Joint strike action will be taken by members of the University and College Union (UCU) and Unison working in FE colleges on February 24 in response to an ongoing row over pay.

The industrial action is set to follow an earlier rejection of a pay freeze for 2015/16, proposed by national employers the Association of Colleges (AoC).

It comes after Unison announced on Saturday (January 29) that almost two-thirds (65.7 per cent) of its members who took part in a ballot last month had voted in favour of strike action, with a further 79.8 per cent said they supported action short of a strike.

The UCU previously held strike action over the same issue in November, after three-quarters (74 per cent) of members backed strike action in a ballot.

Michael MacNeil (pictured above), UCU head of bargaining, said: “Staff in FE colleges are understandably sick of the employers’ refusal to deal with the real-terms pay cuts that blight the sector.

“Our members demonstrated in November that they are prepared to take action on this issue and are delighted that colleagues from Unison will be joining them on the picket lines.”

Jon Richards, Unison head of education, said: “After years of flatlining wages across much of the economy are slowly picking up, but not for those in FE.

“Faced with the prospect of yet another year with no pay rise, staff have understandably decided that enough is enough, and have taken the difficult decision to take action later this month.

“College workers will be hoping that the announcement of strike action is enough to get the Association of Colleges back around the table and in meaningful negotiations.’

An AoC spokesperson said: “The pay recommendation made by the AoC reflects the feedback we have had from colleges about the stringent financial circumstances in the sector in 2015/16.

“Strikes are very disruptive for colleges and more importantly for students. We would encourage UCU and Unison to consider how we might better work together to represent our respective members collectively and position the FE sector to remunerate more effectively in the longer term.

“There is a willingness from the employers’ side to continue to engage with our union colleagues to protect the prospects of further education, its skilled workforce and the students it serves.”

The spokesperson added: “The employers ‎note the support for strike action however we are not in a position to recommend general uplifts on pay where specific financial challenges are faced by our members. The employers have outlined clearly that colleges are facing increases to pension and national insurance contributions during 2015/16 and this coupled with reductions in funding mean that a recommendation to members to increase costs is not sustainable.”

Almost 90 per cent of black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) FE staff members have ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ faced barriers when seeking promotion, a new survey by the University and College Union (UCU) has found.

A total of 185 BAME members of the union who work in the sector responded to the survey between March 31 and May 31 last year.

Some 88 per cent of them said they had faced barriers to promotion, either ‘sometimes’ or ‘often’.

And 68 per cent said they were ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ subject to bullying and harassment from their managers.

Two-thirds also said they had been bullied and harassed by colleagues.

Anthony Bravo, principal of Basingstoke College of Technology, has previously shared with FE Week some of the challenges he faced in progressing with his career.

And commenting on the UCU survey, he said: “I am disappointed to hear that this still seems to have been the experience for so many colleagues.

“I believe education does best when it pulls skills and talent – at all levels – from diverse sources.

“I would encourage all colleagues with the skills and enthusiasm to lead, regardless of their background, to continue pushing for excellence in education.”

Just over half of the BAME respondents from the sector also said they had not been fully informed of the process of applying for promotion, and six out of 10 did not feel they had been supported by senior colleagues in seeking progression.

In England’s FE colleges in 2013/14, 10 per cent of teaching staff identified themselves as non-white, while for senior managers the figure was half this amount.

The report, which also explored the same issues in higher education, concluded with suggested ways to tackle problems in the workplace.

Respondents rated effective sanctions against perpetrators as the most effective measure for challenging racism.

The UCU has called on colleges and universities to take a more proactive approach to tackling discrimination and racism in the workplace.

The union’s general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: “All institutions must be prepared to radically examine their structures, policies and procedures and make changes.”

A spokesperson for the Association of Colleges said: “Colleges take allegations of bullying and harassment very seriously and would seek to redress issues which might undermine effective working relationships between staff.”

Tough new rules requiring a 40 per cent threshold for strike action in key public services will not apply to support staff working in colleges, FE Week can reveal.

The government’s Trade Union Bill is set to introduce new rules meaning that teaching and leadership of “pupils aged five to 16 in state-funded schools” will be subject to a 40 per cent support threshold for strike action.

However, University and College Union (UCU) head of bargaining Michael MacNeil (pictured right) complained to FE Week last month that the Department for Education had failed to explain how the rules will affect FE colleges that teach young people aged 16 and under.

Key questions that remained unanswered following an FE Week report on January 25 were whether support staff and people who teach both people aged above and below 16 would be subject to the rules.

A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Innovations and Skills (BIS) has now confirmed to FE Week that: “The skeleton regulations only specify ‘teachers and persons appointed to fulfil the role of a head teacher’, so the threshold will not apply to support staff in the education sector.”

She added: “The 40 per cent threshold will apply to teachers in FE colleges if the majority of union members involved in the industrial dispute normally spend at least part of their time delivering an ‘important public service’ – teaching people under the age of 17.”

It comes after Dr Mary Bousted (pictured left), general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), called the policy “ill-thought through”.

She said: “The government has a poor understanding of how schools and colleges work.

“This will lead to a greater likelihood of legal challenges from employers which will prolong disputes, even when, like the wider public, union members want a resolution.”

The trade union bill, which was introduced by the Business Secretary Sajid Javid, is currently at committee stage in the House of Lords.

The government confirmed that FE colleges recruiting learners from the age of 14 would be covered by the new strike rules in a ballot threshold consultation response, published in January. At present, strike action can be called if a simple majority is in favour.

It comes as trade union Unison announced on Saturday (January 29) that almost two-thirds (65.7 per cent) of its members who took part in a ballot last month had voted in favour of strike action, in response to an ongoing row over pay.

A further 79.8 per cent said they supported action short of a strike.

The industrial action ballot followed an earlier rejection of a pay freeze for 2015/16, proposed by national employers the Association of Colleges. It covered members in colleges that had not reached a local agreement.

Unison’s FE and sixth form committee will meet on Wednesday, to consider the result and the next steps in the campaign for a pay rise.

A UCU spokesperson also confirmed to FE Week today that the two unions will be speaking on the issue and are likely to announce next steps later this week.

The UCU previously held a strike over the same issue on November 10.

Troubled Lewisham Southwark College is continuing to improve in all areas according to its latest monitoring visit report from Ofsted.

The college, previously named Lesoco, became the first FE and skills provider to be branded inadequate by Ofsted twice in a row last year.

In a report on an inspection last February, the college was criticised over the pace of improvement and a failure to raise standards after it was first given a grade four rating in January 2014 following a visit by inspectors in November 2013.

An initial Ofsted monitoring visit report published last May set out priorities for improvement, for example to the college’s curriculum planning, staff management, teaching and finances.

A second monitoring visit report published in August recognised “reasonable improvement for learners” in all areas.

Its latest monitoring report out today again recognised “reasonable improvement” for learners in all areas.

Principal Carole Kitching (pictured right) said: “I am delighted that Ofsted have recognised the ongoing positive changes taking place at the college.

“A lot of hard work has happened to ensure that the college is put back on to the path to success.

“We’re confident we can continue to build on these positive steps to the benefit of all our communities.”

The visit, which took place last month, noted improvement in governance, teaching and learning, sharing good practice in English and maths provision, learners’ attendance and punctuality and students’ achievements.

Today’s report said: “Teachers are learning to use technology innovatively to bring their subject to life and to provide learning in a way which suits their learners.”

It said the board of governors is now “established with the vast majority of the current board having been appointed in the last 18 months.

“The board contains a very good range of experiences and skills, and the governors are enthusiastic and keen to play an active role in supporting the college to improve.”

For maths and English provision, the report said the new team is “making progress towards improving the quality of teaching, learning and assessment for students, and working well towards remedying the areas for improvement identified at the previous inspection.”

It added that managers have ensured sessions are “timetabled as the core of all study programmes, with other classes being planned around these important subjects”.

Ofsted said for attendance and punctuality, staff have “rationalised the marking of registers so that students can now only be marked as present or absent. This has allowed senior managers to evaluate attendance fairly across all curriculum areas”.

The report said the “increased focus on students’ progress has led to improved achievements. Students are now achieving in line with other general further education colleges”.

But it warned that there are “still pockets of poor performance as yet to be resolved, a small minority of students continue to do poorly despite increased monitoring and better support”.

The inadequate Oftsed report last February for the general FE college, which had around 18,000 learners and Skills Funding Agency (SFA) allocation of almost £24m at the time, came after four Ofsted monitoring inspections since the initial inadequate rating.

A second visit last July followed the departure of former principal Maxine Room and the appointment of ex-Warwickshire College principal and former 157 Group chair Ioan Morgan to the position of interim principal.

An FE Week story in May also revealed that FE Commissioner Dr David Collins was overseeing a structure and appraisal review of the college, at the same time as nearby Greenwich Community College.

Apprenticeship targets for the public sector and making the misuse of the term apprenticeship an offence will be debated in the House of Commons this morning as the Enterprise Bill gets its second reading.

Both measures are included in part four of the bill, which is due to be introduced by Business Secretary Sajid Javid after 11.30 this morning.

“The Secretary of State may by regulations set apprenticeship targets for prescribed public bodies,” the proposed bill says.

It continues: “The Secretary of State may require a public body to provide any information that the Secretary of State needs for the purpose of exercising functions under this section.”

The information public bodies will need to provide, the bill goes on to say, includes the number of apprentices as a proportion of a public body’s overall workforce.

No detail is given in the bill of what the apprenticeship target will be, nor exactly which public bodies it will apply to.

But in its English Apprenticeships: Our 2020 Vision report, published in December, the government said that the target would be set at 2.3 per cent.

Last month, the government launched a consultation on the scope of the target. As revealed by FE Week, the target will not apply to colleges as they are not classified as public bodies.

The bill also includes measures to ensure that “only statutory apprenticeships to be described as apprenticeships”.

“A person (“P”) providing or offering any course or training that is, or is to be, undertaken (wholly or partly) in England commits an offence if— (a)in the course of business P describes the course or training as an apprenticeship, and (b)the course or training is not a statutory apprenticeship,” it says.

As previously reported by FE Week, employers delivering ‘in-house’ apprenticeships will not be affected by the bill.

The bill proposes that the offence, which is punishable with a fine, will be enforced by local authorities’ trading standards.

No date has yet been set for when this bill is likely to made into law.

Watch the debate live on the parliament website.

The leaders of all 11 colleges in the New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) area have joined forces to be the “driving force and the engine” behind economic growth.

The New Anglia Colleges Group, which was launched this month but has been informally meeting since February 2014, also published a ‘manifesto’ which lays out their collective view on how to improve the quality of education across the area.

The document includes discussions on the need for secure funding which matches student need, for support of “proper” careers education in schools, and access for students to grants and loans through new education accounts.

It also calls for affordable and accessible student transport, business centred English and maths qualifications, and public consultation on new school proposals.

Dr Nikos Savvas, chairman of the New Anglia Colleges’ Group and principal of West Suffolk College, said the group are “proud to be the driving force and the engine behind the improving economic growth in the region.

“Our vision is important. It sets out the needs and priorities of the sector. We are working together as we believe passionately in the ethos of ‘education without borders’ for the benefit of this region,” he added.

“We will be working as one to support the New Anglia LEP, so that together we are committed to raising educational standards and aspirations and a stronger regional economy.”

The member colleges are: City College Norwich; The College of West Anglia; East Norfolk Sixth Form College; Easton and Otley College; Great Yarmouth College; Lowestoft College; Lowestoft Sixth Form College; Paston Sixth Form College; Suffolk New College; Suffolk One and West Suffolk College.

Mark Pendlington, chairman of New Anglia LEP, who has written the foreword to the manifesto said: “This is a really exciting vision and an important moment for everyone working in or studying at our local colleges, or who plans to become as student in the future.

“This is our colleges working collaboratively and at their best right across Suffolk and Norfolk. Driving higher skills and delivering a skilled and inspired future workforce for businesses in the East is key to us all benefiting from the competitive international economy we are building here.

“This area is the natural home for future business leaders and entrepreneurs, and for them to see Suffolk and Norfolk as one of the best areas in the world to live and work.”

The manifesto launch comes ahead of the Government’s area review for Norfolk and Suffolk , which is planned to start in November 2016.

Visit www.newangliacolleges.co.uk to find out more about the group’s vision.

Pic: Back row from left: Kevin Grieve, principal of Paston Sixth Form College, Corienne Peasgood, principal of City College Norwich, David Henley, principal of Easton and Otley College, Dr Catherine Richards, principal of East Norfolk Sixth Form College

Front row from left: Alan Whittaker, principal of Suffolk One, Viv Gillespie, principal of Suffolk New College, Dr Nikos Savvas, principal of West Suffolk College, Jo Pretty, principal of Lowestoft College

The Government’s much-lauded “Productivity Plan” has been criticised by a committee of cross-party MPs today – with concerns raised over the three million apprenticeship target and new levy.

The Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) committee in a report published this morning has claimed the government’s plan – heralded as a “blueprint for creating a more prosperous nation” – lacked clear, measurable objectives.

MPs took aim at the government’s “ambitious” target of three million apprenticeships by 2020, saying there was a lack of consultation with industry on the policy.

The report said this raises concerns the decision was made “with no consideration for what type of training businesses actually require”.

The government’s apprenticeship levy was also criticised, with MPs calling out the Chancellor George Osborne for not providing enough detail about how it will protect sectors that do not use apprentices.

The Productivity Plan is a vague collection of existing policies

Iain Wright MP, chair of the BIS Committee, said “productivity is the pressing economic challenge of this Parliament”.

But he added: “As a committee we welcome the Government’s focus on tackling this crucial issue for the UK economy. However, rather than being a clear and distinctive roadmap as to how Britain will close our productivity gap, the Productivity Plan is a vague collection of existing policies.”

He said while analysis in the government’s plan is good, “milestones for implementing improvements are virtually non-existent.”

“If the Productivity Plan is going to avoid collecting dust on Whitehall bookshelves and having a legacy of being seen as worthy but useless, then the Government needs to back it up by setting out how these policies are going to be implemented and how their success will be measured.”

The committee has made a number of recommendations, including calling on the government to set out its rationale and evidence base for the three million target.

MPs also want the government to consult with industry to ensure the apprenticeship levy allows the sector to invest in skills through different qualifications and training.

Harvey Young, chairman of the National Consortium of Colleges and Providers (NCCP), said this report shows it is time for the government to turn “rhetoric into practice”.

But he added: “The FE sector and employer trade bodies, with government support, need to do more to promote the positive outcomes that can arise from effective basic skills training in the workplace to small and large businesses alike.”

A spokesperson for BIS said while successive governments have struggled to keep productivity on track, “we are now seeing a return to productivity growth”.

The spokesperson added: “The reforms set out in our productivity plan are delivering a step change that will secure long term investment in people, capital and ideas.

“As the select committee notes, boosting productivity is not as quick and simple as pulling a lever.

“That is why we have taken steps to protect the £6 billion science budget and innovation, maintained funding for further education and are driving forward our plan to deliver three million high quality apprenticeships, putting businesses in the driving seat supported by the new apprenticeship levy.”

The department will consider the recommendations before producing a formal response “in due course”.

FE Week approached the Treasury for comment, but was told the department had nothing to add to the BIS response.

Read our exclusive Q & A with committee chair Iain Wright MP here.

 

THE REPORT’S RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

–   We recommend that the BIS department works across the Government to enhance the employability skills that are acquired by school pupils, college and university students by looking to give work experience greater prominence in schools as part of a proper policy on information, advice and guidance.

 

–   We recommend that the Government, in its response to this report, sets out the rationale—and publishes the evidence base—for it setting a target of three million apprentice starts when that may run against what businesses actually require.

 

–   There could be a policy trade-off between the Government achieving the three million apprenticeships target and the maintenance of apprenticeship quality. We believe that the Government is right to resist this temptation and will continue to keep a close eye on this part of skills policy.

 

–  We recommend that the Government works with businesses and individual sectors to make a preliminary assessment of how the three million apprenticeships will be broken down by level and publishes the result of this work.

 

–   We recommend that the Government consults with industry to ensure that the apprenticeship levy is implemented in such a way as to allow sectors to invest in skills through different qualifications and training methods applicable to their specific needs.

 

–    We recommend that the Government does more to balance the perception of the benefits of college and vocational education against those of higher education, and should do more to promote both as attractive career paths and as good drivers of productivity.

The Business, Innovation and Skills committee released the findings of its investigation into the government’s productivity plan today.

Senior reporter Alix Robertson put the big questions to committee chair Iain Wright MP in an exclusive interview.

 

Q. Do you feel Nick Boles is doing enough at present to reassure providers and employers about apprenticeship reforms?

A. Seven months after the plan when the apprenticeship levy is mentioned, businesses, colleges and students have no idea how the apprenticeship system is going to work in the future … there’s an awful lot of questions there.

He is looking at this and saying bear with us. Throughout the productivity plan there is no real attention given to implementation.

I want the government to succeed in making sure there are 3 million more apprentices. But in terms of what is the means of us actually getting there, and tell us in details so people can plan, then it’s very, very little.

 

Q. Do you think these reforms are threatening the quality of provision?

A. There’s a big risk in order to say at end of parliament we have reached the target the government might want to rebadge training schemes and water down what apprenticeships are. That’s a concern.

In the government’s favour, the enterprise bill defines what an apprentice is. But we have to make sure the government doesn’t quietly abandon those in hitting those targets.

 

Q. What would help to drive an increase in higher apprenticeships?

A. I don’t think anyone is suggesting we do some soviet-style five-year plan. What we found businesses telling us is that this should be driven by business and their needs.

We found a worrying lack of real consultation with businesses, particularly with regards to apprenticeships.

There is a fog of uncertainty. Given it should be businesses in driving seat, they don’t know how the levy and whole system will work. I don’t know how they are going to achieve it given the uncertainty.

 

Q. Should target setting for apprenticeships be completed in collaboration with employers, with staggered targets for different sized employers?

A. The short answer is yes. We applaud what the government is going, by ensuring there is a target that should focus minds. But where did this 3 million target come from?

It does look – and we make a recommendation that the government had to tell us what their rationale is – it was a finger in the air job.

It’s more than 2 million, less stretching than 4 million, why don’t we call it 3 million. And there was no consultation with business on what business and sectoral needs where whatsoever.

 

Q. Are we running out of time here for employers to be able to prepare and make necessary changes to be in control of this situation?

A. There isn’t long. Time is running out. For this to be up and running [the levy] by April 2017 seems an astonishingly short time period, given the degree of uncertainty we’ve got at the moment.

I do worry that seven months on from when the Productivity Plan was published were still no further forward really in terms of how the levy will be implemented. There’s too much uncertainty for everyone involved.

It is running ominously late for all these details at it does demonstrate a worrying lack of consultation with the real interested parties.

 

Q. What action would you like to see from ministers in getting more involved in the delivery of the productivity plan?

A. Everybody has an interest in raising productivity. In general, the productivity plan is quite a worthy document … where we do have a problem is that it lacks focus, there’s an element of it being just a collection of government policies, collated in a very useful way in one document.

But nothing big, nothing substantial that demonstrates that there is going to be a step change in the way that we address our productivity problem, and there’s no implementation.

It’s worthy, but it runs the risk of being useless and just sitting on the shelf.

MPs will probe the financial management at the Department for Education (DfE) after it used legislation to delay the publication of its accounts.

The DfE has used a statutory instrument, a minor piece of legislation which can be passed without debate among MPs, to extend the deadline for laying its financial accounts before Parliament to April 29.

Government departments are supposed to file their accounts by January 31, so the DfE’s move comes just two days before the deadline and on the last possible day for such a delay.

The move has led to criticism from education select committee chair Neil Carmichael, pictured, who said his committee would consider it as “further evidence” that a financial probe was needed.

He said: “Government departments have ten months to get their accounts in order and laid before Parliament for proper public scrutiny, and most manage with far less.

“Slipping out a statutory instrument to extend the deadline on the last possible day is further evidence of DfE’s struggle to get its act together on financial matters.”

He said his committee had agreed in December to invite DfE permanent secretary Chris Wormald to explain the department’s plans for academy accounts, and said today’s news left them with “no alternative but to consider the wider question of financial management at the DfE”.

It comes after the DfE came under pressure to get its accounts in order following criticism from the National Audit Office (NAO).

Officials have been trying to find a solution for recording academy finances since the NAO last year issued a rare “adverse opinion” on the DfE’s 2013/14 accounts.

The watchdog discovered an £166 million overspend and branded the department’s financial statements “both material and pervasive”, meaning that they did not meet the requirements of parliament.

The issues stemmed from the department having to combine the accounts of more than 2,500 organisations – most of them academy trusts with a different accounting period.

A spokesperson for the DfE said: “The consolidation of thousands of academies’ accounts is one of the largest procedures of its kind carried out in the UK. Throughout this process the NAO has found no material inaccuracies in the accounts.

“As part of the audit of the 2014-15 accounts, the NAO has requested some additional work. This will mean that the accounts will be laid later this year. We continue to work with the NAO the Treasury and Parliament to find a sustainable approach to reporting on the finances of academies.”