Education secretary Nicky Morgan has confirmed she will press ahead with plans to appoint Amanda Spielman as chief inspector of Ofsted.

Ms Morgan announced her intentions in a scathing letter to education select committee chair Neil Carmichael, published this afternoon. It follows the committee recommending Ms Spielman is rejected for the role, saying she “lacked passion” and did not have relevant experience in children’s services.

But Ms Morgan reiterated that Ms Spielman was the best candidate, adding she was “surprised and disappointed” by the committee’s report.

She said members’ views on the desirable qualities and skills wanted from the next chief inspector were “different in very significant areas from the advertised person specification (which the committee received before the role was advertised)”.

Ms Morgan said the committee had “misunderstood the reality of the HMCI’s role” and said their report was “factually wrong” by suggesting Ofsted is “accountable for failures in child protection”.

“Amanda was completely right to say that this responsibility rests with ‘those who are actually directly responsible for the children day to day in social care’, whilst also recognising the enormous responsibility of inspecting child protection and other children’s services. This is an important error in the report.”

She said she was “concerned the committee appears to have been looking for a narrow and stereotypical representation of leadership, vision and motivation”, adding: “I am not seeking what one committee member described as a ‘crusader’ during the hearing”.

“That is what I am looking for in the next chief inspector: someone with a relentless determination to raise standards, but also a rigorous and clear-sighted leader for Ofsted, who will lead the organisation and its inspectors to form reliable, credible and well-evidenced judgements about the quality of education and care young people receive.”

She added: “I am sure that Amanda will generate fewer headlines than her predecessor, but I also know that she will not shy away from challenging Government, nor offering frank assessments of the performance of our educational institutions. I have absolutely no doubt that under her watch Ofsted will play a central – and highly effective – role in supporting and driving improvement in childcare, schools, children’s services and adult learning.”

The announcement follows a rally of support for Ms Spielman from education leaders including schools commissioner Sir David Carter and Ofsted national director of education Sean Harford.

FE Week’s sister paper FE Week also learned Nicky Morgan’s aides had launched a campaign last night to rally supporters of Spielman, urging key stakeholders to sign a letter showing their support.

The number of FE colleges could drop by a third once the post-16 area review process has completed, the FE Commissioner Sir David Collins has said.

Sir David’s “best bet” for the size of the sector was based on his estimate of up to 80 mergers, he told delegates at the Area Review Summit at FE Week’s Festival of Skills today.

The FE Commissioner, who has been leading the review process, also revealed that all the areas in wave one and many in wave two had reached the recommendation stage.

“In general terms, what’s emerging is certainly quite a number of mergers,” he said.

In terms of numbers, he said: “I would start somewhere in the regions of 50 mergers upwards, possibly 70 or 80, on the basis of what’s happening at the moment.”

When pressed later to put a figure on the size of the sector once the reviews had completed, he said: “We’re at 243 colleges now. My best bet is that we’ll come down to 170.”

The government first unveiled plans for the area reviews in July 2015, with the first areas announced in September.

Sir David said that ten reviews – all of those in wave one and a number of those in wave two – had so far been “completely signed off” by the areas involved.

He added: “We’re not behind, and we’ll complete very happily by March 2017”.

Wave one had taken “a bit longer than we would have hoped” in part because it had included “the most complicated cases – the ones where it was clear there was going to be a bit of an issue”.

The FE Commissioner reported on the outcomes from “half a dozen or so” of the reviews that have so far completed, including Birmingham and Solihull, Tees Valley, and Sussex.

These were intended to “give reassurance that we’re talking about locally driven not top-down demanded” outcomes, Sir David said.

To illustrate this he gave a number of examples of outcomes that were different from what he would have liked to see – such as in Tees Valley.

He said he would have liked all four colleges involved to have come together “for a Tees Valley total solution” rather than the two separate mergers involving two colleges each that were proposed.

“That’s a really good example of the fact that the government or the FE Commissioner is not pushing a particular solution,” he said.

“What we’re trying to get is a picture that actually works and fits.”

Sir David confirmed that the long-delayed Manchester review had definitely completed, although its recommendations were not included in his presentation.

As previously reported by FE Week, the Manchester review had been subject to deep tensions between the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and the colleges involved, with the Skills Minister Nick Boles recently echoing calls from the review chair, Theresa Grant, for the colleges to be more ambitious.

The FE Commissioner acknowledged the delay, and said that it was because combined authority was “very ambitious” and “they saw this as a real opportunity to make sure that the skills coming out of the colleges were linked to the Manchester priorities”.

But he added: “Clearly the combined authority had to adjust a little bit to what was and wasn’t on the table.”

The solutions that had finally emerged from the review “are very good solutions”, Sir David said, “although longer term there may be more that’s happening”.

A successor group to the defunct Network for Black and Asian Professionals (NBAP) will be launched tomorrow at the FE Week Festival of Skills.

The new organisation will be called The BAME Principals Group.

It will comprise serving principals and chief executives of FE institutions and chaired by Jat Sharma, who is an Association of Colleges board member and principal of Walsall College.

Leading roles will also be played by Andy Forbes and Anthony Bravo, principals of the College of Haringey, Enfield and North East London and Basingstoke College of Technology.

They intend to fill the gap left by NBAP— which Rajinder Mann, who has helped facilitate the new organisation’s launch, ran until it was forced to fold late last year.

It will be launched tomorrow, on what will be the opening day of the Festival of Skills at Capel Manor College, North London.

Ms Mann (pictured above) told FE Week ahead of this: “I am pleased to see that the legacy of the NBAP will be carried forward.”

She added: “The importance of the race equality agenda has become highly relevant in the light of Brexit and we need a positive focus bringing together all the communities we serve in FE.”

Wolverhampton-based NBAP was set up in 1998 to address under-representation of black staff in FE, particularly in teaching, management and senior positions.

But FE Week exclusively revealed in November that it was closing “due to lack of funding”, as a result of “the current political environment and the austerity cuts in the public sector”.

In a letter to members at the time, Ms Mann wrote: “It is with deep sadness and regret that I am writing to inform you that the NBAP board has reluctantly resolved to close.”

“Despite numerous attempts to mitigate closure by cutting our staff and costs to the bone we can no longer sustain the organisation.”

The closure of the network came just six months after Ms Mann urged college leaders to make the promotion of black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) principals a “priority”, as their numbers had fallen nearly 30 per cent in three years.

The Festival of Skills will be a two day CPD event for professionals working in the FE and skills sector.

It will bring together the best of FE’s forward thinking advocates, policy makers and educators, providing a space for sharing new ideas and debating the key topics impacting on the sector.

Former education secretary Michael Gove has been eliminated from the Conservative leadership race today.

Mr Gove, backed by skills minister Nick Boles who also ran his leadership campaign, has been knocked out of the contest to become the next Tory leader after persuading just 46 MPs to support his bid.

That leaves home secretary Theresa May, who secured 199 votes, and Andrea Leadsom, who won 84, to battle for the top job.

It is now down to Conservative party members to vote for who they want to become the next leader.

Mr Gove’s bid was supported by Mr Boles, as well as education secretary Nicky Morgan and schools minister Nick Gibb.

Mr Gibb tweeted that he is “very sorry” Mr Gove will not be the next prime minister, adding: “Having worked for him I know he would have been a great and reforming PM.”

He has now backed Ms May and praised her “judgment, experience and character to unite the party and give leadership to our country”.

Ms Morgan also later tweeted she is “disappointed” with the result, but said Ms May is now the “one clear choice to be the country’s PM”.

Ms May is a known supporter of grammar schools and her leadership campaign is being headed by Nick Timothy, who has taken an unpaid sabbatical from his role as director of New Schools Network.

Ms Leadsom, the south Northamptonshire MP, is a former city minister and banker, who campaigned for the UK to leave the EU.

An influential committee of MPs has rejected the government’s proposal of Amanda Spielman to become the next chief inspector of Ofsted.

Ms Spielman, who is chair of Ofqual, was put forward for the role last month by Education Secretary Nicky Morgan, who named her as the government’s preferred candidate to succeed Sir Michael Wilshaw.

But following a pre-appointment hearing on June 29, a House of Commons Education Committee report raised “significant concerns”, criticising Ms Spielman’s lack of “passion for the role” and the fact she has not worked as a teacher before, spending much of her career in corporate finance.

It provoked a firm defence of her suitability by Ms Morgan, but she declined to say for certain whether or not she would now press ahead with the appointment.

Chair of the Education Committee Neil Carmichael said: “The government’s preferred candidate has a broad range of experience, but failed to demonstrate to us the vision and passion we would expect.”

He went on to say although Ms Spielman had good experience of secondary schools, her understanding of early years, primary education, FE, and children’s services seemed lacking.

He added: “Ms Spielman’s responses on child protection were particularly troubling and did not inspire confidence that she grasped the importance of Ofsted’s inspections in preventing children being held at risk through service failure.”

Education Secretary Nicky Morgan refuted all of this.

She said: “Ms Spielman has a proven track record as a leader and huge experience in education.

“I chose her because I believe she will be a highly effective leader and where necessary challenge schools, local authorities and government where education and social care services are not meeting standards our children deserve.”

But she added: “I will now consider their report and respond in due course.”

A DfE spokesperson added: “Her understanding of the role, vision, leadership abilities and commitment to raising standards have been tested at each stage of a very rigorous public appointments process run by an independently chaired panel and overseen by the Cabinet Office and Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments”.

Martin Doel, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said: “While there may have been concerns that she has never been a teacher, we have had a series of chief inspectors at Ofsted who had little or no experience of FE.

“In this context, Ms Spielman’s lack of detailed knowledge did not seem problematic.”

Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP), added: “While we respect the committee’s concerns, our view is that the government should go ahead with Ms Spielman’s appointment because we believe that she has done a very good job at Ofqual.

“As for the committee’s desire for passion, some of the previous chief inspectors have had this in abundance and if misdirected, it’s not always a good thing.”

He was critical of current chief inspector Sir Michael Wilsaw for allowing “personal prejudice” to rule his views on FE, after he told MPs in March that he believed 16- to 19-year-olds should be taught in schools rather than colleges, and the FE sector was “in a mess”.

Ms Spielman’s case is not the first example of a select committee choosing not to support the government’s preferred candidate for a particular post.

In 2009, Maggie Atkinson, the then director of children’s services at Gateshead Council, was put forward as the preferred candidate for Children’s Commissioner and appointed by Ed Balls, despite a negative report from the Children, Families and Schools Committee.

In 2011, the Justice Select Committee declined to endorse the appointment of Diana Fulbrook as HM Chief Inspector of Probation. This led to Liz Calderbank being appointed on a temporary basis instead.

And in 2012 the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee declined to endorse the appointment of Les Ebdon, the preferred candidate, as director of the Office for Fair Access. However, Secretary of State, Vince Cable, decided to proceed anyway.

But in 2013, the Health Select Committee did not support the proposal of Dominic Dodd for chair of monitor, leading to Mr Dodd withdrawing his name from the running.

Ofsted was unable to comment ahead of publication.

The government has today launched a consultation on insolvency arrangements for general FE and sixth form colleges — which includes plans for a special administration regime (SAR) that would help protect the interests of learners.

The document containing nine questions geared at FE and sixth form colleges, their staff and students — as well as college creditors — has just been published by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) online.

It comes just a few days after FE Week exclusively revealed that the government is looking at allowing struggling colleges to be sold-off to the private sector, as revealed through a leaked government report looking ahead to how providers will operate after all post-16 area reviews have completed.

 

A key proposal set out in the consultation document is for the launch of the SAR, which would “be triggered where a college becomes insolvent and the Secretary of State deems it appropriate to apply for a SAR to protect learner provision”.

However, it added, a college or its creditors could also lodge a court petition for another “type of insolvency order under the Insolvency Act 1986”.

The idea of the SAR, as opposed to other possible processes for administration, would be to ensure “the interests of learners are given priority and the administrator is able to act accordingly”.

There would be no time limit to SAR regimes, it added.

While ordinary administrations typically take around 12 months, the document said “SARs may need longer due to the fact that they relate to continuity of public services and so have a special objective to be fulfilled. They can also be extended if required.”

The document stressed the overriding aim of the new insolvency regime would be to deliver “options for the rehabilitation of a college where possible and if not, to promote an orderly winding up with protections for learners and creditors”.

It will require new government legislation to come into force.

The report added the proposed regime would also include, where appropriate, “compulsory liquidation”.

Skills Minister Nick Boles said in the introduction: “Currently, the legal regime for colleges does not make clear how insolvent institutions should be dealt with.

“This anomaly cannot continue indefinitely. After the [post-16] area reviews, colleges will need a legal framework within which to manage their finances independently and flexibly, with opportunities to restructure and protections for learners.

“Any framework will need to make provision for corporations to exit the market when appropriate and without undue detriment to learners, creditors and taxpayers.”

Julian Gravatt, Assistant Chief Executive of the Association of Colleges (AoC), said: “It will be helpful to have more legal certainty in case of any further education and sixth form colleges becoming insolvent.

“The Special Administration Regime proposed will help to protect college students by safeguarding the continuity of services run by organisations that are independent of the Government.

“These plans won’t be realised for at least two years and reassurances will need to be sought through the consultation over the extent of protection for students and other potential technical issues.”

BIS first revealed that the government was planning to introduce an insolvency regime for colleges through guidance published in March.

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

The consultation launch comes a week after FE Week reported on how a leaked government document, seen by the paper, had indicated that they
could be sold off to the private sector.

The draft report, 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.”

The consultation and possibility of colleges being sold off will be discussed tomorrow at FE Week area review summit, an event in partnership with BIS held at the Festival of Skills.

 

Apprenticeships will have a minimum price tag attached to them for the first time after the apprenticeship levy is introduced, FE Week can reveal.

A Department for Business, Innovation and Skills official told delegates at a Capita conference on apprenticeships and traineeships, in Manchester, that the current funding caps would be replaced with new upper and lower limits from next April.

The news has been welcomed by Association of Employment and Learning Providers chief executive Mark Dawe, who had previously called for a price “floor” and warned of a race to the bottom price war without one.

Slides from the presentation by Helen Gorner, head of apprenticeship policy at BIS, referred to “funding bands”, which “set the ranges in which government expects the cost of training and assessment for apprenticeship to fall”.

The bands will “limit the amount of levy funds an employer can spend on training for an individual apprentice” and “vary according to the level and type of apprenticeship”.

Ms Gorner gave an example of a butcher apprenticeship standard, in band three, which would have an upper limit of £6,000 and a lower limit of £3,000.

Mr Dawe told FE Week that the introduction of a “funding range with a top and a bottom” was a “very welcome development”.

He said: “Without a floor under the cap, there would be a danger of cases arising of downward bidding between providers to try and win new business.”

And he warned that unchecked negotiation between employers and providers “could impact adversely on the quality of delivery”.

Current Trailblazer funding arrangements refer to maximum contributions – or caps – but do not include minimum costs.

Each apprenticeship standard currently has a funding cap which represents the maximum cost for delivering the standard.

There are five such caps – rising to six in 2016/17 – which range from £3,000 and £27,000.

Each cap includes a core government contribution as well as an employer contribution.

Under current funding rules, the butcher apprenticeship standard referred to by Ms Gorner attracted a maximum government contribution of £6,000, with an expected employer contribution of £3,000 – but no minimum cost is given.

Mr Dawe had previously called for the introduction of a lower price limit for apprenticeship standards during an evidence session for a parliamentary inquiry in apprenticeships on June 8.

He told MPs on the Education, Skills and the Economy sub-committee that AELP had concerns around the impact on quality if no such limit was introduced.

He warned of “unscrupulous providers” who would offer deals such as “two for one”.

Mr Dawe said AELP would prefer set rates, “so you just agree what you’re going to do for a set rate” but “if there’s going to be a cap then we think there should be a base, a floor as well”.

Further detail on the provisional funding bands for each apprenticeship was due to have been published by BIS in June.

But Skills Minister Nick Boles told delegates at last month’s AELP conference that it would be a “little delayed” following the outcome of the EU referendum vote on June 23.

He added: “We still expect to get that information out well before the summer break.”

Students protested today outside Burton and South Derbyshire College over plans to axe their courses.

The college confirmed to FE Week that all performing arts, painting and decorating, animal care, brickwork (excluding apprenticeships), and entry level three motor vehicle courses for 2016/17 could be scrapped next academic year, under plans now being consulted on.

The college blamed this on falling student numbers and resulting Education Funding Agency (EFA) funding cuts.

The move sparked a large protest by students — many of whom were reportedly expecting to continue in the second year of performing arts courses after the summer holidays.

A Burton and South Derbyshire spokesperson said: “The College’s EFA allocation has reduced as our recruitment of young people is lower than in previous years.

“Our catchment area has seen a decline in the 16-18 demographic and this is what has driven the reduction.

“In addition, the college has been successful in growing 16-18 apprenticeship numbers which have also had an impact.”

She added that to mitigate the loss of funding, “we have entered into consultation with a small number of curriculum areas that we are proposing will not run next academic year.

“We are working closely with other providers who can offer courses that are proposed not to run and who are happy to transfer learners so that their learning to date is not affected.”

The college, which Ofsted rated grade three-overall in April, down from ‘good’ in 2012, was allocated £9.98m by the agency for 2015/16.

Allocations for next academic year won’t be published by the Department for Education until October.

And the college spokesperson was unable to say what the figure would be for Burton and South Derbyshire in 2016/17 ahead of publication.

Drama student Abbie Wilson, 17, told the Burton Mail that the consultation had come “out of the blue”.

She said: “I am devastated as we have just been told our target grade and all got onto the course for our second year.

“When I was told, I just cried – we all have the hope of going to drama school but that might not happen now.”

When asked about the funding cut, a Department for Education spokesperson told FE Week the “main reason” for Burton and South Derbyshire’s funding cut was a drop in student numbers.

He said the college had been “funded for 2,165 students in 2015/16 against 1,839 in 2016/17”, adding “this isn’t a cut we have made, rather it is a reflection of their recruitment pattern changing between academic years.”

Pic caption: Protesting students (taken by the Burton Mail)