Latest news from FE Week

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.

Graham Taylor explains why he thinks university technical colleges (UTCs) are failing to attract enough students.

FE Week has exposed numerous examples of recruitment difficulties for UTCs.

It was for example reported last month that 39 were open — but four were closing (or have closed) due to low student numbers.

Interest from parents and students is still disappointing — UTCs are only half full overall — even though more of them are planned for launch by 2017.

So why I hear you ask are they struggling?

The main thing in their favour is that they have a sexy name — FE colleges would love to add ‘university’ to our branding.

But basic demographics are a major problem for them. There are simply too many providers chasing too few 14-19 learners.

Putting UTCs up against new school sixth forms, studio schools and national colleges, when the overall school population is falling, was always going to be a risk.

UTCs are also struggling to demonstrate that they’re doing anything different to what’s already out there.

Lord Baker, the best-known UTC champion, says they support applied learning, blending vocational skills with academic learning. But we all do that. The FE sector has certainly had that covered for donkey’s years.

UTCs are also hampered because they’re basically one-trick ponies, tending to specialise in just one vocational area. FE college and private training providers cover what they do and more, which is leading to unnecessary replication of expensive resources and staff.

Then we ought to look at evidence of UTC quality, which is mixed. Average success rates in UTCs aren’t great – several have ‘financial notices of concern’ and high drop-out rates.

Another important consideration is this: why would young people want to leave their original schools at 14?

It usually only happens if the student or parent is extremely unhappy with a school — which is fortunately not the norm.

Some local schools pass on their so-called problem children to UTCs, in the hope that hands-on learning will improve their behaviour.

Yet colleges can help with this too — does anyone remember Increasing Flexibility from back in the 1990s?

By making GCSEs/Ebacc the norm, the senior government adviser Professor Alison Wolfe and the former education secretary Michael Gove have also effectively scuppered pre-16 so-called Mickey Mouse vocational qualifications.

Evidence of UTC quality is mixed

This made it even harder for UTCs to differentiate themselves from schools in the 14-to-16 market.

And post-16 they look like any FE college, without the wraparound life-support systems and curriculum choice.

Their business links may be good, but so are the FE sector’s. We have years of work-based and apprenticeship training experience under our belts. Perhaps we’re not so good at marketing this.

Finally, I suspect it’s just as hard for UTCs as it is for colleges and private trainers to get a look in at schools with their own sixth forms. Most school heads want to keep their pupils post-16, not always in the best interests of the learner.

So why does the government still want to plough on with the concept of UTCs?

Could it be that it and Ofsted have a downer on FE? Sir Michael Wilshaw, the current chief inspector, certainly has.

He of course caused outrage when he spoke about failing FE colleges and, along with skills minister Nick Boles and education secretary Nicky Morgan, is still looking towards UTCs becoming part of multi-academy trusts as a means of giving them a sustainable future.

I’m not saying that all UTCs are under threat. Of course, some are successful, and if they can get the taxpayer to cough up for the buildings and training, then good luck.

But I would say this to our ministers: if you really believe in localism and that local enterprise partnerships can help identify skills shortages, then why not put the opportunity to meet those needs out to competitive tender?

I’m sure colleges and private trainers can come up with effective and efficient proposals which avoid expensive and unnecessary spend on buildings but combine their specialist staff, kit and equipment to deliver.

Alternatively, let funds follow the learner, always the best way methinks.

Paul Joyce explains what Ofsted inspectors are looking for from traineeships — beyond high quality English and maths provision.

With a greater emphasis being placed on apprenticeships and vocational education, it can sometimes be easy to forget about traineeships and the important role they play in preparing many learners for their next steps.

There is sometimes confusion, therefore, about what Ofsted does and does not expect to see when inspecting traineeships.

As with all education and training, Ofsted inspects traineeships under the Common Inspection Framework.

Inspectors also refer to the detailed guidance contained in the FE and skills handbook.

Their key considerations will include the extent to which well-planned and managed programmes meet the principles and requirements of traineeships, including provision of work-preparation training, English and mathematics, and high-quality work experience.

Also, how well do managers collaborate with employers to ensure all programmes prioritise the skills and attitudes learners will need for work, and whether they ensure provision builds on each learner’s prior achievement and enables them to progress to an apprenticeship, employment or possible further study.

In addition to that, they look into whether work experience is integrated into each traineeship and provides a purposeful and challenging context for learners to develop their skills, including in work-related English and mathematics.

Inspectors also consider whether teaching, learning and assessment enables learners to develop the skills, attitudes and behaviours needed to help them achieve their main learning goals and career aims.

They also look into whether learners progress to an apprenticeship or sustained employment; and acquire the sector-specific skills necessary to enable them to progress to their planned next step.

The primary purpose of a traineeship is to enable students to successfully progress to employment, an apprenticeship, or to a substantive further education programme.

Despite what some have suggested, providers are not judged solely on the quality of English and maths provision

Inspectors always remain mindful of this and will seek reliable evidence from providers that demonstrates how successful the provision is in supporting such progression.

They also check to establish the reliability and accuracy of provider’s progression data by, for example, contacting previous learners or their employers.

This is because we want to know that the learners who progressed to positive destinations continue to be in sustained employment, on an apprenticeship or on a further education course.

We also look at the quality of teaching, learning and assessment that is provided to learners on the programme.

This may include, for example, evaluating how effectively learners develop employability skills such as time-keeping, communication, team-working, problem-solving, or literacy and numeracy skills.

If learners are enrolled on courses that lead to qualifications, inspectors will of course look at whether they are being supported to achieve those qualifications.

All of this helps us to evaluate how effectively the programme is equipping learners with the skills, knowledge and attributes they need to progress to their intended destination.

To reach an overall judgement about the effectiveness of traineeship provision, inspectors carefully evaluate all the available evidence.

This will often include the quality of training, trainees’ destinations, qualification achievement, and progress in English and maths.

Although progression to positive destinations carries the most weighting, inspectors will take a rounded view of all the evidence.

Despite what some have suggested, providers are not judged solely on the quality of English and maths provision.

They are also judged against all of the criteria set out above, as is evident from our inspection reports.

As many of our traineeship inspection reports show, where provision is good, a high proportion of learners progress onto an apprenticeship programme, into work or to a substantive FE course.

With these providers, learners typically make good progress from their starting points, develop their English, maths and other employability skills and benefit from high quality work experience or work-related learning.

Since September 2015, Ofsted has inspected and graded traineeship provision on 13 occasions.

In nine providers, provision was judged to be good; in three, provision required improvement; while in one provider, it was inadequate.

Grades for traineeship provision are higher than grades for most other provision types and that is something providers should be proud of.