence deadline on Friday, March 18.
Neil Carmichael is Conservative MP for Stroud, and Iain Wright is Labour MP for Hartlepool. They are both chairs of the Sub-Committee on Education, Skills and the Economy
