Latest news from FE Week | FE Week

Construction skills sector prepared for two levies for the price of … two

Building sector firms have been paying into the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) levy for half a century, so might have a rough idea what to expect from the government’s large employer apprenticeship levy. However, it hasn’t been clear jst how they feel about the possibility of having to fork out for two training levies — until now, as Steve Radley explains.

With the deadline for the government’s consultation on its proposed apprenticeship levy passing today, we will soon hear what businesses think about the plans. Finding this out has not been easy.

Apart from the short timeframe allotted, details remain sketchy about how it will work, who will pay it — with the government not yet clear on how it defines a large employer (usually 250 employees and upwards) — and what rate they will pay.

Despite this, our conversations with construction employers and a survey of the larger ones have told us quite a lot.

Their views have important implications for how to ensure the apprenticeship levy meets the government’s objectives.

In many ways construction is quite different from other industries. In particular, nearly half (46 per cent) of the sector’s apprenticeships are delivered by firms employing nine people or fewer.

But there’s much to learn from construction firms, which have been contributing to the CITB levy for the past 50 years.

Both levies relate to apprenticeships and it’s rare to find anyone who’s happy to pay for the same thing twice

Not surprisingly, only a minority of firms — a quarter of those who felt able to express an opinion — were prepared to pay both the new apprenticeship levy and CITB’s at its full rate.

The two levies are quite different. The government’s will fund the costs of training apprentices in large firms, while CITB’s covers all the other costs of an apprenticeship, supports firms of all sizes and the full range of training that the industry does.

Yet both levies relate to apprenticeships and it’s rare to find anyone who’s happy to pay for the same thing twice. Indeed, we believe that this figure would drop well below 25 per cent once large firms realise that they must meet the full cost of training an apprentice via the new levy, and when the government sets out the rate.

More interestingly, only 17 per cent wanted to pay just the apprenticeship levy and the most popular option favoured by nearly six out of ten (59 per cent), was to pay the new levy plus CITB’s levy at a reduced rate, with a modified level of CITB services.

This might seem an odd result given the potential costs and administration associated with paying two levies. But with the survey also showing that nine out of ten large firms (88 per cent) support CITB’s levy-grant system, the results are not that surprising.

Beyond the exact future of the construction levy, there are some important lessons to learn in implementing the apprenticeship levy.

The first is that employers need to see what they pay going back into training. The body running the new levy should aim to match the 2.1 per cent rate it costs to collect and distribute CITB’s system.

Employers must also be confident that the money raised will be ring-fenced to support training as it is in construction’s.

Second, as with CITB’s levy and grant, industry must feel a sense of ownership.

With the apprenticeship levy, industry should decide on the design of new standards and the price of different frameworks.

As with CITB’s levy, this is industry’s money and it should decide how it is spent.

Finally, support for CITB’s levy reflect employers’ shared interest in developing a skilled workforce for the construction industry. In the same way, the apprenticeship levy must not get in the way of how large firms in a variety of sectors seek to work with their supply chains to train apprenticeships.

The final lesson, and a hard-learned one for CITB, is to keep the apprenticeship levy simple.

Over the past year I have spoken to countless employers who are frustrated by our bureaucracy and we are now working hard to strip it out. But better still to stop it getting there in the first place.

The apprenticeship levy is a new measure that will have to work hard to win friends, just as has CITB’s to keep them. But by making it ring-fenced, industry-owned and simple, the government can give it a fighting chance.

Taking Treasury’s lead

On September 29, Jeremy Corbyn delivered his first speech as the Leader of the Labour Party in Brighton.

Although he’d never admit it himself, many have argued that the speech was the most important of his political life, and the media has treated it as such with forensic examination of everything from the way it was delivered, what he was wearing, the team who helped write it as well as what was and wasn’t included in its content.

With so much attention on Mr Corbyn, the publication of the government’s National Infrastructure Plan for Skills has gone largely unnoticed. But this document is important for two main reasons.

Firstly, we finally have an acknowledgement that that skill shortages and skills gaps in key growth sectors cannot be met by investment in young people entering the labour market alone.

The National Infrastructure Pipeline details how £411bn is going to be invested in transport, energy, communications, flood defences, water and sewerage, waste and science and research.

The government is now beginning to respond to calls from construction and construction engineering bodies that skills deficits in these sectors are the single biggest risk to the 564 project and programmes designed to improve UK infrastructure.

To attach some figures — the report cites evidence from Infrastructure UK which says that this level of infrastructure investment would create demand for 250,000 workers in construction and 150,000 in engineering construction.

In context, this means needing to recruit and train nearly 100,000 additional workers per year by 2020 and up-skill around 250,000 of the existing workforce.

The report also highlights the challenges with retirement and people leaving the industry.

In power, for example, an estimated 50 per cent of current employees are set to leave the sector and 200,000 new recruits will be needed by 2023. In rail, 20 per cent of the workforce is over the age of 55 and 25 to 30 per cent of the traction, rolling-stock and electrification workforce will leave in the next five years.

A further eye-catching stat is drawn from the recent UK Industry Performance Report, which revealed that construction employees on average are receiving only 1.2 days of training in a-year.

It also highlights the compelling regional disparity in construction skills where the skills gap for construction is 12 per cent in the South-west, but over 30 per cent in the Midlands.

Addressing these needs will place a huge responsibility on provider-employer relationships in science, technology, engineering and maths (Stem) industries and something, no doubt, area reviews are going to concern themselves with when analysing availability of provision against current and future demand from employers.

The second main reason this plan is important is because it cements the government’s shift in direction in skills policy in alignment with what employers are saying they need, but in a less generic way they have done before.

What’s interesting is that this document was not published by the government department with lead responsibility for skill policy — the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). The document’s foreword hasn’t come from Business Secretary Sajid Javid or Skills Minister Nick Boles. Instead, the Treasury has taken the lead via its delivery arm — Infrastructure UK and the document is opened by Lord O’Neill who is the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury.

Is the government now intent on reducing skills investment to its infrastructure priorities only?

If you’re facing cuts in funding on the magnitude that BIS is expecting to, you can kind of see how that argument would play out between BIS and the Treasury — “you can have a skills budget, but only if it delivers on our Infrastructure Plan” for example.

That scenario would indicate a very obvious two-tier system in that the provision of training in subjects like hospitality, childcare, business and health and social care would have to be an apprenticeship through the levy or through learning loans. If that is the case, the future of non-Stem, non-apprenticeships provision looks uncertain indeed.

Principals have say their on the latest area reviews

A further three post-16 education area reviews were announced late last month by the government, taking the number of colleges undergoing the process to 72.

Twenty one general FE colleges and 13 sixth form colleges (SFCs) across the Tees Valley, Sussex Coast and Solent regions, were added to the 22 general FE colleges and 16 SFCs whose futures were already being assessed in reviews in Birmingham and Solihull, Greater Manchester, and Sheffield city.

The government has said the reviews were “designed to achieve a transition towards fewer, larger, more resilient and efficient providers, and more effective collaboration across institution types”.

A number of principals from colleges in the latest three reviews spoke to FE Week.

Solent

Nigel Duncan, principal of Fareham College, said: “We are working in partnership with other colleges and stakeholder organisations in the Solent area to collectively review our collaborative arrangements to reflect the ever-changing FE landscape.”

Dr Jan Edrich, principal of Eastleigh College, said: “We are hopeful that this review will help to secure long term stability for our learners and that what will emerge is the best kind of provision in meeting local area needs.”

Mike Gaston, principal of South Downs College, said: “We wish to ensure we engage as a strategic partner with employers and other providers, responding to the needs of business and continuing to contribute to our economic and cultural community.

“We note that this will rely on considerable additional investment of time, but believe that there could be many synergies between the objectives of the review and our own vision, to ensure we continue as leading provider for professional and technical excellence.”

John Mcdougall, principal at Havant College said: “We are really pleased about the area reviews and it is good to be involved in shaping the agenda.

“However our main concern is the exclusion of provision in the secondary school sector. It means that there is not a level playing field and it should be.”

Declined to comment: Barton Peveril College

Did not respond: Brockenhurst College, Highbury College, Isle of Wight College, Itchen College, Portsmouth College, Richard Taunton’s Sixth Form College, Southampton City College, and St Vincent College

Sussex coast

Sue Dare, chair of FE Sussex and principal of Northbrook College Sussex, said: “We are already involved in delivering shared services and are in discussions about working more closely together.

“The area review will have much to build on and, speaking on behalf of Northbrook College, I look forward to taking part in shaping the future direction of FE.”

Mike Hopkins, principal of Sussex Downs College, said: “We are the largest provider ofpost-16 education and training in East Sussex and will work in partnership with its sister colleges within FE Sussex, local authorities and schools in order to ensure a positive engagement with the area review.

“As a sovereign organisation, the board is determined that Sussex Downs will be guided, first and foremost, by what it sees as being in the best interest of students and employers.”

Nick Juba, chief executive of City College Brighton and Hove, said: “I hope that the area review process will generate sensible and realistic ideas for future ways of working, given the very challenging public funding environment facing the whole of the sector.”

Shelagh Legrave, principal of Chichester College, said: “We are supportive of the area to work closely with the review team, local partner colleges and our membership group FE Sussex alongside our local enterprise partnership and local authority.”

Jill Sawyer, vice principal for students and learning of Varndean College, said: “Any review of post-16 provision needs to include all the providers funded by government including school and academy sixth forms and private providers.

“Although it’s of course important to know what the business needs of a region are, that is not the sole purpose of education post-16 and many of our young people go on to contribute to the national economy.

“Young people and their parents should also be involved in a consultation about changes to their future opportunities for education and training in Brighton and Hove.”

Dan Shelley, vice principal of Sussex Coast College Hastings, said: “We are positively engaging fully with the process and plan to work closely with the review team, local partner colleges and our membership group FE Sussex alongside our local enterprise partnership and local authority.”

Chris Thomson, principal of Brighton Hove and Sussex Sixth Form College, said: “It is regrettable that sixth forms are not fully involved in the area review as this means that it is not a complete review that covers all sixth forms and colleges. On the other hand school data will be looked at and that will be helpful.

“In regards to the upcoming review, I feel that the college is currently well placed, in terms of FE conditions. I am interested to see what happens with the review as our mission is to develop the learning needs of the students and the outcomes should be beneficial.”

Sarah Wright, principal of Central Sussex College, said: “We hope that the outcome of the review of post 16 education enables the FE sector to continue to provide a varied and balanced local education in order to meet the needs of local industry.

“It will be very important that all post-16 education providers are considered simultaneously rather than just colleges.”

Declined to comment: Plumpton College

Did not respond: Bexhill College and Worthing College

Tees Valley

Phil Cook, principal and chief executive Stockton Riverside College, said: “Our focus throughout this review, and beyond it, will be to ensure the continuous provision of high quality education and training for all our students, businesses and partners.”

Darren Hankey, Hartlepool College of FE principal, said: “We’re happy to play a full and pro-active role in the area review, but would echo some of the concerns already made about the process about the providers that are involved.

“I’ve done some analysis of funding agency allocations to the colleges involved in the Tees Valley review and we account for 60 per cent of allocation, but other providers in the area, not involved in the review, account for the remaining 40 per cent.”

Zoe Lewis, principal of Middlesbrough College, said: “This is not unexpected given the scale of government cuts exacerbated locally by a sharp decline in demographics coupled with an increase in the number of providers.

“The college’s governing body and leadership team have been successfully implementing a strategy in anticipation of the many challenges confronting the FE sector; having determined to realign our offer to the needs of our community, the skills requirements of employers and key local economic priorities.”

Martin Raby, principal of Cleveland College of Art & Design, said: “We are happy to play our part in the process, but share the Association of Colleges’ concern that not all post-16 providers are included in the review.”

Declined to comment: Stockton Sixth Form College

Did not respond: Darlington College, Hartlepool Sixth Form College, Prior Pursglove College, Queen Elizabeth Sixth Form College, and Redcar and Cleveland College

Ayub Khan, interim CEO, Further Education Trust for Leadership

Ayub Khan finds it ironic that he has spent a good portion of his working life developing careers advice given how bad his own experiences have been.

“My careers advice was being asked, aged 15: ‘What do you want to do?’ and I said: ‘I like mucking around with cars’ and the chap turned round, got a booklet on how to be a motor mechanic, dropped it in front of me and bang that was it, over,” says Khan, who was appointed interim chief executive of the Further Education Trust for Leadership (Fetl) in June.

So in 2003, when Khan found himself as interim chief executive of Connexions South London, his aim was “to make sure that didn’t happen, and that if it did it was quickly dealt with because it shouldn’t happen.”

Khan, aged 50, when Connexions South London became into a shared commissioning partnership working across six local authorities led by the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames where he was the Director of the Unit until 2013 and also sat on the government’s Careers Profession Taskforce.

Connexions in itself was a good idea but it was probably trying to solve the ills of the world, without being focussed

And although he admits it wasn’t perfect, he’s a fan of the now largely defunct Connexions service.

“Connexions in itself was a good idea but it was probably trying to solve the ills of the world, without being focussed,” he says.

“Ultimately, it doesn’t matter about structure, it doesn’t matter about organisation. If you’ve got poor leadership at the top the whole thing fails.”

And he says that “some really crazy examples of poor leadership and management” in some branches had led to everyone being “tarred with the same brush.

“In my experience, even when it was running it was being rubbished across the board, not constructively,” he says.

“But if you go back to user satisfaction, there are some really good reports hidden in the depths of the Department for Education’s archives now which have young people saying ‘actually Connexions is making difference for me, and I’m content with the service’.”

Khan with his wife Julie on their wedding day in June 1990

As is often said, a key source of careers advice for young people is their parents, and for Khan, the youngest of five, that meant a heavy push towards university.

“I’m very proud to say I’m the first person in my family not to have gone to university — because I think we put such an emphasis on it, particularly children and young people at such an early age,” he says.

But, he adds: “My dad was very driven to get his children to university.

“He came over from India in the late 50s, early 60s, and as is the case with many parents, he felt university was important for his family — and of course it is, but not going to university doesn’t mean you can’t be successful.”

However, Khan’s father, Noor, did have an impact on his awareness of politics — Noor was a security guard at the Houses of Parliament, and used to take the young Khan into work with him.

“We used to get Christmas cards personally signed by Margaret Thatcher, and I never really understood why they were there,” Khan remembers.

Khan, a true Cockney born within earshot of the Bow Bells, grew up on the Ocean Estate in Mile End — one of the most deprived council estates in East London.

He has never met his mother and, he says, has “no idea who she is or was, whether she’s still alive”.

He adds: “It probably did have an impact on me — being a parent now, you appreciate having a two-unit family so I think it probably has had an impact, but how it’s manifested itself I don’t know.”

Despite this, he describes his early years in East London as “enjoyable” and “secure”.

However, when he was 12, the family moved to North Chingford, which was an entirely different experience.

“At the time it was Norman Tebbit’s constituency, and it was when the National Front were at their height,” he says.

“And at the age of 12 or 13 that was the first time I’d experienced racism, and it was real shock to me because where I’d come from we’d had friends of all different colours.

“I remember walking along station road and a grown man spitting in my face and saying go back home and I looked at him and I thought, quite ridiculously: ‘What, round the corner?’ — but that was the kind of hate that you had to deal with.”

Looking back, Khan says, encounters like that have helped to shape him.

“It built the resilience in me — it allows you to suffer setbacks, but also to challenge things head on,” he says.

“And we haven’t solved this problem yet have we? I still go to meetings where I add colour in more ways than one, and I think to myself, this cannot be right still.”

At the time however, the impact of being one of only two students from the black and minority ethnic community at his school left Khan “turned off” by education.

“School was a really bad experience for me. I hated it and left with little or no qualifications — I was what we would describe as a Neet [not in education, employment or training] today,” he says.

Khan got himself a job in a clothes shop but slowly began to realise that what he wanted was a career, and so moved into recruitment.

It was during his 20s that he re-met his now wife Julie — having first encountered her at a family wedding, aged five.

“My brother is considerably older than me and he married a lovely young woman, my sister-in-law Mary, and Julie was bridesmaid and I was page boy — Julie remembers me chasing her across the stage at the reception,” he says.

“I didn’t see the family again until I was in my late 20s and things just developed from there.”

The couple have two daughters, Alexandra and Megan, and a grand-daughter.

In 1993, Khan landed himself a job at the South Thames Training and Enterprise Council (Tec) as a training adviser, before moving to North West London Tec as head of training and quality, before becoming director of post-16 learning at the Essex Learning and Skills Council.

“I just seem to have been within the post-16 sector wearing a number of different hats — not as a practitioner but in a supportive role,” he says, adding he’s never been tempted to try teaching himself.

“I don’t think I’d be a very good practitioner — I can see how stressful it is and I think my skills and gifts come from supporting people in a different role.”

From there he was seconded to Connexions, and when the funding cuts on local government “began to bite” in 2013 and the shared services he ran was wound up, he became chief executive of the Rochester Diocesan Multi Academy Trust.

And when Mark Ravenhall stepped down as Fetl chief executive in June, Khan, previously a Fetl trustee stepped into the role.

Since its inception in May 2014, he says the FE leadership thinktank has “made a good start”.

But, he adds: “We’ve got a lot of work to do.

“The problem in the sector is if you’re getting government funding then you’re busy doing whatever the government is telling you to do with taxpayers’ money, and you don’t have time for anything else.

“We are saying yes you can do that, of course but what about thinking about what needs to be done? How can we put the time and space in? How can we provide the energy and space for you to do that?”

And although Khan has moved away from direct involvement in careers advice provision, he’s still doing his bit.

“My granddaughter says she wants to be a vet,” he says.

“And I say: ‘Well, what do you know about being a vet?’ so we’re already talking
about it — not at any great depth but children at that age have aspirations and you’ve
got to channel that aspiration in the
right way.

“I’m a great believer that you start to have that conversation, and nurture it, not put it off and have it for the very first time when you’re 16.”

OCR Banner

Uncertainty over deadline for switch from old apprenticeship frameworks to Trailblazer standards

Uncertainty around the deadline of the apprenticeship frameworks is growing after the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) refused to confirm they would cease come 2017/18.

Adam Harper, BIS head of apprenticeship legislation, was non-committal when questioned about the deadline for the end of apprenticeship frameworks and move to Trailblazer standards, at London’s Capita apprenticeships and traineeships conference, on September 23.

With providers keen to find out if BIS was sticking to its planned cut-off for frameworks, FE Week asked BIS if it was now planning to allow them to continue beyond August 2017.

However, a BIS spokesperson declined to comment on the issue directly, saying instead that “there will be one new standard for each occupation identified byemployers as requiring an apprenticeship, and the standards will replace existing apprenticeship frameworks.”

He would not be drawn on a timescale for when this process should be completed by.

The government had confirmed the date for when it wanted old frameworks to be scrapped in an implementation plan for apprenticeship reform back in October 2013.

It stated: “The Trailblazers will provide clear examples of effective practice and approaches which others can build on as we move towards full implementation of the reforms during 2015/16 and 2016/17.

“Our aim is that from 2017/18, all new apprenticeship starts will be based on the new standards.”

But the government was forced to defend progress with implementation of Trailblazer apprenticeships in June, after FE Week reported that official figures indicated there had been just 300 starts on the new programmes in nine months.

Another FE Week report on August 6 revealed that frustration was growing among Trailblazer apprenticeship designers, with many of the new standards still awaiting government approval for delivery almost a year after they were published.

Just 24 standards had been published by BIS at that time as ready for delivery, and that figure still only stood at 54 as of September 24.

Yet the government said in August that more than 350 standards had either been delivered or were being developed.

It led to claims in FE Week on September 4 that Skills Minister Nick Boles had broken a promise made to the House of Commons Education Select Committee in January that there would be “many fewer” new apprenticeship Trailblazer standards than the frameworks, of which there were 334 at the time, they will replace.

The story saw FE Week editor Chris Henwood, in edition 145 of the newspaper, on September 7, raise the prospect of the frameworks deadline being put back.

CBI calls for Low Pay Commission-type body for levy rate

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) wants the rate for the government’s planned apprenticeship levy to be controlled by a new independent board with the Low Pay Commission (LPC) as the “blueprint,” FE Week can reveal.

It made the proposal as part of its submission to the government consultation on the levy plans, which closed on Friday, October 2.

A CBI spokesperson said its consultation response called for “the rate to be set by a new levy board, independent of government and providers”.

“It must be set based on sound evidence with the potential for the introduction of a cap on the total levy paid by any one business,” he added.

The CBI also called for the LPC, an independent body that advises the government about national minimum wage rises, to be treated as a “blueprint” for the new levy board.

The spokesperson said that its consultation response also stated that the levy “must give employers real control — signing off new standards, setting time rules on spending to the [levy] board”.

The consultation document was criticised after its publication on August 21 by Neil Carberry (pictured above), as reported in FE Week, CBI director for employment and skills, for failing to explore the cost involved or the minimum size of “larger employers” that the levy is set to apply to.

The Association of Colleges’ consultation response said the levy “should be set at 0.5 per cent of payroll, paid by all public and private organisations with more than 250 employees, and used to support high quality training”.

It added that the government “must not be seen to be using the levy as a reason to reduce its own £1.5bn annual spending on apprenticeships, because this will leave average funding at just £2,000 per apprentice and stall the necessary progress towards a high quality programme”.

The University and College Union response said that the lack of detail in the consultation document on “the size of employers in scope of the scheme, the levy rate and sectoral considerations” were “glaring omissions”.

“As this is a scheme for large employers only, we do not believe that smaller companies should be eligible for support by it — these firms should continue to receive SFA funding,” it added.

In its consultation submission, the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education said: “We believe any underspend within the apprentice levy budget should be made available to fund digital vouchers for apprenticeships in smaller businesses who have not paid the levy.

“To deliver 3m apprenticeships by 2020, the government needs to continue to support the expansion of apprentice places within small and medium sized businesses.”

The National Union of Students said in its response that “it is absolutely vital apprenticeship funding from the levy is used to support training by smaller companies”.

“Restricting funding to large companies who have paid the levy will only limit scope and access to apprenticeships,” it added.

Dr Mary Bousted (pictured right), general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers said: “We are making it clear in our consultation response that the protection of government funding for 16 to 18-year-old apprenticeship programmes is imperative.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Business, innovation and Skills said: “We will provide our response to the consultation submissions in due course.”

The Association of Employment and Learning Providers and Federation of Small Businesses were unable to provide their submissions at the time of going to press.

Levy ‘double whammy’ not issue for 2/3

Almost two thirds of large construction employers would support paying a “double whammy” of charges after the government’s apprenticeship levy is launched, a new survey has indicated.

Building trade bosses already pay a levy that allows the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) to develop qualifications and standards and give out £150m a-year in grants to employers to fund training.

But the CBI told FE Week on September 21 that employers should not have to pay a “doublewhammy” of CITB and apprenticeship levies.

The issue was addressed by a CITB survey that asked 100 large construction employers if its levy should continue alongside the apprenticeship charge.

Steve Radley, CITB director of policy and strategic planning, said that the survey option “favoured by nearly six out of ten (59 per cent)” respondents would involve paying “the new levy plus CITB’s at a reduced rate, with a modified level of CITB services”.

Only 24 per cent of employers questioned backed paying the full CITB charge and apprenticeship levy, while 17 per cent opted for only paying the proposed apprenticeships levy.

Click here for an expert piece on the survey findings by Stephen Radley.

Leaked BIS memo raises questions about SFA future – again

The future of the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) is once again in question, with a leaked Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) memo suggesting it plans to more than halve the number of its partner organisations by 2020.

Details of the leaked document were revealed in the Guardian, and include proposals to reduce the number of its partner organisations — of which the SFA is one – to 20, cut operating costs by 30 to 40 per cent and consolidate the “BIS family” from around 80 sites into seven or eight “centres of excellence”.

The proposals are based on recommendations from consultancy firm McKinsey, after Business Secretary Sajid Javid reportedly called them in to carry out an “efficiency and effectiveness review” of BIS in late July.

According to the Guardian article, by James Wilsdon, professor of science and democracy in the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at the University of Sussex, BIS staff are now being consulted on the proposals, with a detailed implementation plan expected to follow in January.

Mr Wilsdon writes: “The case for radical change is set out in stark terms. Despite ‘huge strides in the last five years’, BIS is ‘too complex’, with ‘45 partner organisations and 80+ locations’, such that ‘those who deal with us find us hard to understand and navigate’.

“BIS ‘currently costs too much to run’, and its users ‘need a better service’ with ‘faster and more efficient access to advice and funding’.”

It’s not the first time that doubts have been raised over the future of the SFA. In 2012 a report by Lord Heseltine, one time deputy prime minister, questioned the role of the SFA and called for apprenticeship and post-19 education funding to be devolved to local areas, via a single funding pot.

Further questions were raised in November, when Peter Lauener was appointed chief executive of the SFA in addition to his existing role heading up the Education Funding Agency. Rumours of a planned merger of the two bodies were later met with denial by the government and by Mr Lauener himself.

A BIS spokesperson said it did not comment on leaks.

Edition 149: Movers and Shakers

David Sykes has officially started in his role as managing director of FE and skills solutions specialist FEA.

He joins at a time of change for the organisation as it rebrands from FE Associates and brings together the company’s performance improvement division, BW Consultants.

Under the new brand, FEA will concentrate on transformational solutions for quality, management information systems, curriculum, finance, interim management and executive search, among others.

Mr Sykes, who moves from his position as managing director of training provider The Skills Network, said: “With the announcement of area reviews, a prolonged period of funding cuts, and the introduction of a new inspection framework the FE and skills sector is undergoing change on a scale not seen since incorporation in 1993.

“By changing the way we operate and bringing together all our services under one united entity, we believe we will be in an even stronger position to help FE and skills providers not only deal effectively with change but also improve outcomes for their organisations and, most importantly, their learners.”

Mr Sykes has previously held roles as a partnership director at The Learning and Skills Council and was a lead inspector with the Adult Learning Inspectorate. He is a current Ofsted inspector.

In Ipswich, Perry Perrott has been appointed director of business development at Suffolk New College.

The 49-year-old will work to develop the college’s commercial activities. His aim is to develop initiatives and build relationships with the local business community to generate increased revenue.

“Our vision is very clear: we need to engage the community, we need to engage businesses, be honest, be up front, and deliver on time, ahead of expectations,” said Mr Perrott, who previously worked at South Worcestershire College as director of curriculum and then director of business.

“A big part of that is stakeholder management. It’s talking to people, getting to know people, giving them what they want, not what we want to deliver, and also being a college which is versatile and can adapt, one that can work within business timeframes and business service level agreements.”

As well as totting up more than 18 years in the FE sector, Mr Perrott has held an array of high-level positions in different professions, including sport with Gloucester Rugby, where he was employed as a video analysis coach.

And awarding organisation (AO) NCFE will welcome former Loughborough College principal Esme Winch as its first managing director come January.

Ms Winch said she was “delighted” at her appointment “at a time of such rapid change and development” in the sector.

“NCFE’s well-recognised strengths underpin an ambitious and confident outlook on the future,” she added.

Heather MacDonald, who was principal of Sheffield College until June, replaced Ms Winch at Loughborough College as interim principal on October 1.

The Newcastle upon Tyne-based AO has also unveiled chartered accountant Phil Murray as commercial and financial director. The role was previously known as director of business services, and was most recently held by Graeme Walker, who left the post in September last year.