In August last year Basildon-based Prospects Learning Foundation (PLF) underwent incorporation to become Prospects College of Advanced Technology —the first new FE college in more than 20 years. Neil Bates assesses the move, and the sector, 12 months on.

I have worked for PLF for almost my entire professional life. It has been my devotion; a labour of love. On occasions, I admit, the source of considerable misery and frustration.

It took the proverbial sweat, blood and tears to position Prospects as one of the most successful independent learning providers in England.

We built up with a well-intentioned bunch of trustees, terrific staff, a rich history formed around the group of training associations that were the product of the 1964 Industrial Training Act and £50m of investment in five wonderful skills campuses.

Why on earth would we want to become an FE college – the first to be established since the Further and Higher Education Act 1992? Were we out of our mind?!

Well, maybe. But let me tell you why I think it was the most important decision the PLF Board ever made in the 44 years since the company was established.

The bureaucracy is insane but we’re better governed, a lot more secure, and we are growing fast

Our mission has always been about skills. In the sectors we operate in — engineering and construction — it is often the supply of skilled people that determines the future of those businesses.

So I have always believed in our very own version of the ‘dual mandate’, providing opportunities for young people, many of whom are trying to escape inherited poverty and disadvantage, and providing a pipeline of skilled people to help businesses compete in an increasingly global marketplace.

The trouble is that our job, and everyone else’s in the FE sector I suspect, has been made a whole lot harder by the absence of any coherent national strategy for education and skills.

We have allowed a hierarchy to cling on between academic and vocational education. The very word vocational has come to imply the opposite of ‘academic’ when in fact the very best technical professional education needs large doses of both.

So back to the question, were we out of our minds? Well maybe not although time will tell. We hope that our incorporation will signal the start of a new vision for FE and skills, one which is better aligned with the needs of business and the economy.

It will be one that gives proper status and recognition to professional technical education; that puts employers as well as learners at the heart of the system — and, yes, that recognises that the minimum standard for an apprenticeship must be level three and more often than not at level four or five.

In Northern Ireland, it is government policy to offer apprenticeships to level eight. What on earth are we doing using up scarce public money training 25-year-old supermarket workers and in the process subsidising major retailers’ continuing professional development budget?

If you are thinking about incorporation, here is our experience 12 months after we opened. Only do it if you think it will enable you to better fulfil your mission. The 1992 Act is not fit for purpose. It is designed to convert local authority colleges not launch new ones. There is a fundamental problem too with the funding system. It is simply not geared up to support new colleges or even to promote growth. The bureaucracy is insane but we’re better governed, a lot more secure, and we are growing fast. Advanced apprenticeships and Higher Education student numbers have increased by 48 per cent since incorporation.

The key to our survival and future success? We have an absolute clarity of mission. We are specialist. Employers are partners not just customers — they have to pay their fair share but they play a leading role in governance and curriculum design. That ensures value for money. We have a brilliant board of governors.

We are all passionate about skills and we are closely aligned with government policy. That will see us through and you never know, we might get the education and skills system that young people deserve and UK Plc so urgently needs.

 

When the Department for Business Innovation and Skills published its annual funding letter in February, it outlined concerns with the rise of sub-contracting. Nick Linford takes a look, in the context of the college area reviews, at whether more can be done to lift the lid on this murky world.

Let’s start by looking at how much Skills Funding Agency (SFA) funded sub-contracting takes place.

The latest list of self-declared sub-contracting arrangements (dated May) is for 2014/15 and has 573 lead providers sub-contracting £967m in 4,290 contracts to 1,555 sub-contractors.

To put £967m in context, the SFA allocations (dated April) shows £3.7bn for providers last year, which would mean about a third was self-declared as to be used for sub-contracting.

Beyond the well-trodden debates about the percentage some top-slice, much of this delivery will be taking place well out of the area of the lead provider.

It is something that the SFA reflected on in its 2015/16 funding rules, stating the reassurance that what its wants is ‘strategic’.

Local enterprise partnerships should also take a keen interest as part of college area reviews.

The guidance document on college area reviews does mention sub-contracting once, saying it will take it into account because so many of the precious apprenticeship starts come from colleges sub-contracting to independent providers across England.

Given the scale and complexity of the provision a thorough data driven review should be undertaken and published, lifting the lid for the area review boards on who, what and where there is duplication.

In addition, five quick sub-contracting wins would be to:

1. Limit the size of individual sub-contracts

There were 134 individual self-declared contracts last year worth £1m or more, with the largest for a college being over £6m with a private company based in London whose website is ‘under construction’. Large contracts are often delivered across England, hundreds of miles from the college. They are also high risk given the level of public funding exposure and number of on-programme learners that would be affected if the lead provider or sub-contractor ended the relationship.

2. Publish standardised year-end delivery figures for sub-contracting

At present, the SFA publishes self-declared contract values and, as reported last week in FE Week, is requiring greater compliance with the rule that lead providers publish delivery values. Is it not odd that while the SFA has standardised the collection of self-declared sub-contracting contract values into a single spreadsheet that they publish, they are allowing providers to self-publish delivery values, in different formats and scattered across over 500 websites? Far better the SFA take the existing ILR data and publish lead provider sub-contracting delivery values alongside details of the contract, provision and success rates.

3. Publish success rates for sub-contracted apprenticeship provision

Unlike classroom provision, the SFA does not produce sub-contractor qualification success rate reports for apprenticeships. It means that it’s very difficult for Ofsted and those involved in area reviews to see what and where the sub-contracted apprenticeship delivery is, or the percentage of apprentices succeeding. The reason for the omission is that apprenticeships are made up of several qualifications, not all of which will be delivered by one provider. This anomaly can be easily rectified by simply recording a single provider against the programme aim in the ILR.

4. Align EFA sub-contracting policies with the SFA

College’s 16 to 18 year-old funding will be considered as part of area reviews yet the EFA only recently began collecting sub-contracting data via the Individualised Learner Record. They do not collect sub-contracting arrangement information and they recently removed the requirement to request permission to sub-contract, although they have tightened up the audit requirements.

5. Ban some 16 to 18-year-old sub-contracting

In addition to taking the same reporting approach as the SFA, the EFA should ban part-time (non-traineeship) and weekend sub-contracted provision as it is often delivered out of the local area. Audits have shown it is highly likely a 16 or 17 year-old learner is already being funded full time at school, college or if 18-years-old, at university.

 

Mary Bousted outlines her concerns that the Prevent Duty could be causing more harm than good.

New issues in education have caused as much confusion, fear and misinformation as the Prevent Duty.

From July 1, education staff have been subject to the duty and have had the threat of a custodial sentence hanging over their heads like the proverbial sword of Damocles.

We believe that it is not the role of education staff to police young people and we are concerned that this strategy may exacerbate Islamophobia and racism.

College staff must ensure they are familiar with the clear procedures which providers are required to have in place for protecting learners at risk of radicalisation

College staff should be mindful of their duties under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), which makes it unlawful for learners, or potential learners, to be discriminated against, harassed or victimised on the grounds of protected characteristics, which include race, and religion or belief.

The PSED applies to the treatment of pupils or potential pupils in relation to admissions, the provision of education, access to any benefit, facility or service, or if a pupil is excluded or subjected to detrimental treatment.

We know Prevent is of great concern to our members and there is a dearth of good, accurate and effective training on the subject.

We know members have been told to police students. However, education professionals need to understand that Prevent is a safeguarding matter and should be treated in the same way as protecting children and young people from other harm, such as drugs, gangs, neglect, or sexual exploitation.

As with these wider safeguarding issues, college staff are required to identify learners who may be vulnerable to radicalisation, and know what to do when they are identified.

Contrary to some of the poor quality and sometimes factually incorrect information and training our members have received, the Duty does not require teachers to instigate difficult conversations to root out potential radicalisation.

Nor should teachers spy on their students by, for example, scrutinising their social media accounts. Schools have a general duty to ensure children and young people are equipped to stay safe online, both in school and outside. The Prevent Duty forms part of this broader responsibility.

The Prevent Duty also risks inhibiting the relationship of trust between students and teachers or support staff. Furthermore, there is potential that the duty will limit freedom in the classroom to challenge and discuss a variety of subjects.

Teachers must be aware, however, that the government’s guidance makes it clear that the Prevent Duty is not intended to stop learners debating controversial issues.

It’s not just education staff who must be alert to these issues. Shockingly, ATL has heard anecdotally that schools may be using the government’s Prevent helpline to denounce other schools in the area, claiming they have issues with radicalisation. The contentious adherence to ‘Fundamental British Values’ is another stick, which can potentially be used maliciously. Accusations could be made by students against other students, students against education staff, parents against education staff, education staff against colleagues, as well as by school and college leaders against their own staff.

To protect themselves against these concerns, college staff must ensure they are familiar with the clear procedures which providers are required to have in place for protecting learners at risk of radicalisation. These procedures may be set out in existing safeguarding policies.

Staff must also ensure they receive appropriate continuing professional development, which includes a forum for open discussion around the potential scenarios which may be encountered.

Any indication by providers that staff are required to take action which is over and above the requirements of the Prevent Duty should be discussed with senior management.

We would argue that any complaints be dealt with through the existing complaints or grievance procedures and that colleges ensure that all staff, without exception, receive thorough and high quality training.

 

Stewart Segal explains the important role that he thinks independent learning providers (ILPs) should play in upcoming post-16 education and training area reviews.

The AELP recognises that the area reviews launched by the Department for Business, Innovation and Sklls are principally focused on the future provision of FE colleges.

The current policy environment for all training providers is also very tough with reducing budgets and reducing rates of funding.

The area review must be a transparent and open process and ensur

e that all stakeholders can input to the discussions.

The learners and employers are the beneficiaries of any training and it is their needs that must drive any decisions.

In every local area of the UK, ILPs are an essential part of the complex skills and employability sector.

They deliver programmes with direct contracts from government as well as working with colleges as subcontractors to deliver demand led provision.

It is vital that this is taken into account in any review.

In most areas, ILPs deliver the majority of provision when you look across the employment and skills sectors, so any solutions must not protect or favour any one type of institution. Choice for the customer is key.

Across the country, the majority of ILPs work together within a local provider network.

This will involve national training providers that deliver locally as well smaller local providers and colleges.

It is important that these networks are able to make an effective input to these reviews.

The process and extent of the input will vary from area to area but for the large urban area reviews, the local network will have already been in contact.

The AELP will work closely with the local provider networks to ensure that there is the necessary input and that ITPs are fully aware of the review discussions.

In most areas, ILPs deliver the majority of provision when you look across the employment and skills sectors, so any solutions must not protect or favour any one type of institution

The review guidelines state that “there may be a need for early consultation with key counterparties of colleges who may have an interest in the outcome of area reviews. We would expect this matter to be considered as necessary by colleges and the local steering group”.

It may well include subcontractors of the colleges — so mostly ILPs, and other interested parties.

The guidelines issued by BIS to cover these reviews has a foreword by the Skills Minister who says that he would “encourage everyone to engage fully’ in this review process”.

The ILPs in each are very willing to engage and the local network and AELP as the national representatives will help provide the necessary input through all stages.

The guidance also says that “we are putting in place arrangements to ensure that there is effective engagement with the independent provider network, including formal arrangements for discussion with representative bodies including AELP”.

We will continue to discuss this with BIS to ensure that there is a formal route through the consultation process.

In particular, we would highlight three stages.

Firstly, for the initial review, the steering groups will need an accurate picture of existing provision in their areas.

The baseline information must be accurate and reflect the reality of the complexity of the situation, and ILPs and their representative bodies must have an opportunity to contribute to this baseline data and comment once it is collated.

Then for the analytical phase, once the reviews start to look at the data, they must be open to input from all stakeholders.

The analysis stage must be transparent and take into account the impact of any changes on all providers and all customers.

Thirdly, when it comes to recommendations on future actions, they must ensure that there is an impact review on all providers and customers — not just on the institutions (i.e. colleges) that have been party to the review.

There must be an opportunity for stakeholders to respond to any recommendations before they are implemented particularly if there may be impact on all providers.

The recommendations should respect the principle that all providers should be treated equally and any resources applied should follow the needs of the customers not just the needs of the institutions.