Latest news from FE Week

The skills minister Nick Boles wants the colleges involved in the Greater Manchester area review to try and be more cooperative — amidst complaints that they are clinging to their independence.

Nick Boles (main picture), made the comments during a Westminster Hall debate that focused on FE in Greater Manchester, following concerns which have been repeatedly raised by the review’s chair, Theresa Grant, about stubborn colleges.

The Greater Manchester Combined Authority has also weighed in, expressing dissatisfaction with proposals made by the 10 general FE and 11 sixth form colleges at the review’s fifth steering group meeting on May 25, in a statement seen by FE Week.

Mr Boles said that Ms Grant “does not believe the colleges are being sufficiently ambitious”.

He continued: “Concerns were raised that those that are hanging on to their independence, for understandable reasons — perhaps they are already good or outstanding — may not be looking far enough out and should think about the future landscape and opportunities, not just about rifts and threats.”

FE Week understands that Hopwood Hall College, Salford City College and Wigan and Leigh College have been singled out for particular criticism for dragging their heels, for example, over possible merger proposals.

In the debate, held on June 15, Mr Boles said: “I strongly encourage the colleges that are part of the review to take on board Ms Grant’s comments and work with her in further meetings … to try to see whether there is a way to grasp the opportunities more boldly.”

In response to Boles’ comments, colleges from the region were eager to refute claims that they have been being uncooperative.

In an email chain seen by FE Week, the principals at Tameside College, Stockport College and Oldham College – which plan to merge – discussed presenting a united positive front before submitting statements to FE Week.

Simon Andrews, Stockport College’s principal and chief executive, said in a statement that the colleges were “extremely excited” about their plans.

He said: “The proposal from Stockport, Oldham, and Tameside colleges, which resulted in our recommendation, is very ambitious and supported by the Combined Authority, FE Commissioner, Skills Funding Agency and Education Funding Agency.”

Alun Francis, principal and chief executive of Oldham College, described the three colleges’ proposal as “a radical and ambitious vision for FE” and said the area review experience had been “universally positive”.

He said: “We are establishing a more resilient organisation which will have greater technical and professional specialism, be more closely aligned to local regeneration ambitions, more strategic in terms of employer engagement, and responsive to the needs of the city region as a whole.”

At Bury College, principal Charlie Deane said: “Bury College has responded positively to the aims of the Greater Manchester area review.

“Our innovative and ambitious proposal continues to support this focus.”

The other colleges involved in the review declined to comment.

The GMCA voiced its dissatisfaction with proposals from colleges involved, in a statement from the steering group meeting in May.

The institutions had proposed only two mergers, involving five colleges.

One of the proposed mergers involves Tameside, Stockport and Oldham colleges, and the second will see Bolton College and Bury College merge with the University of Bolton.

English and maths judgements do not exert an “overriding influence” on Ofsted’s college inspections, despite a recent spate of ‘inadequate’ ratings, according to its deputy director for FE and skills.

Paul Joyce (pictured) has written to FE Week to defend Ofsted’s recent ratings spree, which has seen 10 colleges receive the lowest possible rating since the new common inspection framework was launched in September.

 

 

All 10 were slammed by inspectors for their English and maths provision, and sector leaders had expressed concern in last week’s issue that increased government expectation on delivering good results these subjects was dragging down overall ratings.

Mr Joyce wrote: “While inspectors rightly place much importance on these subjects, they do not, as suggested, exercise an ‘overriding influence’ on the overall judgement of a college.”

He said that “a plethora of weaknesses” had been highlighted in the inadequate reports, adding: “I want to reassure colleagues working in the sector that we will never make a decision about overall effectiveness based solely on English and maths provision”.

Last week, Mark Dawe, the chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, hit out at Ofsted’s inspection methods of traineeships in last week’s issue.

And in light of Mr Joyce’s letter, he told FE Week: “His comments are reassuring if they apply to judgements about the delivery of traineeships.

“The programme’s framework makes very clear that progression to an apprenticeship, job, further learning or training is the key measure for success and both Ofsted and the Skills Funding Agency should be giving more weight to these outcomes than qualification attainment.”

Gill Clipson, deputy chief executive of the Association of Colleges said in last week’s story it was “unfair to expect colleges to help young people achieve the necessary grade C in GCSE English and maths in one year, when they have not been successful after 11 years in school”.

David Russell, chief executive of the Education and Training Foundation, added that Ofsted was “placing more emphasis on maths and English in the 16-to-19 phase”.

“It is a huge government priority, and an area where colleges have a massive challenge,” he said. “Ofsted has no alternative but to say what they see.”

Mr Russell also pointed out that, while funding was an issue, “the bigger challenge is recruiting, training and retaining enough teachers with the right skills and experience to teach maths and English to young people who have not yet succeeded in them”.

The 10 inadequate ratings was a massive leap on the five recorded during the same period last year.

The most recent is Telford College of Arts and Technology, which had its report published on June 14.

The others are Stafford College, City of Bristol College, Mid Cheshire College of FE, North Shropshire College, Greenwich Community College, City College Coventry, Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College, West Cheshire College, and Stanmore College.

AoC and ETF said they had nothing further to add in response to Mr Joyce’s letter.

The Sheffield City area review has completed proposing just two mergers, almost nine months after it started.

Dearne Valley College will join forces with the RNN Group – which is made up of Rotherham and North Nottinghamshire Colleges – while Barnsley and Doncaster colleges are also set to link up.

The outcomes were announced by Sheffield City Region, the area’s local enterprise partnership and combined authority, on Friday June 17 following the final area review steering group meeting the day before.

FE Commissioner Sir David Collins, who oversees all area reviews, said: “I am very pleased that the institutions involved all contributed so positively to the process.

“The Sheffield City Region’s partnership approach to this important work is very welcome and sets a precedent which other areas will be eager to follow.”

Chesterfield College, which has also been involved in the Sheffield area review, revealed on Monday that it is exploring a partnership with a college outside the area.

Its collaboration with Derby College means it will go through the area review process again.

However, this time it will be as part of the Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire review, which is due to start in November.

The Sheffield City area review was one of the first to be announced last year, and held its first steering group meeting on September 28.

It is only the third to have concluded so far, after Birmingham and Solihull, which finished in March, and Tees Valley, which closed in May.

It was originally chaired by Sir David, but this was subsequently changed to Julie Kenny and Nigel Brewster, representatives from the Sheffield City Region LEP.

The FE Commissioner’s positive comments about the process in Sheffield contrast with deep ongoing divisions in the nearby Manchester area review, which have previously been exposed by FE Week.

John Connolly, chief executive of the RNN Group, said his organisation’s proposed merger with Dearne Valley College was a “good solution for the area”.

He said: “The colleges are adjoining catchments – there’s a bit of overlap between us – and it creates some good opportunities for specialisation and to maintain the breadth of the curriculum that we’ve currently got.”

Chesterfield College principal Stuart Cutforth also spoke positively about the partnership with Derby College.

He said: “Our plans to work with Derby College were born because both colleges share the same ethos, drive and quality approach to ensure we are developing a skilled workforce so it makes sense to make the most of our strengths and geographical location by working together.”

Other recommendations from the review include keeping Sheffield College standalone while it focuses on improving its standards and finances.

Sheffield College’s chief executive Paul Corcoran said the college welcomed the review recommendations, and would “always be open” to working with the other colleges.

The two sixth form colleges involved in the review, Thomas Rotherham and Longley Park, will explore academisation as part of multi-academy trusts in their areas.

Thomas Rotherham SFC said in a statement on its website that it was “happy” with the recommendation, while Longley Park SFC said in its statement that it was “delighted” with the outcome.

Barnsley, Doncaster and Dearne Valley Colleges did not respond to FE Week’s request for comment.

Darlington College has recovered to an Ofsted ‘good’ rating a little over a year after it was branded ‘inadequate’.

The education watchdog deemed the provider to be ‘good’ across the board and ‘outstanding’ in its delivery of adult learning programmes, in a report released on June 23.

It was previously hit with a grade four across-the-board rating last March, which was all the more devastating because it had tumbled from ‘outstanding’ in 2009.

In the latest report, governors, leaders and managers at the college were praised for making “significant progress in tackling the serious weaknesses identified at the previous inspection”, which were all said to be “now good or improved”.

The curriculum was deemed “well-planned”, “coherent” and meeting “the priorities of the local enterprise partnerships, the needs of employers and the local community”.

Adult learning, the college’s strongest area, was said to often make “transformative changes” in the learners’ lives, and technical and employability skills across the student body were said to be developed well.

Provision for learners with high needs was deemed “excellent”.

The college, which was inspected in May, is a medium-sized general FE college that also provides basic skills for army personnel based locally.

It is set to merge with nearby Stockton Riverside College following the Tees Valley area review, which came to an end in May.

The latest Oftsed report added that to progress to an ‘outstanding’ grade, Darlington needed to ensure that more apprentices “achieve their qualification in the planned time in subcontracted provision”.

Attendance in maths was also highlighted as an area for improvement.

Ofsted recommended that tutors “plan learning to meet all learners’ needs” in these subjects, and also suggested they help apprentices to “extend their English and mathematics skills beyond that of the minimum requirements for their apprenticeship framework”.

The report also raised the issue of the government’s anti-terrorist Prevent strategy, saying that a minority of apprenticeship assessors “do not reinforce or explore modern British values or the ‘Prevent’ duty sufficiently with apprentices”.

Darlington College principal Kate Roe said: “The report is testament to the hard work of every single member of staff who have all pulled together to adapt to change, make improvements and raise standards.

“There have been enormous strides in the quality of teaching, and hard work and determination among staff to achieve the massive progress we have made.”

• AoC blames programme design after analysis shows they’re responsible for barely a quarter of starts
• AELP claims independent training providers best placed to make a success of under-fire scheme

Barely a quarter of traineeship starts over the past three years were with colleges, analysis by FE Week has revealed.

This startlingly low figure, which was obtained through a freedom of information request, prompted the Association of Colleges to blame the design of the traineeship programme.

Statistics from the Skills Funding Agency also identify six colleges rated ‘outstanding’ which have not had a single traineeship start between them in that time.

FE Week lodged an FoI request with the SFA to find out the number of number of traineeship starts at providers in 2013/14, 2014/15, and the first half of 2015/16.

The response showed that just 26 per cent of all starts were with FE colleges — compared to 68 per cent with independent training providers.

The true figure for colleges may be even lower than that, as the agency’s data did not account for subcontracting.

But Teresa Frith (pictured), senior skills policy manager for the Association of Colleges, said: “Traineeships are designed for a very specific young person in terms of age and level of ‘work readiness’ and this is why 70 per cent of colleges have reported to us [via the AoC survey 2014] that it is difficult to convince employers to take on a trainee.

“AoC is calling for the development of a more comprehensive and flexible programme, concentrating on the needs of 16- to 24-year-olds to prepare them for an apprenticeship and to gain the skills that businesses need.”

The boss of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers Mark Dawe praised FE Week’s “useful” findings.

He said: “We have always said that eligible providers with strong employer links built through apprenticeships and other work-based programmes were the ones most likely to be in a position to deliver traineeships.”

Traineeships were introduced in 2013 as part of the government’s drive to help low-skilled young adults onto apprenticeships, but take-up has remained low, with just 19,570 starts in 2014/15.

When traineeships were introduced, only providers rated ‘outstanding’ or ‘good’ by Ofsted could deliver them, but the government announced in December that it was opening them up to all providers.

FE Week asked all six of the ‘outstanding’ colleges recording no starts in the past three years to explain why they were not delivering traineeships.

Two of these – Mid-Cheshire College, which was actually rated ‘outstanding’ until its rating tumbled to ‘inadequate’ in March, and New College Durham – declined to comment.

Evelyn Little, director of employer responsiveness at Swindon College, said the college offered traineeships but had not been able to recruit anyone to the programme because “we can’t get the youngsters to go into the workplace and not have any form of payment”.

Peter Thompson, vice-principal of finance and resources at Isle of Wight College, disputed the SFA’s figures.

He told FE Week that his college had delivered a small pilot traineeship programme in 2014/15, with six starts, and would be running a further programme starting later this month.

A spokesperson for Highbury College said that it planned to start running traineeships next January, but did not offer any explanation for why they had not offered any in the past.

Aaron Butson, director of business growth and innovation at South Downs College, acknowledged that traineeships had been a “low priority” for the college in the past, but said the college had plans to start a traineeship programme in September.

These revelations follow another FoI lodged by the AELP, reported by FE Week on June 10, which indicated that 76 per cent (378,170 of 499,900) of all apprenticeship starts in 2014/15 were delivered by ITPs

An FoI request by FE Week ahead of last year’s Association of Colleges conference in November also uncovered startlingly low levels of apprenticeship delivery at many colleges.

Colleges, on average, were shown to have 27 per cent of their 2015/16 Adult Skills Budget (ASB) allocated to apprenticeships, compared with 60 per cent at other providers.

Casual staff who have been working at an FE provider for at least two years should be made permanent, the University and College Union is demanding.

This was one of the staffing union’s key negotiating points at its first meeting this month with the Association of Colleges, after it submitted its 2016/17 national pay claim.

A report commissioned by the UCU demonstrated that 30 colleges in the UK are employing more than 50 per cent of their staff on “precarious” part-time or hourly contracts.

In an exclusive comment piece for FE Week, UCU’s general secretary Sally Hunt said: “As part of our pay claim, 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.”

She said UCU also wants ministers to investigate the terms staff are given by colleges, and to “improve the way that institutions’ use of casual contracts is reported in national data”.

Karen Sanders, AoC’s director of employment services and policy, claimed that colleges had “always needed a flexible workforce, and may employ people on different types of contracts to respond to the needs of students and the wider college business”.

However, she conceded: “We are discussing these proposals as part of the pay negotiations for 2016/17, and cannot comment further.”

A BIS spokesperson said FE colleges were independent organisations “free to set their own terms and conditions for staff, which includes types of contract”.

She added: “They may choose to do so in conjunction with the recommendations of the National Joint Forum, which is convened by AoC and the relevant trade unions to make recommendations for terms and conditions and pay levels.”

The union’s report, published in April, said that jobs in FE are to be considered “precarious” under two conditions, where contracts are “short duration or cover only part of the year”, or when teaching staff are employed on permanent contracts “but continue to be paid by the hour”.

It said: “These staff are often no less precarious because they are only paid for the work they do and many of them have variable-hour or zero-hours contracts.”

The UCU’s call comes after FE Week reported on June 17 that Lincoln College went back on its “threat” not to pay part-time agency staff — after we made senior college leaders aware of the dispute.

Twelve self-employed agency workers from FE Resources, a “sub-company” of Lincoln College, received an initial email on June 7 telling them they wouldn’t be paid until additional work had been completed.

The email complained that student assessments had not been “completed, marked and tracked to schedule”, and warned the college would not authorise their May timesheets until they were up to date.

George Reid, a public services lecturer who received the email and has worked with the college for eight years as an agency worker, alerted FE Week to the upset it had caused him and others.

And a college spokesperson said on Monday (June 13) that senior managers had not been aware of the “unauthorised” email, adding the payment would be processed “without delay”.

Sector leaders have called for clarity on whether the government will still press ahead with apprenticeship levy plans following the British public’s decision to leave the European Union.

The referendum result was confirmed this morning, provoking the resignation of Prime Minister David Cameron.

It will throw into doubt the viablilty of plans for the levy due to be launched next April.

This is particularly resonant because Skills Minister Nick Boles warned recently that Brexit could kill-off the plans.

He entered the Brexit debate during an event on June 13 in Westminster, organised by Policy Exchange, warning: “As skills minister I am responsible for the introduction next April of a new apprenticeship levy on large employers.

“But do you think the chancellor will feel it is prudent to introduce a new payroll tax in the middle of a recession, when business confidence has been shattered by a decision to leave the single market and unemployment is rising?”

Confirmation that Britain will indeed be leaving the European Union prompted calls for swift decisions on how it will affect the sector.

When asked if he now feared for the levy, Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, told FE Week: “We need clarity on what we’re meant to be doing.

“I can understand they’ll pause for a moment and think, but if we don’t know what’s going to happen it’s going to by default not happen in April. So really this week we need some clarity.”

Martin Doel, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said: “Specific areas of concern relate to the money pledged for training via the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Skills Minister Nick Boles’ comments that the apprenticeship levy may need to be postponed.”

He added: “The government must make it clear as soon as possible how it will continue to fund education and training for the good of everyone.”

Current Learning and Work Institute boss David Hughes, who will start as chief executive of the Association of Colleges at the start of 2016/17, added: “Prior to the vote there was already some unease about the lack of details about apprenticeship reforms.

“Now we need decisive action from BIS to provide certainty about the reforms. More delays will lead to more caution by colleges, providers and employers.”

It is believed that there will now be a two-year negotiating period over the terms of Britain’s departure from the European Union.

This has raised questions, reported on by FE Week in February and still unresolved, over what would happen to ESF contracts— with the current round running from 2014 to 2020 worth about €3bn (£2.3bn) across England.

The ESF is cash that the UK receives, as a member state of the EU, to increase job opportunities and help people to improve their skill levels, particularly those who find it difficult to get work.

It is partly administered through the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) and its allocations in 2014/15 showed that 107 different providers received a combined total of £305,267,633 in ESF cash.

There will also be wider concern about education and skills funding, with the future of Chancellor George Osborne also thrown into doubt.

He published a draft budget before the referendum reflecting on what would happen with public finances in the event of Brexit, which indicated education funding could be drastically cut by £1.15bn.

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesperson said: “It is too early to tell what will happen with ESF. For the time being it will be business as usual.”

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills was unable to comment ahead of publication on how leaving the European Union would affect the levy and wider education and skills funding.

The government plans to slash the amount smaller firms will have to pay towards the cost of apprenticeships training after the levy launch.

Employers of all sizes currently have to pay a third of training costs with the Skills Funding Agency agrees to covering the rest, under the pilot for new apprenticeships.

That means a £1 employer cash contribution returns £2 funding – up to a cap – for the relevant standard.

But FE Week has learned the government is looking at a making a much bigger contribution after April 2017 for employers not using their apprenticeship levy pot — either because their wage bill is too small to pay into it, or because it has run out.

For every £1 invested by such employers, we understand that the SFA will paying up to £9, according to plans set to be announced later this month.

This would mean providers are to be paid as much as 90 per cent from SFA coffers — although employers not paying the levy would still have to contribute around 10 per cent in cash first.

The news was welcomed by Mark Dawe, chief executive of Association of Employment and Learning Providers.

He said: “This sound like good news, as we believe smaller employers should pay as little as possible.

“We have been lobbying ministers about the need for a high-level of coinvestment by the government in respect of non-levy paying employers.

“These small- and medium-sized enterprises are needed to provide apprenticeship opportunities to young people in the big cities and smaller towns, or rural areas where the levy-paying employers are not always present.”

But he also cautioned: “For many small organisations, any contribution will be prohibitive and we hope the government will consider how it might support these smaller employers.”

The apprenticeship levy, first announced by the government last July, is due to be introduced in April 2017, and will be set at 0.5 per cent of an employer’s payroll.

Only businesses with a payroll of more than £3m – about two per cent of employers – will actually pay the levy.

But there has been widespread concern that non-levy-payers would be put off apprenticeships altogether, if they still had pay large sums towards training.

John Hyde, executive chairman of independent training provider HIT Training Ltd, who was given a CBE in the Queen’s birthday honours list, said: “If the 10 per cent contribution is confirmed, this is excellent news for smaller companies who already contribute substantially to the apprentices’ wages, lost opportunity costs, trading costs and more.

“The growth in the economy is through small- and medium-sized enterprises and the growth in apprenticeship numbers will follow.”

Teresa Frith, senior skills policy manager at the Association of Colleges, said the plan “could encourage employers, previously put off apprenticeships by the cost, to take on a young person and provide them with the skills to begin a career”.

“Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy and the government must ensure they, and their staff, can also benefit from the funding created by the levy,” she added.

A BIS spokesperson would only say: “We set out earlier this year that more information would be available in June 2016. There is nothing further to add at this time.”