Latest news from FE Week

For Prevent to succeed, we can’t ignore religion

With Prevent and British values still in the spotlight, now is a bad time to lose the National Council of Faiths and Beliefs in Further Education, says Sam Parrett.

As we approach the end of an extremely busy term, and indeed year, I am saddened to learn that the National Council of Faiths and Beliefs in Further Education will close down in March 2017.

There has never been a greater need for understanding and tolerance of faith and beliefs. At a time when Prevent is under the spotlight, Ofsted has made it very clear that colleges need to be assessing the impact of their policies. This is something the FBFE can support, with its expert understanding and experience of these very issues.

Yet another victim of FE funding cuts, the FBFE was previously well supported by the sector – both directly through college subscriptions and indirectly via income-generating activities with organisations like the government-funded Education and Training Foundation.

However, much of this funding has dried up and the charity has been left with no option but to close.

Over the years the FBFE has brought together a unique combination of college managers, principals, chaplains and members drawn from the many other faith and belief communities found in FE.

Since its inception in 2008, representatives from many organisations have been involved, including the Association of Colleges, the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, the former National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, and Ofsted. I myself have been a trustee since 2011.

As leaders of colleges or groups of students, we may be led by spirituality, a strong moral compass, a sense of purpose or indeed all three. We all draw on our own personal values and beliefs, whether these are founded in faith or not, when making decisions and often need guidance.

This is exactly what the FBFE supports, and it is entirely unique in terms of the service it can provides to the sector. Put simply, no other organisation can offer the same support.

There has never been a greater need for understanding and tolerance

Not only has the FBFE produced a range of excellent materials for the Spiritual, Moral, Social Cultural development (SMSC) curriculum, it has also trained many colleges in how to implement it.

Staff can often find it challenging to deal with controversial issues that relate to faith and beliefs. This is entirely understandable but makes it all the more imperative that they receive support.

Here at London South East Colleges we have used FBFE’s consultancy and training services to support our British values programme. We have also engaged the organisation to help train our staff on issues relating to religious tolerance.

This has been especially important where we are located in Greenwich, which has had a sad history of racial tensions and high-profile murders and incidents that have hit the national headlines.

There is no doubt that understanding issues relating to faith, belief and culture is essential for those working in FE and within society generally. The mission of our sector is to educate and train the next generation of citizens, apprentices, employees and employers.

Colleges all put a strong emphasis on the employability skills of our students. Integral to this is the development of personal qualities within an individual and the way they can relate to others as well as technical skills and knowledge.

To deliver this to our students – as well as meeting the requirements of Prevent and the Common Inspection Framework to promote British values – we and others in the sector need external, expert support.

This development is both disappointing, but very worrying. At a time when faith, belief, culture and identity are high on the political agenda – set against a background of increased hate crime – the sector simply cannot afford to ignore the issues.

It’s time to mobilise on this issue. We need to restore the FBFE or think long and hard about what will take its place.

Sam Parrett OBE is principal and CEO of London South East Colleges

Technical education is our best chance to achieve social mobility

Far from being “elitist”, Lord Sainsbury’s recommendations give those who can’t get into elite universities a chance to compete, says Andy Forbes.

I was incensed at Lord Sainsbury being branded “elitist” for his definition of technical education; he is right to set a high bar for quality education in the sector.

Far from being “elitist”, the Sainsbury Panel’s recommendations give the FE sector a golden opportunity to challenge the elitism of a system where the curriculum of Eton and Oxbridge is seen as the model for all to follow.

We are standing at a turning point in the fortunes of the English FE sector. More importantly, we are standing at a turning point in the strategy for economic prosperity and social mobility, which has been at the root of modern educational policy in the UK.

Most importantly of all, we are at a pivotal moment in which we have a chance to arrest the policies that inadvertently have condemned thousands of young people and adults, primarily from disadvantaged backgrounds, to an educational and qualification cul-de-sac. Far from improving their prospects of career advancement, the “widening participation” policies of the past 20 years threaten to trap students from hard-pressed families in a permanent limbo of low wages, insecure employment and chronic personal debt. Exactly the opposite of what most of us working in FE would hope for.

Technical education has been squeezed out by this rush towards honours degrees

All of us have been won over by the argument that in a modern economy where knowledge and expertise are the most valuable resource, the expansion of higher education is the right thing to do. And it certainly is – all the evidence is that an economy based on advanced technology requires a higher proportion of highly skilled people in the workforce if it is to be successful. But this does not mean it is right to focus only on expanding the number of students doing full honours degrees and throttle funding for all other high-level courses. And it doesn’t mean that it’s right to expand willy-nilly the numbers doing degrees of all kinds – with no regard for the exact type of skills or volume of skilled graduates the labour market actually requires.

Reckless expansion by universities of degree courses is producing a massive over-supply of graduates with the wrong sorts of degrees, who have little chance of finding a graduate job and who, thanks to the student loan system, have been saddled with an eye-watering level of debt. Those who are in this position tend to be those from poorer backgrounds, disproportionately from ethnic minority communities, and disproportionately female. Whether we like it or not, they haven’t gone to the top-brand universities and they haven’t done high-premium degrees in science, medicine, law or economics. Despite the BTECs and A-Levels they’ve battled to get, they simply can’t get in.

Technical education has been squeezed out by this headlong rush towards honours degrees. Yet it is exactly the right path for those people who don’t have the social and cultural networks – and often, the money – to get them into elite schools and universities, but nevertheless want to earn good wages and avoid bad debt. Technical education is the academic and vocational preparation of students for jobs involving applied science and modern technology – exactly what the modern economy desperately needs in abundance.

So, yes, keep pushing to get disadvantaged students into Russell Group universities doing prestigious degrees. But for those who don’t make it, the best alternative is not necessarily doing a degree at your friendly neighbourhood university. It’s doing an HNC, HND or degree apprenticeship, or at least it certainly should be.

Widening participation in universities does not in itself promote social mobility. What will do is the return of high quality further education, linked to high quality technical education.

Lord Sainsbury is right. Professor Alison Wolf is right. We in the FE sector should be clamouring for their alternative vision for social mobility to be implemented right away and for the FE colleges best placed to deliver it to be resourced at least as well as the universities have been.

Andy Forbes is principal and chief executive at the college of Haringey Enfield and North East London

Movers & Shakers: Edition 191

Your guide to who’s new and who’s leaving.

The chief executive of City College Brighton and Hove, Nick Juba, has been appointed as CEO designate following a proposed merger with Northbrook college.

Mr Juba will take on the role in addition to his responsibilities as CEO of City College, while decisions regarding whether the merger will happen are finalised; the ultimate decision will be made in December.

As CEO designate, he will oversee planning in the pre-merger phase, and at the point of merging will become CEO of the newly combined organisation.

In his new role, Mr Juba plans to develop a five-year strategy for the new organisation, alongside building a culture and set of values to unify the new college, which will span five different campuses.

Speaking of his appointment, he said: “I’m not sure we do enough in FE in terms of innovating with our curriculum.

“There’s a real opportunity for us to do something that provides a genuine alternative to the traditional A-level and university route and that’s something that I’m really excited about doing.”

Prior to taking up his role as CEO of City College, Mr Juba held a number of director-level roles across the higher and further education sectors, and served as a senior civil servant in the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

_____________________________________

Rob Kleiser has joined Learning Curve Group (LCG) as an executive director.

The training provider based in County Durham specialises in education and training for FE providers, employers and learners.

Mr Kleiser takes up the role from his previous position as vice principal for business development at Newcastle college, a role he has held since 2012.

During his time as vice-principal, he led on developing external relationships to positively position the college with employers and stakeholders.

Prior to this, he was head of curriculum at North Hertfordshire college, and held responsibility for strategic planning and implementation of provision.

In his new role he hopes to “capitalise on the upcoming opportunities around adult skills”, with a particular focus on supporting levy-paying organisations and exploring opportunities to use their apprenticeship levy to deliver effective workforce solutions.

He will also focus on “driving additional business growth” across the company’s training division and for its FE partners.

_____________________________________

Jessica Herbert has joined Askham Bryan college in York as the new head of horticulture.

The college is the largest provider of specialist land-based further education in England, and opened in 1948 as the Yorkshire Institute of Agriculture.

Before her new role, Ms Herbert was programme co-ordinator at a Northamptonshire college for nine years. In the role, she oversaw a number of disciplines, including agriculture, horticulture, arboriculture and general education.

She says she is most looking forward to “developing the college’s horticulture courses further” and working with other departments to improve the college’s environmental credentials.

Speaking of the new role, she said: “I want our students to have the absolutely best horticultural training there is, and to feel proud to have trained at Askham Bryan College.

“We will focus not only on the quality of the courses but also on making the most of the college’s resources.”

Ms Herbert began her career in education after gaining a National Diploma in Horticulture with Arboriculture at distinction as a mature student. She then worked as an arborist before being persuaded to teach at the college where she trained.

Outside of work, she has represented the UK in the World and European Tree Climbing Championships, and plans to use her contacts gained through this to help her students find work abroad.

If you want to let us know of any new faces at the top of your college, training provider or awarding organisation please let us know by emailing news@feweek.co.uk

Should colleges work internationally?

Internationalisation of our colleges is not an academic nicety but a fundamental necessity, and there are many ways to do it, says Tracy Ferrier.

A lot of attention has been given recently to the challenges faced by UK colleges delivering large commercial contracts overseas. While some of this negative attention may be understandable, the danger is that it will put other colleges off enabling staff and students to reap the significant benefits of internationalisation.

Globally, the challenges faced by governments and skills stakeholders are strikingly common. The need to engage employers in training, to close the gap between education and industry standards, and to develop soft and technical skills – these issues matter in Kerala as they do in Kettering.

Internationalisation of vocational education means coming together to share best practice and tackle big challenges globally. It is also about responding to the increasing mobility of learners and attracting them to UK education and training.

But internationalism goes even further: it is also about instilling in the minds of learners a broad and empathetic understanding of a range of cultures, languages and contexts.

As the UN General Secretary Ban Ki Moon said: “Education is about more than literacy and numeracy, it is also about citizenry.”

The diversity of different approaches provides a richer educational experience and is vital for preparing our learners not just for global work, but for global life.

I am reminded of a memorable conversation from a few years ago. I was lucky to meet a student from a college in Scotland, following her return from a vocational exchange opportunity in Dubai. She was enthused by her time abroad, proud of what she had achieved and referred to the exchange as a “life-changing” experience.

Diversity is vital for preparing learners for global life

Whatever the degree of personal transformation in the long term, it had clearly had an impact on her confidence and motivation. When she shared her story with fellow students, her message, saying “if I can do this, I can do anything, and so can you”, was very empowering. For me, this sums up the power of internationalisation.

We at the British Council know that various colleges in the UK have been involved in the successful delivery of all sorts of overseas commercial contracts and partnership projects in many different countries. This is a good thing but not necessarily the right approach for all colleges.

There are many different ways for colleges to work internationally, some which require very little investment and are low-risk, such as hosting visits, job shadowing and exchanges.

These all provide the opportunity to share ideas and best practice with counterparts from overseas and can provide a platform to build longlasting and profitable relationships.

The increased focus on combating extremism and radicalisation of young people, in particular the Prevent duty, has thrown intercultural challenges into sharp focus. Internationalisation is a key tool in building mutual respect and tolerance.

Harmful attitudes can dissolve on contact but simply learning about other cultures within training will produce significant gains. By fostering an open-minded, tolerant and curious environment we can supplement technical learning with skills on which employers and societies place a high premium.

There are a range of tools to aid internationalisation, such as college partnership opportunities, leadership exchanges and mobility opportunities for staff and students, to mention a few. Sometimes though, it is as simple as taking the time to think about how those in your position in a different culture and context are working, teaching or learning.

Looking at a map, exploring the Internet or sharing a technique used in a different country related to the learning programme can all spark innovation and make you view your own world differently.

Those at our colleges and training providers will be working alongside a range of cultures and using techniques learned from all over the world in the future.

Internationalisation of our colleges and curricula is not an academic nicety but a fundamental necessity. Let’s give our young people a head start.

Tracy Ferrier is global skills lead for the British Council

Collab Group: Ofsted isn’t the only marker of success

Ofsted does not “paint a complete picture” of success, according to a group of colleges which has just absorbed an institution with a grade three rating.

The Collab Group announced on November 21 that South Essex College had become its 34th member, the first in the group’s history to be allowed to join with a ‘requires improvement’ rating.

The organisation, formerly known as the 157 Group, enacted a change in its membership criteria to allow this in January, overseen by chief executive Ian Pretty (pictured).

South Essex was featured in FE Week two weeks ago, given the dubious honour of being the lowest scoring college in the 2015/16 FE Choices survey into student satisfaction.

Its principal Angela O’Donoghue said she was “thrilled” to join Collab, as “the group really does represent the best of the sector”.

The old membership rules, made under Mr Pretty’s predecessor Dr Sedgmore, explicitly invoked Ofsted ratings, including an “honourable agreement” among members that they would “voluntarily leave” if served with a grade four.

All previous members were a grade one or two when they joined.

But FE Week analysis of the group’s 30 English members has shown that while Collab currently has five grade one members, none have been rated ‘outstanding’ since the common inspection framework was launched in September.

It has 15 grade two colleges, nine grade threes, and a one grade four – Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College, which was allowed to stay on after receiving the rating last December.

Looking only at Ofsted reports published under the new CIF, of the 13 members inspected, 10 had seen their grade fall (see table below).

Asked about the basis on which its website describes members as “leading colleges”, a Collab spokesperson said: “We do not believe Ofsted paints a complete picture of the success of a college.

“We have widened our basket of measures of success and quality.

“Collab Group colleges have a variety of attributes; they are large and diverse, technically and professionally focused, and they have ambitious apprenticeship schemes.

“They are entrepreneurial and employer-facing with great engagement with local businesses.

“Crucially, they prepare their students for successful careers and help get them into work.”

FE Week exclusively revealed in January the group’s ambitious plans to expand from the total of 26 members it had at that point, following its strategic review.

Mr Pretty, who had taken the reins there seven months earlier, and whose previous roles included senior roles at HMRC, the Cabinet Office and Capgemini, claimed at the time that up to 15 colleges had shown an interest in joining.

When asked about membership criteria, he said at the time: “A set of new attributes have been agreed to assess any future requests from a college to join.”

But, he added: “Ofsted grades one and two are regarded as successful, but ‘inadequate’ is not; there are other factors to be taken into account.

“There are a number of indicators of success that could be considered, for example if a college has been given a Beacon Award or impressive success rates.”

FE Week’s National Index of Colleges also excludes Ofsted grades, as some were awarded many years ago.

Ofsted is due to publish its annual state of the nation report next Thursday, but has not yet commented on Collab’s remarks.

What has Michael Gove done to A-levels?

If A-levels are big business, why don’t we allow more consumer choice, asks Graham Taylor.

A-levels are still big business and the main choice for 16-to-18s at level three. Over six times more learners take A-levels than advanced apprenticeships.

Yet they are being gutted. Historian and author Simon Schama has described the cull as a “big dull axe wielded by cultural pigmies”. The latest A-level to be cut is History of Art, which follows Archaeology (despite howls from Tony Robinson and co), Classical Civilisation, Communication & Culture, Anthropology, Creative Writing and Electronics – quickly restored because someone pointed out it’s a STEM subject (I’m not making this up).

If we are restricting choice because it is expedient and cheap for the exam boards, this has a certain, if sad, logic to it. If we are restricting choice because we feel the subjects are not useful or vocational enough, this is plain short-sighted. Universities and employers like the breadth of A-levels – they also like the International Baccalaureate, where students continue to study as many as seven subjects. Once again, the biggest losers seem to be our students, whose interests are being thwarted at too young an age.

The AQA exam board says too few pupils take History of Art – the number was 839 at the last count – and they can’t recruit enough experienced examiners. Waldemar Januszczak, the Sunday Times Art critic, recently countered that by claiming he has enough qualified art historians on speed dial to mark all the art history papers in the country.

Only 107 schools offer the subject (including my college); 90 of these are fee-paying.

Focusing on the Department for Education’s English Baccalaureate (Ebacc) core subjects – English, maths, history or geography, the sciences and a language – means that the rest of the curriculum suffers. Schools will concentrate on Progress 8 scores that count in the performance tables, which include English, maths, three other EBacc subjects (sciences, computer science, geography, history and languages); and three further subjects, which can be from the range of EBacc subjects, or can be “any other approved, high-value arts, academic, or vocational qualification”.

Teaching for the rounded individual may wither, to be replaced by targeted withdrawal in peripheral non-core arts and humanities subjects. But who should judge what core and non-core subjects, or learning and skills really should be? Digital skills, anyone?

The biggest losers seem to be our students

While we’re focusing on how the drive for more academic learning has hurt A-levels, it might be time to ask the question: what’s so great about linear courses of study?

Some claim that it is a good thing: AS exams can eat into teaching time. And given the level of skill required at AS may be the same as at A-level, some argue learners will struggle to get to this standard in one year, thus increasing the fail rate and putting some learners off completing the full A-level.

Despite this, however, and despite my college’s financial interest in supporting the policy – we would save £150k a year if we scrapped AS exams – I am still not convinced about the value for learners.

AS is a stepping-off point for many, who take four AS-levels in their first year, then drop one subject to focus on 3 A-levels in the second year. The AS grades are also a good lead indicator for UCAS and university gatekeepers, holding far greater value than, saying ‘Jonny is making good progress on his A-level’.

And perhaps most importantly, after one year, the results can function as a valuable reality check and wake-up call for learners and staff alike. Without milestones, we may be setting some learners up to fail.

Rather than add to the voices raging against the post-Govian bias against soft arts subjects (which seem to have been depressingly ineffective), I would make the argument from another angle: consumer choice. If a subject dies a natural death due to lack of take-up so be it, but if learners young or old want to study it, why not? And if some learners or colleges function better with a modular approach, was it really necessary to decree that one path was best for everyone?

Graham Taylor is principal and chief executive at New College Swindon

Brokerage of apprenticeship funding to be banned next year

The use of public funds to pay brokers’ fees will be banned, thanks to an award-winning FE week investigation which forced the Skills Funding Agency to take action.

Our exposé of this secretive industry in April (pictured) – the first of its kind – blew the lid on the underhanded way in which brokers matchup subcontractors with government funded providers and earn millions by charging up to five per cent commission on any agreed deal.

When it was first presented with compelling evidence, the SFA said it would “review” funding agreements in an effort to “limit the use of brokers”.

However, following an inconclusive answer from the agency in September when we first checked in on this review’s progress, FE Week asked again after our investigation won the prestigious CIPR award for Outstanding Further and Vocational Education Journalism last week.

This time, the answer was crystal clear: civil servants now plan to wipe out the practice.

“The SFA is strengthening the rules so that from May 1, 2017, no government money can be used to pay brokers’ fees,” an SFA spokesperson said, warning: “We will take action against any provider we find has broken these rules.”

Brokerage is not specifically mentioned in the draft apprenticeship funding rules for training providers, which will also apply from May 2017, but the Department for Education confirmed that it would be covered by section 67.11.

It states: “Funds in an employer’s digital account or government-employer co-investment cannot be used for specific services not related to the delivery and administration of the apprenticeship; including company induction, bespoke or additional training or assessment not needed to meet the apprenticeship requirements.”

Mark Dawe, the boss of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, welcomed the SFA’s newly tough stance.

“With the levy’s arrival and the new subcontracting rules, no one should complain if brokerage fees become a thing of the past.

“As much public money as possible should be reaching frontline delivery and in this respect the apprenticeship reforms should make a very positive difference.”

David Hughes, head of the Association of Colleges, agreed, saying it was “good to see them delivering” on the initial pledge the SFA made to FE Week seven months ago.

“As the apprenticeship levy changes start to be implemented, it is important that the SFA, alongside the new Institute for Apprenticeships, monitors the system to ensure there is no abuse,” he said.

Our April investigation found a number of brokers advertising subcontracting opportunities through closed groups on LinkedIn.

In one notorious example of the practice, FE Week found an advert with Essex-based consultants EEVT Ltd, attributed to a company called The Funding Brokers Ltd, which we tried unsuccessfully to contact.

The advert said: “We have been providing this service for over three years, securing in excess of £100m in the process for our clients.”

At five per cent commission the brokers could have earned up to £5 million over this period.

The ad continued: “We work on a no-win no-fee basis, whereby we will provide our support free of charge to the point of contracting.”

Birkenhead-based funding4training was one of the few brokers found with an official website.

Its services were also publicised by Essex-based consultants EEVT Ltd.

One of its newsletter adverts stated that its five per cent broker fee was “negotiable depending on the provider”. The firm’s director of sales and business development, Benn Carson, told FE Week at the time that his firm was different to other, more disreputable competitors.

He said: “There are a lot of cowboys doing this work and it’s easy to be tarnished with the same brush, which is why I set myself high standards and make sure the presentation is right, by running a professional looking website.”

FE commissioner’s plea to rescue Hereward College

The FE commissioner is attempting to drum up support for a three-way merger that was cancelled after one of the colleges involved was handed a grade four rating from Ofsted.

The education watchdog gave Hereward College, based in Coventry, its lowest possible rating in a report that was published November 21.

It had been in talks with two neighbours, City College Coventry and Henley College Coventry, earlier this year about a possible link-up.

But the Coventry and Warwickshire area review, which was part of wave three of the reviews, finished by proposing that just City and Henley should join forces.

However, FE Week understands that the FE commissioner has visited both colleges in order to persuade them to add Hereward back into their plans.

It is also understood that City College governors were due to discuss the proposal at a board meeting last week, though a spokesperson for the college declined to comment on this.

This intervention follows the sudden departure of Hereward’s principal Sheila Fleming.

She is understood to have left due to illness during Ofsted’s visit in October, and has not returned to the college since.

FE Week understands that the Association of Colleges Create, the commercial arm of the AoC, has failed to find an interim principal for Hereward despite a search that has now lasted two weeks.

The AoC declined to comment on the status of the search.

Hereward Colleges played host to around 570 learners during the last full-contract year, and provides full-time learning programmes at pre-entry level to level three for around 270 learners with high needs. Of these, 26 are in residential provision.

Ofsted inspectors were particularly damning in their assessment of safeguarding at the college, which was deemed “ineffective”.

Their report said: “Governors, leaders and managers have not ensured that the college meets its responsibilities.”

It said that its performance self-assessment is inaccurate, and found that governors, leaders and managers had underestimated the significance of serious weaknesses in safeguarding learners, and had failed to comply with the Prevent duty.

A spokesperson for Hereward confirmed that Ms Fleming, who took the top job at the college in 2011, was on sick leave but gave no further details on her current situation.

The spokesperson also said in an email dated November 22 that a temporary replacement for Ms Fleming was expected to be appointed “this week”.

The new appointment will be an interim principal, as it is believed that Ms Fleming may yet return to the post.

As reported by FE Week in May, the three-way merger involving City College Coventry, Henley College Coventry and Hereward College was endorsed by the former FE commissioner Sir David Collins (pictured above).

City College Coventry, which has 6,000 learners, was itself given a grade four in its most recent Ofsted inspection in November 2015, while 3,350-learner Henley College Coventry was given a grade two in January 2014.

Henley College and City College confirmed in a joint statement that their merger plans were still going ahead.

“Both colleges are open to possible future strategic developments and have an open dialogue with Hereward College whilst their board considers its options,” the statement said.

“Any proposal for a wider merger would be a separate matter for our boards to consider.”

The Hereward spokesperson said the college had not been aware of merger talks with the other two Coventry colleges.

The Department for Education was also unable to comment ahead of publication.

Stockport College plunges back to grade four Ofsted

A struggling Greater Manchester college has dropped back down to ‘inadequate’, Ofsted inspectors have found.

Stockport College was hit with the grade four verdict in a report published today.

It leaves the college’s future looking as uncertain as ever after the report stated: “The college is still in administered status and will be dependent on funding agencies’ continued support to ensure that it can continue to operate in the future.”

The college, which was rated ‘outstanding’ by the education watchdog in 2008, originally fell to a grade four in 2013 when former FE commissioner David Collins said it could be forced to make up to 150 redundancies to “balance the books”.

Stockport then climbed out of administered status when it was rated ‘requires improvement’ in January last year and was lauded for making “rapid improvements” by the inspectorate.

But today’s damning report leaves the 4,400-learner college in deep water.

“Leaders and governors have not halted the decline in standards since the previous inspection,” the report said.

“Managers have not rectified areas for improvement noted at the last inspection; they do not identify gaps in college performance, nor do they take effective action to tackle them.

“Managers and the quality improvement processes they use have failed to identify significant weaknesses in the quality of the provision.”

Inspectors found that the “very large majority” of apprentices at the college do not complete their programmes “successfully within their planned time” and the “rate of achievement has declined significantly”.

They also found the quality of teaching, learning and assessment is “weak” with teachers failing to plan “effective learning to meet the specific abilities of all learners”, especially in English and maths where teachers “do not ensure that learners develop the skills they need”. Attendance in these subjects is also “significantly low”.

But inspectors did find that governors are having a good impact on the college.

“Well-qualified and experienced governors now offer effective challenge to the senior leadership team,” they said. “They have shown very effective strategic leadership during the area-based review and are committed to ensuring continuing further education for the local community.”

Simon Andrews, who took over from Ian Clinton as principal of Stockport College in February last year, said the report does not “accurately reflect” the improvements made at the college over the past 12 months and he would be appealing the judgment.

“We are naturally extremely disappointed with the outcome of the Ofsted inspection,” he said.

“The inspection judgement does not accurately reflect the distance the college has travelled over the past 12 months, nor does it reflect upon the hard work, effort and enthusiasm both learners and staff have put in to improvements across all aspects of what we do.

“We will be appealing Ofsted’s judgement.”

“We have many areas across the College to be proud of, for example; we currently have the best maths GCSE A* – C results of all Greater Manchester colleges, as well as being fourth best in English.

“Indeed, FE Week in their overall college league table rank Stockport at 117th out of 214 colleges which puts Stockport College ahead of around 50 per cent of colleges in the sector.

“The college is committed to providing high quality professional and technical education for the local community and is engaging positively with the agencies and stakeholders to do just that.”