Strike action at sixth form colleges on March 15

Sixth Form College members of the National Union of Teachers (NUT) have voted for strike action.

The ballot, which closed today, showed 86 per cent of members in favour of action on Tuesday, March 15, from a 44 per cent turnout.

The question put to members was “In order to persuade the Secretary of State for Education [Nicky Morgan] to increase presently inadequate funding levels which cause detrimental changes to terms and conditions within the sixth form college sector are you prepared to take a day’s strike action?”

A total of 1,689 NUT members took part in the ballot, with 1,453 voting for the strike action and 235 against.

Kevin Courtney, NUT deputy general secretary, said: “This strong ballot result shows the strength of feeling among sixth form college teachers.

“They provide a vital service to over 150,000 young people, many of whom are from disadvantaged backgrounds.”

He added many colleges will face closure if cutbacks to their government funding are not reversed.

“Funding has already been cut in real terms by 14 per cent and further real terms cuts of 8 per cent are now planned,” he said.

“Colleges are dropping courses and increasing class sizes. This clearly has a direct impact on the terms and conditions of our members as well as the education of many young people.

“The situation is untenable. It is simply wrong that Government has put NUT members in the position that the only way to defend their terms and conditions is by taking strike action.”

But David Igoe, chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, refused to back the strike.

He said: “We have no problem standing alongside the NUT in a campaign to improve the funding levels for sixth form colleges.

“However, we consider this strike action to be ill-timed and ill-judged.

“It comes at a critical time in preparing students for public examinations in the summer and any disruption to that learning is regrettable.

“It also comes at a time when many colleges are actively recruiting and find themselves in very competitive environments.

“The signal this strike gives to potential parents and students is that Sixth Form Colleges are less stable institutions than other post-16 providers and that cannot be in the interest of the Union’s members.”

A Department for Education spokesman said: “Any strike action is disappointing. The disruption caused by strikes holds back children’s education and damages the reputation of the profession.

“We recognise the importance of investing in education which is why, thanks to the difficult decisions we have taken elsewhere, we have been able to protect core 16 to 19 funding.

“At the same time we have ended the unfair difference between post-16 schools and colleges by funding them per student to ensure that all young people leave education with the skills they need to thrive in modern Britain.”

Ofqual chair Amanda Spielman to replace Glenys Stacey as interim chief regulator

Ofqual chair Amanda Spielman will act as chief regulator on an interim basis when Glenys Stacey leaves next week, it has been revealed.

The former merchant banker and strategy consultant-turned education professional will take up the post on Tuesday and serve until a permanent replacement for Ms Stacey is found by the Department for Education.

Ms Stacey, who has led the regulator for five years, announced in August that she would stand down at the end of this month.

Ms Spielman has been chair of Ofqual since 2011, having arrived shortly before the “GCSE fiasco” of 2012 – when results for English GCSE dipped dramatically after the regulator made changes to stop what otherwise would have been a dramatic increase in top grades.

The regulator said the next chief regulator would be announced “in due course”.

Area review restructuring facility details finally confirmed – two weeks after revealed by FE Week

The government has finally confirmed that cash will be available for colleges to implement area review recommendations – almost two weeks after FE Week exclusively revealed details of the planned restructuring facility.

However, the Department for Business Innovation and Skills’ updated guidance on area reviews, published today, does not give a figure for the size of the pot.

Cash from the restructuring facility will be available to FE and sixth form colleges to “support recommendations arising from all waves” of the area reviews, the guidance says.

Colleges will be expected to seek alternative sources of funds for implementing the area review recommendations but “in cases where the required funding cannot otherwise be secured there is a restructuring facility available”.

As previously reported in FE Week, the “default position” of the facility, which is being held by the Treasury, “will be that where public funding is required it will be provided as a loan on commercial terms” and it will “cover only a proportion of the total costs”.

In exceptional cases, the guidance states, cash may be available as a non-repayable grant. This would only be available where the “combination of net liabilities” and “one off costs” would lead to “significant financial detriment to the financial position of one of the parties involved”.

Cash from the restructuring facility will be available until March 2019, although “any funding for waves one and two will largely be provided prior to March 2017”.

The guidance also reveals that colleges will no longer be able to apply for Exceptional Financial Support after implementation of the review recommendations for their area.

“A key objective of the reviews is that they result in resilient institutions in each area and therefore no further Exceptional Financial Support will be available for colleges following the implementation of review recommendations in the relevant area,” the guidance states.

“If colleges fail in future there should be a process which allows them to close in an orderly way which protects learners,” it continues.

“The government is proposing to introduce an insolvency regime for FE and sixth form colleges which would come into effect around the end of implementation of the area review process.”

Sixth form college academisation ‘pressure’

> Principal breaks silence on ‘very short’ timescales for DfE applications
> Government defends linking opportunity to area review deadlines

A principal has spoken out over the “significant pressure” being placed on dozens of sixth-form colleges (SFCs) that have been given just a few weeks to complete the complex application process for academy status.

The Department for Education (DfE) finally published guidance on how SFCs can go about converting to academies on February 19.

And although providers involved with phase one of the post-16 area reviews were given draft guidance at the end of last month, it still left the 33 SFCs involved with little time to digest the information and potentially lodge applications before the process closes for many in March.

FE Week contacted all of them over the past week and of the six that provided detailed responses, in which they all confirmed they were actively considering academisation, the principal of Hartlepool SFC Alex Fau-Goodwin (pictured) felt strongly enough to go on the record.

He said the timescale was far too tight for his college, which is part of the Tees Valley area review, and for many others.

“As a college in wave one, this places significant pressure on effective strategic decision making in order to meet the timescales of the area review,” said Mr Fau-Goodwin.

“When you consider the [academy status] application process, colleges are required to complete a detailed return to include details on collaboration with named schools, strategic financial planning and forecasting, governance structures, and information about the estate.

He added: “The ink is still drying on the guidance document, yet colleges in wave one are expected to submit these proposals in a very short timescale, this is going to be difficult.

“There needs to be an acknowledgement of the amount of work required with multiple partners to prepare for conversion, as such, time scales will need to be reviewed accordingly.”

SFCs can only convert to become an academy as part of the area review process, according to the guidance DfE guidance document.

A total of 33 SFCs and 50 general FE colleges across seven areas are involved in the first wave of area reviews, which began between September and November.

FE Week understands that a number of these areas will be publishing their reports, including final recommendations, in March.

This leaves some SFCs with less than a month to reach a decision — a timescale that another principal who asked to remain anonymous described as not long enough to “consider fully this criteria and to make an informed decision about conversion, let alone complete a 12 page application”.

James Kewin, deputy chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges’ Association, said they had been pressing the DfE on the timescales for academisation.

“We continue to make the case for SFCs in waves one and two [of area reviews] to have a greater degree of flexibility in developing proposals for academy status.

“Some SFCs in wave one have been given a matter of weeks to provide information (identifying potential partner schools for example) that colleges in wave five will have almost a year to prepare,” he said.

David Igoe, the chief executive of the SFCA, writing exclusively for FE Week (see page 14 in the newspaper), also looked at the advantages and disadvantages for converting to academies, and described the “real prize” as being “taken seriously as part of the 16-19, sixth form landscape.”

The DfE guidance stated that the key assessment criteria for conversion is the development of “stronger partnership and collaboration between the college and schools with which they will work”.

Colleges that propose to “establish or join a multi-academy trust (MATs) should be well-placed to meet the partnership criteria”, the guidance states.

Only SFCs that are “financially and educationally strong [assessed by the department and Ofsted as good or outstanding for both]” will have the option of converting to become a standalone academy.

A spokesperson for the DfE said it had given SFCs draft guidance ahead of publishing the full guidance, which FE Week understands was sent to wave one sixth form colleges on January 25.

This, the DfE said, was “to enable them to begin preparing applications, and we have extended timeframes for all wave one reviews to allow colleges time to consider the guidance and submit their application”.

———————————————————————————————-

Editorial: Don’t be Bole’d over

It is unfair and short sighted of the Department for Education to force sixth form colleges in the first round of area reviews to prepare and apply for academy status in just over four weeks, when others in future rounds are likely to get at least a year.

This is all a consequence of Skills Minister Nick Boles’ decision to force through the one time only area reviews under unreasonably tight deadlines.

It is hard to understand why decisions over academisation are being tied to area reviews anyway.

The colleges that don’t need immediate rescuing from financial problems should be allowed to take their time to make reasoned decisions over whether they want to make the switch in the interests of their learners and future.

It’s also one thing to complain off-the-record about the rushed process, but another entirely to have the guts and conviction to break ranks and speak publicly.

So full-credit to Alex Fau-Goodwin for having the courage of his convictions and expressing his views so openly and well.

Nick linford

Chance to rejoin the ‘mainstream flow’

The Government has published its long-awaited guidance for sixth form colleges (SFCs) becoming academies. David Igoe considers what this means for SFCs.

On the face of it there are headline advantages and disadvantages for converting to academies.

On the plus side, there is the extra money from the VAT rebate (available to academies but not SFCs that don’t convert) — about £350,000 per annum for each college on average.

There may be other financial gains like insurance concessions that academies benefit from.

On the downside, there is some loss of autonomy that comes with moving into the public sector.

They have strong pastoral systems and an approach to the curriculum much closer to schools rather than FE colleges

Academy status also means SFCs lose the ability to borrow on the commercial market and there are current legal and statutory difficulties over recruiting foreign and HE students.

There might be a way around the latter two difficulties and it may be possible for SFCs to continue these entrepreneurial activities.

However the real prize here, in my view, is the opportunity academy status brings to SFCs to be able to re-join the mainstream flow of education policy.

By becoming academies we get back into the Department for Education/schools/academies tent and have to be taken seriously as part of the 16-19, sixth form landscape.

SFCs have deep roots in the school system. They employ teachers not lecturers, with pay, terms and conditions almost identical to teachers in schools.

They have strong pastoral systems and an approach to the curriculum and organisation which is much closer, even after 25 years, to schools rather than FE colleges. Culturally, that is where they belong.

Incorporation, in 1993, wrenched SFCs from local authorities and placed them in the newly independent world of FE.

There were some gains from this. Most SFCs thrived with their newly gained autonomy and most have more than doubled in size in terms of student numbers.

Many have achieved wonders with their estates and now run super-efficient organisations that outperform the competition on all the accepted accountability measures.

In many ways SFCs were the trailblazers for the academy concept. They were schools released from local authority control and proved they could create autonomous self-improving, highly efficient institutions. They became the often-quoted “jewel in the crown” of state funded education.

The problem for SFCs since Incorporation has invariably been financial.

They suffered from the Government-imposed FE efficiency drive in the 90s and from the need to converge with FE funding levels.

This equated to nearly a 50 per cent cut for some and this led many colleges to have little option but to merge with other GFE institutions.

Since 1993, 30 have been lost through this process. Since 2010, we have experienced another funding onslaught with most SFCs now struggling to manage on 20 per cent less funding in real terms.

The current area based review process was predicated on “solving” this problem through creating fewer, larger and more robust institutions. We have been there before.

The autumn statement announcement (about possible SFC academy conversions) changed the focus of the area based review process.

SFCs no longer have to consider how they fit into the “fewer, larger” world of FE but now have the option to leave the FE world and become an academy.

As an academy, they come under the jurisdiction of the regional schools commissioner and can take their place on local head-teacher panels, which advise the RSC on all post-16 reorganisations.

They can foster closer links with schools and be part of the schools and academies improvement system. This makes far more sense than being part of an FE world driven by economies of scale and the need to deliver 3m apprenticeships.

This will not be an easy decision for SFCs. Change is never easy and always involves risk. But I believe this is the right way for our colleges to go and their best chance of continuing to prosper and grow.

 

 

David Igoe is chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association

Immigrants want to learn English

Bea Groves hits back at links made between immigrants who struggle to speak English and terrorism.

f anyone thinks that being a person coming to the UK from abroad is a simple task of just a task of “integrating” and learning English, then you’re wrong.

My experience as an FE teacher of adults new to the UK has strongly impacted upon me over the past year.

I have, since spring 2015 been the course leader for the Certificate in Education and Training (CET) course, run by Bridge, a small not-for-profit independent learning provider located in Gateshead. What has been unusual about the experience is not so much what is being taught (teacher education) but the students I have encountered.

What unites them is an extraordinary optimism about the power of education to change lives

On my first day as tutor, I met an extraordinarily varied group of individuals from a host of national backgrounds.

These included adults from Poland, Romania, South Korea, Thailand, France, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Italy, etc.

I have students who are refugees, others who came here with their partners to work, some who could be termed economic migrants, those who have relatives already established in the UK.

What unites them is an extraordinary optimism about the power of education to change lives, something that I seem to encounter less and less in the indigenous population.

This, of course, is contrary to the media scaremongering about the role of migrants and their intractable reluctance to
integrate.

Certainly, there are individuals who operate under the exigencies of cultural and religious pressures that make attendance at courses a fairly complex matter.

Power over English gives a gateway to other learning: something they are all very aware of. But is our Prime Minister aware of the very high priority that English has in migrant lives?

The focus that is applied by government and parts of the media alike is of a “bunch of migrants” who are incapable of managing to integrate into British society without the stick of government coercion. Terrorist activity in the news has diverted the public gaze towards the issue of how confident we each feel about the motivations of the stranger in our midst.

Consequently the simplistic diagnosis is that those who have the poorest English skills must also be those who are most likely to foster hostility to the British way of life.

But anyone who has ever taught refugee or migrant students knows this is clearly not the case.

It is right only in the sense that anyone who travels to live in any country should learn the local language, both as a matter of pragmatism and out of necessity.

The same rule applies equally well (for example) to non-Muslim English women living in Spain or France for example.

Teaching English to migrants is just one part of what should be a European issue, part of a generalised concept of learning as a means for newcomers to embed themselves in local culture and practice.

Such things do not occur spontaneously, and the current FE/adult education system is far too stretched financially to make an impact.

We have the teachers, we have the initiative, and we have the enthusiastic students, but currently we are being told to make bricks without straw.

The “straw” we need is much better and more consistent funding for ESOL and other language-development courses.

These are absolutely vital as an access point for all kinds of learners who are finding their feet in the UK.

It is socially detrimental (even destructive) to assume that language ability can simply emerge out of thin air.

Without the necessary support, individuals will remain linguistically exiled from the interactions that make a thriving and varied community possible.

In addition, FE providers need to extend the presence of their language tuition out of the walls of their colleges and centres.

Fragile learners, unused to the UK educational system, want to access language provision at venues that accommodate them and in which they feel secure.

Old fashioned community-based adult education? Yes, we need it for its flexibility, not just in the UK but across the entire European Union.

 

Beatrix Groves is president of Tutor Voices: National Network for Further Adult Community and Skills Educators

AoC backs move to end subcontracted loan-funded provision

The Association of Colleges (AoC) has said it supports the banning of subcontracted loan-funded provision from 2017/18.

The Skills Funding Agency (SFA) first announced on Monday that advanced learner loans would have to be delivered directly by lead providers after the next academic year.

It explained in its Update bulletin two days later that the decision followed “a review of subcontracted loans delivery and learner and sector feedback” and would “protect the interests of learners who use loans for their training, and public funds”.

“We have allowed an 18-month period to enable lead contractors and current loans subcontractors to transition to the new arrangements,” it added. “This will minimise any disruption for current learners, whose loans-funded training is subcontracted.”

The AoC has now backed the move.

A spokesperson told FE Week: “It’s important that people taking out student loans get the right advice and are completely clear about who is teaching their course, so there’s a case to remove sub-contracting from the FE loan scheme.

“There’s been a similar, though voluntary, shift away from sub-contracting for loan-supported provision in higher education.

“It is right that SFA has given advance notice of the change, because this gives time for colleges and providers to rearrange their activities and also to run through the implications for officials.”

The SFA said delivery of all loans-funded subcontracted learning aims had to be completed by July 31 next year.

Providers should also “not enter any new subcontracting agreements for the delivery of loans funded provision in 2016 to 2017, over and above those which they are already be engaged with in 2015 to 2016,” it added.

Meanwhile, in 2016/17 “any provider which holds a loans facility directly with the SFA cannot also act as a subcontractor to another prime contractor for the delivery of loan funded provision.”

The agency has been contacting existing loans subcontractors “whom it considers may meet its criteria to access a loans facility directly”.

These organisations could, where applicable, be invited to apply for a direct loan facility for the 2016/2017 funding year.

It comes after SFA funding and programmes director Keith Smith warned college leaders last November they needed to face up to a future without sub-contracting loans.

But Stewart Segal, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers told FE Week: “Where a subcontracting [loan] arrangement works for both a prime and a subcontractor and more specifically the learner then those arrangements should be allowed to continue, as they allow for greater learner choice.

“We should therefore monitor the situation over a longer period before making any changes.”

There were 75,400 learners with a 24+ Advanced Learning Loan in 2014/15, as revealed in the January Statistical First Release. It represented an increase of 28 per cent on 59,100 in 2013/14, but that is still thought to be well below the government’s target take-up.

 

Lessons learned over study programmes

Graham Taylor casts a weary eye over the evolution of study programmes.

The study programme is now in its third year, but what have we learned?

Firstly it’s a misnomer. It doesn’t all have to involve “study” — just work experience or enrichment activities.

Is the marked increase in full-time learners attributable to padding out programmes with non-qualification aims to make up the 540 hours (450 for 18 year olds)?

If so, this is a poor use of public money, and it may be a reason that the Department for Education (DfE) is short of funds for 16-18 apprenticeships.

It’s bizarre that up to half of the time can be spent on activities that don’t lead to qualifications

It’s bizarre that up to half of the time can be spent on activities that don’t lead to qualifications, especially when the last government cut enrichment time from 114 to 30 hours.

What they didn’t like (thanks to Alison Wolf) is “mickey mouse” qualifications. So outlaw them, or raise their standards, they say.

But while enrichment, including work experience, may be good for the soul, the quality performance indicators are tenuous at best. Ofsted struggles to assess this.

With regards to “meaningful” work experience, departmental guidance is littered with references to this.

However, they forgot to take into account that many 16-18s have paid jobs (85 per cent in my college).

Surely paid work trumps unpaid work experience. Ofsted was dismissive of this — shelf stacking in Tesco, for example.

But we encourage the employability skills this sort of work encourages — punctuality, customer care, communications and trying to build relevant qualifications around the paid jobs.

Traineeships require a minimum of 100 hours of work experience. We struggle to run any because learners can pick up paid work around here.

But, in theory a “try before you buy” apprentice might work.

However, I cannot see why trainees are exempt from the grade D English and maths rule. If employers prefer GCSEs (and Ofqual say they do) then the rule should apply to all learners.

With regards to core aims, I can’t see why these have to be designated and they are meaningless when it comes to A-level programmes. How can work experience be a core aim in itself? They should drop the notion.

The perceived divide between academic, applied and technical qualifications is also largely artificial — although this is not the fault of the study programme concept. It has more to do with wanting to stream learners.

The differences are usually in the way things are measured (exam versus assessment) rather than content. Which category does an A-level in accounting fall into? All three in my view. We have many young learners taking ‘hybrid’ combinations.

With regards to measuring success, it’s always made sense to measure quality of learning by success rates at course level comparing with national averages and internal progress over the years.

This can be built up to team and sector skills areas and college level using weighted averages (a concept Ofsted struggle with).

The trouble with the school and college performance tables is that they only show 16-18 level threes who complete and do not account for drop-outs (by institution or subject) or level one and two learners — big business in many colleges.

So you could be top of this particular league, but with very high in-year drop-out rates, not good quality.

That’s why we all need to keep our eyes on success rates.

On another note, one interesting outcome of area reviews for FE Colleges might be demerger.

Float off your 14-18 provision and become an academy — benefitting from 100 per cent taxpayer funding for new builds (useful if you have ageing and dilapidated assets) and the ability to reclaim VAT.

It makes more sense than merging with a failing entity, although the poor old 19+ bit would be left to battle in the new world of apprenticeship levies and loans.

 

Graham Taylor is principal and chief executive of New College Swindon

Brexit possibility raises skills funding questions

Questions remain over what the impact will be on cash from the European Social Fund (ESF) if the UK votes to leave the European Union (EU).

However the government has committed to providing more information before the country goes to the polls on June 23.

“As required by the EU Referendum Act 2015, the Government is committed to producing clear information, ahead of the referendum, on the outcome of renegotiation, the rights and obligations in EU law, an assessment of alternatives to membership and publishing the process for leaving,” a spokesperson for 10 Downing Street told FE Week.

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. The current funding round, which runs from 2014 to 2020, is worth about €3bn (£2.3bn) across England.

It is administered through the Skills Funding Agency (SFA), Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), and the Big Lottery Fund, which act as co-financing organisations to provide match funding.

Projects delivered through the SFA focus on learning and skills, with a particular emphasis on young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEETs).

According to SFA allocations in 2014/15, 107 different providers, including colleges and independent training organisations, received a combined total of £305,267,633 in ESF cash.

The SFA’s current round of contracts, worth £650m, is being delivered with the involvement of local enterprise partnerships (Leps).

As revealed by FE Week in December, the funding agency is running a ‘sequence of procurement’ that must be finished by the end of September. All projects must be delivered by March 2018.

So far three rounds of invitations to tender have been announced, across 16 Leps.

No date has yet been set for when the UK would leave the EU in the event of a leave vote in June. According to a parliamentary research paper, published in 2013, there would be a two-year negotiating period after the UK notifies the EU of its intention to leave.

“The message re Brexit has been that the 2014 to 2020 programme will run in full at that value provided the UK makes the necessary match available,” said John Bell, senior partner at policy consultants Curved Thinking. Mr Bell is specialist adviser to the House of Lords European Union Committee and was policy editor of ESF-Works, which provided policy and practice lessons from ESF in England 2007 to 2013.

“The contracts DWP agrees with co-financers and providers are binding so far as we know, so it is likely that most would indeed run to term, but we cannot be sure,” he added.

David Cameron is leading the campaign to stay in the EU, while the London mayor and MP Boris Johnson — who will be leading the London area reviews of post-16 education and training — has come out in support of the leave camp.

A leave vote would lead to the UK no longer having access to ESF cash.

An expert in EU funding, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told FE Week that “the people who would be losing out would be the people who need a lot of support, who have complex needs, who are battling all sorts of issues like homelessness, addiction, who are further away from the learning”.

A spokesperson for the DWP said that it would be wrong to pre-judge the outcome of the referendum. A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said it had nothing to add to what the DWP had said.