Association of Colleges president John Widdowson and social mobility tsar Alan Milburn to address FE issues in Parliamentary hearings

Association of Colleges president John Widdowson is due to tell MPs about how well the FE sector delivers higher education tomorrow.

He will speak on the quality of higher education in a Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) Select Committee session.

It will come a day before Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission chair Alan Milburn will share his views on FE funding in the penultimate session of the House of Lords Select Committee on Social Mobility.

The BIS committee is holding an inquiry entitled Assessing the quality of Higher Education and will hear from staff, student and sector representatives in what will be its second evidence session. A panel using metrics to assess quality will also participate in the hearing, which takes place from 9.15am.

Mr Widdowson is expected to speak as a witness from 10.40am, alongside a number of university professors and vice-chancellors. Other speakers tomorrow morning include Megan Dunn, president of the National Union of Students; Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union; and Stuart Cannell, student reviewer with the Quality Assurance Agency.

Mr Milburn will be joined in his session  the following day by Jack Feintuck, head of policy at the commission, and they will discuss any changes to the funding of FE that might improve quality outcomes for middle attainers and underserved groups.

Former Labour MP Mr Milburn became chair of the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission in July 2012. Other topics he will address will include the work of the Commission, and how to engage with employers on youth unemployment and imbalances in the labour market.

The evidence session is due start from 10.35am, with Professor Ann Hodgson, Professor of post-compulsory education and co-director of the Centre for Post-14 Education and Work, UCL Institute of Education due to give evidence an hour later along with Professor Kevin Orr, School of Education and Professional Development, University of Huddersfield.

Movers and shakers: edition 156

Barnsley College governors have seen big changes among their senior memberships and staff.

Simon Perryman takes the position of chair from Josie Thirkell, who steps down after three-and-a-half years in the role.

Paul Jagger MBE and Ben Mansford also join the board, with Mr Jagger taking up the position of vice chair.

New chair Mr Perryman runs Perryman, Yeandle and Associates, a skills and industrial strategy business, and is a member of the Sheffield City Region Skills board.

He was previously executive director of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills and director of performance at the Sector Skills Development Agency.

Mr Perryman said: “I am delighted to have been appointed as chair of governors and have been hugely impressed by everything I have seen at the college. The fact that the college is rated outstanding is down to everyone who studies, teaches, manages and supports its excellent work.

“I am confident that with strong leadership and governance the college is very well placed to manage any challenges that lie ahead. I am determined we will continue to do our very best for the people of Barnsley and the surrounding area.”

Ms Thirkell leaves the college board after eight years, in which she also served as vice chair.

“Throughout all of my time as a governor, vice chair and chair of Barnsley College, it has been my privilege to work alongside a very dedicated and highly skilled staff team and a dynamic and professional group of governors,” she said.

“The college has brought a visible difference to Barnsley town centre during this time.”

New vice chair Mr Jagger is chair of Ucas, recently became a member of the Association of Colleges’ regional board and is president of Barnsley and Rotherham Chamber of Commerce.

He said: “Having worked around the further and higher education sectors for many years, I am pleased to have become vice chair of the college’s board of governors.

“The college is a key player is delivering high quality education within Barnsley and I look forward to being part of that process.”

Mr Mansford is chief executive of Barnsley Football Club and has a varied legal background.

He said he would bring “energy and enthusiasm to the board along with my personal experiences of FE and higher education”.

“The success of younger people and everyone seeking to learn new skills is paramount to the growth of Barnsley and the surrounding areas,” he said.

“I will seek to do all I can to drive the college forward over the coming years.”

Barnsley College principal Chris Webb, who himself took up post in September, as previously reported by FE Week, said: “Their backgrounds and skill sets complement those of our existing board members who are all fully committed to supporting the senior management team and taking the college forward to the next level.”

Sixth form colleges’ academy VAT pass announcement comes as perfect leaving present

David Igoe will stand down as chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges’ Association (SFCA) at the end of March. He told FE Week why he views Chancellor George Osborne’s decision to allow SFCs to become academies and gain VAT exemptions as the perfect leaving present.

It was really good news that Chancellor George Osborne announced on Wednesday (November 25) that Sixth Form Colleges will be able to apply to become Academies and gain the VAT exemption.

It is the culmination of a long campaign by the SFCA to persuade Ministers and the Treasury to give SFCs that option and end the anomaly of the VAT inequality.

These concessions were also on my personal wish list to achieve before I hang up my boots at the end of March 2016

Almost better news was the announcement that the rate would be protected for the life of this parliament and colleges could plan their futures without the spectre of further rate cuts hanging over them.

Given the limitations of the options open to the Department for Education, which will still have to find other savings, this is a significant victory for our campaign to expose the funding dip at key stage five (16-19) and the relative imbalance of funding across the phases.

Both decisions are a victory for the young people we educate, who can now have some prospect of a continuation of the excellent education SFCs provide.

If the Chancellor wanted to give us a Christmas present then he succeeded.

These concessions were also on my personal wish list to achieve before I hang up my boots at the end of March 2016.

I began my career in SFCs when we were a thriving segment of the schools system.

Incorporation in 1993 forced us into the FE world, but in recent months we have been campaigning for our sector to be both schools facing and, where sensible, to return to be an integral part of the schools provision in an area.

Becoming Academies is the start of that reality.

It is game-changing for area reviews which must now see SFCs, as not just another bit of the FE world, but as an integral part of multi-Academy trusts and the school/Academy system.

I think we have come home.

Young artist’s icons on show

A young artist’s painting of Nottingham’s best-known icons will be put on show at Nottingham City Council.

Internationally-renowned designer Paul Smith and literary greats DH Lawrence, Lord Byron and Alan Sillitoe all feature in 18-year-old Soniya Ahmed’s striking portrait, as well as Albert Ball, the First World War fighter pilot.

Soniya is studying a BTec extended diploma in art & design at Central College Nottingham.

Her painting was commended in the visual arts category of the Young Creative Awards earlier this year, and that is when her work was spotted by the council.

Soniya said: “I entered the awards as part of a college project and wanted to use some famous subjects, but also bring back to life those that maybe not everyone knows about.

“My previous college bought a piece of my artwork, but this is the first time that I’ve sold a piece of my artwork outside of college, so I’m really excited.

“It feels like I’m getting closer to my dream of becoming a famous artist.”

Pic: From left: Nigel Cooke, director of One Nottingham which organises the Young Creative Awards, with Soniya Ahmed and Mandi Chandler, curriculum manager for art & Design at Central College Nottingham

Will 19+ learners buy in to Chancellor George Osborne’s FE loans extension?

Chancellor George Osborne’s extension of the FE loans system from those aged 24 and above to the 19 to 23 age group was a source of uncertainty for government officials — but Mike Farmer explains how he sees it working out.

What do we already know about FE loans? The key message is that the budget is currently grossly (62 per cent) underspent.

I calculate that the scheme could take 125,000 more students receiving loans (at £2,000 a time) without exceeding the £400m allocated to it.

It’s unsurprising that the Chancellor has brought 19 to 23-year-olds into scope. My guess is this will happen next academic year

The scheme is tightly controlled by the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) which caps the fees for every single level three and four qualification. So plenty of scope to expand and modify the scheme without Chancellor George Osborne getting worried.

So where next? It’s unsurprising that the Chancellor has brought 19 to 23-year-olds into scope. My guess is this will happen next academic year. The funds are there and all the systems are in place. I’m also fairly optimistic about the impact on student participation.

Based on the November Statistical First Release I calculate that there are 65,000 to 70,000 19 to 23s (other than apprentices) taking level three and four qualifications. The evidence suggests that younger students are less loan-averse than older students, so a fairly high proportion of 19 to 23s are likely to take out loans.

There are bigger uncertainties around the proposed extension to higher levels. How many level five and six students there will be is much more speculative, and depends on a number of factors, including the speed with which the new National Colleges and Institutes of Technology get off the ground, and the qualifications that they (or awarding bodies) can develop.

There are questions too about where these additional students will come from. Clearly there will be competition with universities and other conventional higher education providers.

That is probably the reason for introducing FE maintenance loans for students of higher level skills, and a planned increase in the FE loans budget.

A gradual integration of the FE and higher education loans schemes looks on the cards and this can only be for the best. The FE scheme has suffered from inadequate publicity, and having a single scheme will help in this respect.

Also needed is a relaxation of the iron grip that the SFA has on FE loans. For example, although this would not be popular, a lifting of fees cap which it currently sets.

Since the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has to cut 17 per cent of its administration costs, there are questions about whether the SFA will have the capacity to exercise its current control, or even whether it will survive to do it.

Good news in Budget — but what does it mean for learners?

Sandra McNally considers the possible impact of Chancellor George Osborne’s November 25 Budget.

The Spending Review has brought good news to FE (at least relative to expectations).

Highlights include a commitment to protect the budget for 16 to 19-year-olds in cash terms; an apprenticeship levy on large employers, with a commitment to spend £2.5bn in England by 2020; increased availability of loans for individuals who want to pursue higher levels of vocational education.

FE leaders must be breathing a sigh of relief. However, what matters to the economy is not how particular institutions fare but what all this means for potential learners. Let’s look at funding for 16 to 19-year-olds and apprenticeships.

Research tells us that the level of expenditure matters for outcomes (other things equal). Therefore a cut of expenditure in real terms has potential negative consequences for learner outcomes (although much depends on how this is managed). Furthermore, there is not a level playing field for post-16 provision.

For the same course offerings (for example A-levels), students are probably better resourced in schools than in FE colleges because schools can cross-subsidise their sixth form students from their overall budget (much of which is protected in real terms).

What matters to the economy is not how particular institutions fare but what all this means for potential learners

Also, arguably FE colleges have a tougher task with regard to post-16 provision because an increasing amount of this is remedial, given that learners have to achieve minimum standards in English and maths.

Those who have struggled up to the age of 16 with these subjects are not necessarily easy to teach. The extent to which actual resources per student differs across institutions also matters for the social mobility agenda: a higher share of post-16 learners pursuing non A-level options come from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The increased availability of apprenticeships will benefit young learners provided they are in a position to access them and provided they are of high quality (and seen to be such by whole groups of employers).

In the last few years, we have seen a dramatic increase in apprenticeship numbers, but many of them have been older workers (and a very low percentage have been under 18 years of age).

Presumably, employers are not incentivised to recruit young people that are not in some sense ‘work ready’, finding it easier to train more experienced workers. If apprenticeships are to become a more central part of the gateway to employment for young people, then the pre-apprenticeship phase of education cannot be underestimated. Part of this involves clearer progression pathways for young people.

While the availability of extra funding for apprenticeships is laudable, the efficacy depends on how this is used. The Chancellor has acknowledged concerns about quality and another announcement refers to a new employer-led body which will have an important role in the administration of the new system.

In addition to quality, a major issue is the extent to which additional funds stimulates additional investment in training (as opposed to a shift in training budgets). If we want to stimulate additional investment by employers, we need to understand better why some employers choose not to employ apprentices (or indeed choose not to invest in much formal training at all) — and why others do.

For example, large employers might be very confident that they will re-coup training costs because of high staff retention post-training. They might also have the facilities for high-level on-site mentoring.

The obstacles might be greater for small employers or those in highly competitive labour markets (where poaching of trained staff is a real issue). Thus, the nature and level of government support might need to differ across types of employers.

The success of the policy will depend on getting the detail right. It should be judged by its effect on workers and productivity — and not by whether or not a numerical target is achieved.

Funding threat hangs over providers who missed topslice declaration deadline

The Skills Funding Agency was today looking into whether it would suspend funding for lead providers who flouted a disclosure deadline as part of a topslicing clampdown.

It said it was “undertaking compliance work” to determine whether any providers had ignored a ruling that all their management fees be published online by Monday (November 23).

The SFA warned in September that funding could be suspended where declarations were missing after the deadline — and FE Week checks on the websites of a number of leads with numerous subcontractors found apparent offenders.

Among those to have missed the deadline was North Hertfordshire College, which uploaded its fees a day late, while City of Bristol College was two days over.

An SFA spokesperson told FE Week that it was “undertaking compliance work to ensure that every lead provider that has been ‘provision subcontracting’ has adhered to our supply-chain fees and charges funding rules”.

“If this work identifies that a lead provider has not adhered to these rules, we will take action,” she added.

“We will not be disclosing information on individual providers until our compliance work is complete, which will be by the end of the calendar year.”

The SFA wants information on management fees available on websites, and to include current supply chain fees and charges policy.

It also wants the relevant weblinks provided on 2015 to 2016 subcontractor declaration forms.

It comes around nine months after an FE Week investigation found that providers were ignoring rules that they must publish what they charge subcontractors. And while there was compliance with rules on listing the range of fees, these were as high as 40 per cent in some instances.

But compliance with the website declaration rule has also brought its own shocks.

Figures published by the country’s biggest SFA contractor and former publicly-owned provider Learndirect, which hit the deadline, showed that it top-sliced almost £50m from deals with its subcontractors in the last two years.

The figures showed that the Sheffield-based provider retained 31 per cent (£24.3m) of total funding (£77.7m) for its 73 subcontractors in 2013/14.

But management fee details on its website showed that last academic year it retained an even higher proportion — 36 per cent of total funding (£68.1m) from 75 subcontractors.

Despite being allocated £9.5m less total funding last year than in 2013/14, it maintained a £24m topslice by increasing the average management fee from 31 per cent in 2013/14 to 36 per cent last year when it earned £24.2m in management fees.

A Learndirect spokesperson told FE Week: “The level of charges depends on the contract being delivered and the role of the supplier in question.

“Partners have schedules outlining the fees payable to them for their role in the delivery of each contract, and these rates are published to them prior to contracting.”

The 36 per cent 2014/15 topslicing figure for Learndirect is uncomfortably close to the 40 per cent SFA chief executive Peter Lauener (pictured above) has said he would find unjustifiable.

Mr Lauener told FE Week editor Chris Henwood in an exclusive interview last year that he “would find it quite hard to see a set of arrangements that would justify a 40 per cent management fee, because it’s kind of obvious that what is taken as a management fee is not going to frontline education or training”.

The SFA rule requiring providers to specify how much they charge subcontractors in management fees was first introduced in August last year.

A notable offender was Learndirect — although the firm subsequently uploaded its 2013/14 figures before Christmas.

The rules following a long campaign against excessive top slicing by FE Week that was launched in the paper’s pilot edition in June 2011.

An SFA spokesperson said at the time that “all colleges and other training organisations which subcontract must publish the actual funding paid and retained for each of their subcontractors in the [provider] funding years 2013 to 2014 and 2014 to 2015”.