Ofsted recently published a thematic report on how FE is preparing young people with high needs for adult life.
It highlighted a worrying lack of progress with supporting them on to the right training courses, says Kathryn Rudd.

The question mark at the start of the title for the Ofsted thematic report — where it asks if the situation is ‘moving forward?’ — immediately raises alarm bells.

Based on the 2012 survey, called ‘Progression post 16 for learners with learning difficulties and disabilities’, which highlighted issues with transition arrangements, this new report clearly signals there’s still a postcode lottery for young people with disabilities in FE.

We applauded the Children and Families Act, and the values it enshrined around aspiration and choice. However, choice isn’t just around access to what’s available, it’s about knowing what is available.

The report recognises the provision of specialist, impartial careers guidance to learners with high needs was “generally weak”.

Young people and their families “frequently stated that they had received insufficient information about the full range of opportunities available to them,” it said.

National Star’s survey of more than 1,600 parents in 2015, further identified 30 per cent of parents said they had been actively discouraged or stopped from finding out about other options (than the one they were presented with).

A huge majority of parents — 87 per cent — had no idea how local authorities were making decisions about their child’s future.

While their peers without disabilities are encouraged to access a range of different institutions specialising in different subject and vocational areas through developments, such as university technical colleges and the area review agenda, people with disabilities often only have the option of a provider within easy access.

Yet although there is a real need for all provision to be high quality, we must also recognise some young people with disabilities may require a different resource, expertise, curriculum or peer group, which may not necessarily be available at the provider down the road.

There is a danger we will make skewed decisions

Or that they may wish to move away from home because they want to gain skills to become more independent.

Young people with disabilities are not one homogenous group who need one size fits all provision.

Therefore, it is imperative they have information about all their options and we don’t make decisions for them post-16.

It doesn’t matter if young people choose a school sixth form, training provider, a GFE or an independent specialist college — what matters is that a provider offers high quality provision which sets them up to achieve their goals post-college.

As Ofsted highlighted, in ‘Moving Forward?’, there is currently a “lack of reliable performance and destination data”. So we currently can’t tell whether a provider is effective or provides value for money.

Unfortunately this isn’t a new concept.

Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office in 2011, stated that “giving the correct support to young people with special needs could help them lead more independent lives and reduce longer-term costs to the public purse”.

Yet he warned a lack of understanding of the relationship between needs, costs and outcomes could lead to students not getting the right support, and risk compromising value for money.

There are many reasons why this hasn’t happened — terminology, different data sets requested from different providers, and that it’s far easier to measure inputs than outcomes, are just a few.

But without this knowledge, there is a danger we will make skewed decisions.

We only measure the number of students gaining qualifications, but don’t take into account if those qualifications are preparing them for adult life.

We only measure the short-term cost of a placement, without considering long-term outcomes to the learner and public purse.

It’s vital to ensure young people with disabilities and their families have access to information and guidance to make informed decisions for their future.

It’s also imperative for local authorities to have access to data which demonstrates provider effectiveness and long-term value for money.

We also need to provide those young people with impartial guidance and develop a way to measure those outcomes.

Otherwise, it’s shortchanging the young person and public purse.

Read more about Ofsted’s report: ‘Moving forward? How well the further education and skills sector is preparing young people with high needs for adult life’ here.

Kathryn Rudd is chair of the Association of National Specialist Colleges, and principal of National Star College

The government’s programme of post-16 area reviews has been likened to Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory on survival of the fittest. Stuart Rimmer develops on this theme, comparing providers to different types of bears.

With the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills’ publication of the amplified guidance for area reviews and the Secretary of State Sajid Javid creating ‘insolvency regimes’ for colleges in future difficulty, it raises the question of what kind of sector will we have in the future?

In the context of ‘larger, more resilient colleges’, I cast my mind back to the November Association of Colleges conference — where a small group of principals were sat having a coffee and discussing whether or not we should be applying Darwin’s survival of the fittest philosophy to FE.

Darwin wrote: “Natural selection almost inevitably causes much extinction of the less improved forms of life and induces what I have called divergence of character.”

Quickly our thoughts turned to animals, and in particular bears.

Why bears? Well, they exist in many forms and have had to adapt to a variety of environments, much like FE.

We pondered, if the FE sector was divided into groups of bears, what might it look like and what should happen next, how might their characters diverge?

And what breed of bear is likely to survive a faster changing environment?

So firstly let’s imagine the panda. A large, heavy animal, coupled with a limited and specific food source, means its ability to adapt is restricted.

If the FE sector was divided into groups of bears, what might it look like and what should happen next, how might their characters diverge?

So it’s slow to respond, slow to breed, a protected species, low in numbers, only found in captivity, but everyone loves them because they look nice and they are rare.

The reality is they are incapable of survival in the wild, they struggle to feed themselves or successfully procreate and rely on hand outs from kindly visitors. If there was a ‘grade 4’ bear that would be it.

So, further up the food chain we find the koala. A smaller, nimbler bear that thinks it’s clever but it too has a limited diet (eating one thing over and over), and is very territorial and prone to tantrums.

It doesn’t like to share or live collaboratively. It doesn’t move a lot and only survives in limited geographical areas. In times of danger it will retreat up its tree and wait (and hope) it will pass.

Next we consider the polar bear. A favourite of governments who are always keen to fundraise for them.

They are distinctive, big and seemingly tough and resilient.

They are an alpha predator. But being ‘specialist’ they are vulnerable to their environment changing.

Food is now becoming scarce on the melting ice plains of the artic. They lumber around looking big and tough, but alone — has this ‘elite’ bear had its day?

The ecosystem won’t support them for much longer, as they are forced to seek food over vast geographical areas and in environments to which they are less suited.

Finally, thoughts turned to the brown bear. The ‘outstanding’ bear of choice. They have a mixed diet, adapt to a variety of environments and climates, are family orientated, able to move quickly, and defend themselves against attack.

They’re cuddly on the outside and able to live alongside other species, but have a mean set of teeth for anyone who wants to take their dinner.

Of course it’s a struggle for all the bears in the long term as environments change.

Darwin never said the biggest and strongest would survive.

He said: “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but rather the one most adaptable to change.”

So, post area-based review, what bear would you aim to be, or maybe bears won’t survive at all?

Personally I am hoping they do, we should love and preserve our bears.

Carole Kitching reflects on her management team’s drive to improve its finances.

Lewisham Southwark College reported an operating deficit of £6.7m at the end of 2014/15, as identified [by FE Week in edition 168] from the published college accounts.

This figure has long been in the public domain as it was the key driver in the widely reported organisational review at the time.

While this review succeeded in reducing pay costs by a similar amount in the short term, recruitment shortfalls at the start of 2015-16 further reduced income and again started to drive up the pay to income ratio to above sector norms.

The college has continued to make interventions in-year to reduce cost again, while at the same time taking forward plans to grow income, the only really sustainable way to break this cycle.

What follows are some personal reflections on this journey.

The college has faced significant challenges over the past three or four years and there are great ongoing challenges in reversing the downward spiral the college has found itself in.

As is almost always the case, declining quality and declining finances combined to create a perfect storm.

My role, alongside the new permanent team is to reverse that decline.

Colleges have always coped with moving goalposts, but there are times when it feels the goalposts have been removed

At the centre of the strategy is restoring the college to the heart of its communities in Lewisham and in Southwark — rebuilding confidence with improvements in teaching and learning and relevance of curriculum and re-engaging with our students, employers, parents, community groups and, of course, our boroughs.

Two Ofsted monitoring visit reports in the past seven months have provided some external validation that we are making progress.

This is not an easy task, but a very rewarding one.

By earning the right to our improving reputation, we are building up student recruitment again, the lynchpin of any successful turnaround.

Pride, of staff in doing a great job and students in their achievements and in their college, are key ingredients.

The college recently won Training Provider of the Year 2016 and one of our apprentices Apprentice of the Year in the Creative and Cultural Skills Annual Awards and the boost to morale was humbling to witness.

Reversing the fortunes of a college such as Lewisham Southwark is not for the faint hearted.

The current climate is not supportive of even the most outstanding and financially robust colleges.

While it is absolutely right that there should be scrutiny and accountability of how public money is spent, the layers of intervention for colleges in difficulties are an industry in themselves.

It is a fine balance to take the right actions, make the right interventions, keep accelerating the pace of change and be able to report on this in detail and at length to different agencies.

There are no secrets about what makes for a successful and sustainable college, no holy grail to distract us.

A strong governing board, great teaching and training, a relevant curriculum, strong recruitment resulting in good class sizes, efficient and effective deployment of staff, decision making that is centred on student need and an organisation that works holistically, not in silos, is needed.

Colleges have always coped with moving goalposts, but there are times when it feels as though the goalposts have been removed altogether and perhaps even that scoring goals is no longer the sure-fire way to win the game.

Local area reviews are a chance to fix things and redefine the sector as something the government actually wants and needs, or our last chance saloon, depending on your viewpoint.

Radical change often requires radical solutions, challenging the orthodoxy of political intervention in order to secure the opportunity to transform the life chances of our students and communities.

If you are not prepared to stand up and speak out for the rights of your students you do not deserve the privilege of leading a college.

Carole Kitching is principal of Lewisham Southwark College

John Hyde looks ahead to how apprenticeships will be inspected after the levy is launched.

Introducing the Digital Apprenticeship Service (DAS) to levy-paying employers from 2017 and subsequently to every apprentice employer from 2019 onward, will substantially increase the number of training providers.

The new DAS requires employers to select a training provider on-line directly from the SFA’s approved list. No longer will training providers have a contract with SFA.

DAS also removes sub-contracting from lead providers.

Any organisation meeting the SFA’s quality requirements can enrol. An estimated 2,000 providers could register.

Ministers would die for satisfaction scores this high

Several employers paying the levy will also take the opportunity to become training providers themselves, joining those already delivering their own in-house apprenticeships.

Around 2,000 companies are expected to take this option, resulting in 4,000 potential employers, colleges and independent training providers for Ofsted to inspect.

But the SFA currently contracts with less than 1,000 ITPs and colleges for apprenticeships and there are a further 2,000-plus who sub-contract, but not all these sub-contractors will want or be able to get onto the ADS register

Improving quality was a main drivers for apprenticeship reforms.

The ‘quality improvement’ mantra is frequently trotted out by ministers, officials and those who should know better.

Yet the results of the annual employers and learners satisfaction survey for 2014-15 were published last week, showing an overall satisfaction rating of 85 per cent.

At HIT, we modestly scored 93 per cent. I’m sure employers and learners alike would not score their providers so highly if they were unsatisfied with the quality of their programme and provider.

Ministers would die for satisfaction scores this high. The latest Ipros Mori polling shows David Cameron at minus 25!

Ofsted faces a real challenge to ensure apprenticeships’ quality is maintained and indeed improved. Outside of Ofsted, few believe a single inspection framework encompassing child care, classroom teaching and work based learning is satisfactory.

With more apprenticeship providers to inspect and the arrival of a new chief inspector, this gives Ofsted and the government the opportunity to review the future of work-based-learning inspection.

A separate division to inspect apprenticeship provision could be established within Ofsted, staffed by inspectors with actual experience of the sector and current industry or commercial experience.

Many of us remember with affection ALI (the Adult Learning Inspectorate).

Not only were their inspections more thorough, they also provided a consultancy and improvement service missing from Ofsted.

Failing FE colleges have the FE commissioner to support them, whereas independent training providers automatically lose their contract following a poor inspection.

How will failing levy paying employer providers fare in the post levy world?

ALI benefited from a chief inspector, David Sherlock, who really understood the sector, and championed it, unlike the current Ofsted incumbent.

Under Sherlock, completion rates rose from a derisory 50 per cent to over 75 per cent.

Since ALI, Ofsted, grades and completion rates have remained roughly static.

Hopefully, the new chief inspector will not rubbish service sector apprenticeships, base his or her public utterings on empiric evidence and not personal prejudices, and finally be consistent in his or her views, not changing them according to the audience they are addressing.

Ofsted inspectors will have to understand the new standards, which unlike the frameworks they replace, have no continuity with components and end assessments criteria differing widely from standard to standard.

Continuous assessment throughout the apprenticeship programmes are replaced by end tests.

The absence of qualifications in many new standards results in the removal of the awarding organisations quality assurance. Ofsted will need to fill this gap.

The analogy has been made by Department for Business, Innovation and Skills officials that new standards replicate the driving test — so when the learner is ready, they then sit the test.

But we all know, we really learn to drive properly after we have passed the test.

Current apprenticeship frameworks ensure apprentice complete their programme skilled and competent.

Let’s hope the standards don’t leave us with learners who can just complete tests, but aren’t competent to do their job.

John Hyde is chairman of HIT Training

The SFA’s refusal to publish or share a list of over 400 level two and three qualifications, which for 2016/17 lose their 19-23 core entitlement funding, is hard to understand.

From my perspective as a former curriculum planner at a college, I have a great deal of sympathy for providers over this.

Yes, we are talking about a fairly technical issue.

But colleges and awarding bodies struggle every year to wade through all manner of guidance and data explaining new eligibility and performance criteria for qualifications.

The least the SFA could do is publish full details of what they have changed.

And the decision to consult on the changes over just 14 working days encompassing a half term college and school break was ill-considered.

I totally understand why NCFE and the Federation of Awarding Bodies complained about it being too rushed — so it’s no surprise that 428 qualifications did not receive any submissions.

When you add the subsequent refusal to list the qualifications stripped of their entitlement status to the equation, you could be forgiven for suspecting that the government hoped that no-one would notice the changes at all.

Nick Linford is editor of FE Week