FE Week reported last week that around 60 of the country’s 93 SFCs had registered an interest in converting to an academy. Bill Watkin reflects on their option.

Recently both Sir Michael Wilshaw (Ofsted chief inspector) and Sir David Carter (national schools commissioner) discussed with MPs the part played by multi-academy trusts (MATs).

Both agreed that they represented the best way forward for delivering improvements in school standards.

But both also agreed that too many were not yet good enough, and that there were not enough of them.

Sir Michael had wanted to write a report about them recently and, on examining the 973 already in existence, had struggled to find half a dozen which were better than mediocre.

Sir David’s team of regional schools commissioners has had to re-broker almost 120 academies – take them away from one multi-academy trust and give them to another – because the original was not having the required impact on improvement.

Sixth form colleges are currently considering very carefully the academy options that are available to them.

Many have a long and successful history behind them, with better exam results, giving better value for money, with a higher proportion of disadvantaged young people, than any other sector.

Ninety per cent of SFCs are good or outstanding and they have proven experience of running a business successfully.

But they have faced appalling funding cuts in recent years, with the result that their capacity is now seriously stretched.

In the ongoing area reviews, whose purpose is to look at the financial viability of 16-to-19 providers and rationalise provision where necessary, SFCs must demonstrate that their projections and forecasts are robust and reliable, and paint a reassuringly sunny outlook.

In this context, colleges are faced with some tough choices.

The highest-performing colleges can, for example, establish either a multi- or single-academy trust — both of which require colleges to have “well-rounded plans to support another school(s)”.

This is what the government wants back from colleges, in return for the VAT concession: colleges as system leaders.

Otherwise, they can remain a SFC; join a teaching school alliance; or set up a new satellite 16-to-19 free school.

Colleges in difficulties, financial or academic, have fewer options.

They can join an existing multi-academy trust or merge with another college (SFC or general FE) – meaning they face some loss of autonomy and identity either way.

Over half of SFCs have expressed an interest in taking up the academy option one way or the other — although this is often a holding position, rather than a firm commitment.

A single academy trust is, at least initially, an attractive option — no more VAT liability, limited loss of autonomy, relatively little change.

They are making decisions for a future about which they can only guess

A multi academy trust is considerably less straightforward.

If you set up your own trust, before partner schools join, you can set your vision, articles of association, and contracts.

Schools joining later will sign up to an already established framework.

If you co-construct one, you will be involved in negotiations, entailing compromises and concessions.

However, if you join an existing one, you will have to buy into its already established framework, and comply with its articles and vision.

Some strong SFCs, even with various options available, are thinking about joining an existing multi-academy trust.

They will lose autonomy, but are often attracted by promises that their curriculum and staff will be protected (the new arrangement won’t change things).

Other factors may be the quality of personal relationships (the principals get on well and trust each other); and shared vision and values (the principals share principles).

All the options involve a leap of faith. They are making decisions for a future about which they can only guess.

Joining a multi-academy trust might be considered attractive right now, but what of the future?

A new partner principal, with a different outlook, might strain relations, while a fall in standards might change a trust’s priorities and strategies.

Colleges must consider their options in the light of their own context and circumstances.

There is no one right answer. But system leadership, transforming failing schools, alongside the premium they attach to their independence and autonomy, are at the heart of their considerations.

Sally Hunt explains why the UCU is calling for FE employers to move hourly-paid and casual staff who have been working at an institution for at least two years onto permanent contracts.

Last week, FE Week wrote about Lincoln College, where a threat was allegedly made to withhold pay from part-time agency staff because of a disagreement over marking.

On that occasion, the issue was quickly resolved and the affected staff didn’t lose out financially.

Worryingly though, the story was yet another example of just how insecure and vulnerable to manipulation the employment of many college teachers can be.

In April, a survey by the University and College Union (UCU) revealed that 34 per cent of lecturers, and 37 per cent of other staff involved in teaching in FE colleges are employed on what we term “precarious” contracts.

These include hourly-paid, variable-hours and term-time only contracts, as well as staff who are employed through an agency.

Thirty colleges employ more than half their teaching staff on these types of contracts.

But does it make a difference whether a lecturer has a permanent contract or not?

We think it does. The entrenched insecurity of many FE contracts causes real issues for the affected staff – and their students.

The most common complaint we hear from staff on casualised contracts is that they are not paid properly for their work planning and preparing lessons or assessing students’ work.

Staff who struggle to fit lesson preparation or marking into their paid hours have even less time to provide the help students need outside of their contact hours.

Casualised staff very often don’t have the same access as their permanent colleagues to training, development and support, and many report having little idea what they will be teaching from one term to the next, being expected to pick up courses at short notice.

Too many teaching staff find themselves stuck in a cycle of short-term, precarious contracts

As well as affecting their professional lives, insecure contracts have a profound personal impact on staff.

Individuals on hourly-paid contracts are classed as workers not employees, giving them access to fewer employment rights relating to parental leave, redundancy pay, minimum notice periods or unfair dismissal.

Casual contracts make it cheaper and easier to hire and fire staff, increasing their sense of vulnerability.

Many casual staff also struggle to make ends meet because of the variations in their income. Over half of respondents (56 per cent) to a UCU survey who were on “precarious” contracts said that they had struggled to pay household bills.

Nearly two fifths (39 per cent) had experienced problems keeping up with mortgage or rent commitments and three in 10 (29 per cent) had found it difficult to put food on the table. Women tell us that the precariousness of work makes it hard to plan for a family, and extremely difficult to resume their careers after time off.

Colleges protest that casual contracts provide necessary flexibility, but too often this only works one way.

The reality is that too many teaching staff find themselves stuck in a cycle of short-term, precarious contracts which are more often associated with companies like Sports Direct than an FE college.

Hardworking staff are the cornerstone of successful colleges, but in many institutions casual teaching staff are getting great results in spite of, not because of, the support they get from their employer.

At UCU, we believe that greater workforce planning and employment stability will deliver a more effective learning environment as well as a fairer workplace.

That’s why, as part of our pay claim for 2016/17, we’re asking FE employers to move hourly-paid and casual staff who have been working at the institution for two years or more onto permanent contracts which reflect the hours they normally work.

The union is also calling on the government to take a closer look at the way staff are employed in colleges, and improve the way that institutions’ use of casual contracts is reported in national data.

Such a high level of precarious employment poses a real threat to quality, but it also makes FE a less attractive place for the best and brightest teachers to work.

If we really want to ensure a strong and sustainable FE sector in years to come, we need better workforce planning that provides for stable jobs and allows staff to plan ahead for their own future.