The FE Commissioner has launched a city-wide review of vocational education in Nottingham which is looking at merging the city’s two biggest colleges, FE Week can exclusively reveal.

It follows grade three Ofsted inspection results for both colleges over the last year and the revelation, reported in FE Week on April 20, that New College Nottingham (NCN) plans for a multimillion pound campus revamp had to be saved by £12m funding from the local authority and Skills Funding Agency (SFA).
Dawn Whitemore (pictured left), principal of  NCN, and Malcolm Cowgill (pictured below right), principal of Central College Nottingham (CCN), issued a joint statement to their staff on Tuesday (April 28) confirming that Dr David Collins had launched a review focusing on both colleges this week.

It said that the first of four planned meetings, chaired by the FE Commissioner and involving governors from both colleges and both principals, took place on Monday (April 27).

“Prior to this meeting, Dr Collins and his advisors met with key stakeholders in the city and county who articulated their desire for a single FE proposition and therefore were fully supportive of the process,” it said.

“Dr Collins articulated the meeting’s purpose and the terms of engagement, reiterating that the FE Commissioner’s role was one of facilitation, with a clear aim of achieving a single proposition which delivers robust outcomes for Nottingham and Nottinghamshire as a whole.

“The governing bodies of both colleges will be responsible for driving forward the review process while the role of the FE Commissioner and his advisors will be to broker feasible options that are in the best interests of learners and employers.”

It said that both colleges had agreed to “participate actively” in the review and “share information and data openly”.

A spokesperson for NCN also told FE Week 20 minutes ago: “The review has been on the cards for some time and has been championed by Nottingham City Council who see it as an important aspect of their devolution agenda.

“Both colleges welcome this review and will continue to work in partnership with all key stakeholders throughout the process.

“This process requires both colleges to review their curriculum offer, estates and finances, which means there is much work to be done by all parties before the FE Commissioner presents his final recommendations in July.

“Therefore, this is not the time to speculate on the outcome of the review, but to focus on the task in hand so we can secure a bright future for FE in Nottingham.”

It is thought that this is the first is the first time that the FE Commissioner has used his ‘area based review’ powers, as he normally only investigates single colleges.

Dr Collins was sent in to inspect NCN over financial concerns earlier this year and a Department for Business, Innovation and Skills spokesperson said: “As a part of the intervention process taking place at NCN, the FE Commissioner is overseeing discussions between NCN and CNN, who have agreed to take part in a broader discussion to consider how to provide the best further education offer for local learners and employers.”

It comes after CCN received a grade three Ofsted rating in November last year.

The report stated that the college’s “managers do not accurately assess the quality of provision in all subject areas and they do not consistently set targets to tackle specific reasons for underperformance”.

Also, NCN was rated as grade three by Ofsted following an inspection in May last year.

The report stated that “leadership and management of the different subject areas are not yet consistently good enough to ensure that all learners and apprentices have an equal chance of being successful, irrespective of the subject they choose to learn”.

It was further revealed in FE Week on April 20 that NCN plans for a multimillion pound campus revamp had to be saved after the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) and local authority stepped in with £12m of funding.

It had already had a grant of £15m from the SFA for its Basford Hall campus redevelopment, and it is understood that the new deal will bring the funding up to the £27m needed for the work.

It is understood finances at the college, which triggered an inspection from FE Commissioner Dr David Collins in February, had proved a concern for potential bank lenders.

However, a spokesperson for the college, which suffered a loss of £2.4m last academic year, said at the time that this would allow it to open the revamped campus on time this September following a £5m loan from Nottingham City Council and, FE Week understands, a £5m SFA grant and exceptional financial support of £2m.

The new campus will accommodate 4,500 construction, science, engineering and technology students a year.

Financial issues at the college, which is looking to shed around 80 posts, mean it has also been forced to put its contribution to a £60m city-wide skills hub on hold — although it remains involved with a scheme steering group. “We are working together with Central College Nottingham and other partners on the Skills Hub development,” said Ms Whitemore.

A Nottingham City Council spokesperson confirmed that the council was involved with the city-wide review .

The SFA and Association of Colleges declined to comment.

Former Whitehall FE and skills chief and resident FE Week agony aunt Dr Sue Pember is set for a return to sector leadership.

The former senior civil servant, who worked with 10 FE and skills ministers and eight secretaries of state over six years up to 2013, will head up adult learning provider membership body Holex from August.

She takes over from Holex founder Bob Powell (pictured), who is retiring as chief officer after 20 years in the role.

“Bob has done a remarkable job — I’m a bit scared to follow in his footsteps,” she said.

She added: “This sector does wonderful work with adults in many different and often difficult settings and they continue to have a presence in the most poor and disadvantaged neighbourhoods.

“They are innovative, have an impressive skills base and community reach, so they are well placed to take on the new localism agenda.”

The chief officer job will be split in two, with Dr Pember taking on the bulk of the role as director of policy and external relations while Mr Powell’s administrative responsibilities will be divided among other staff.

Dr Pember, who got an OBE in 2000 for services to education, said: “I am delighted to be taking on this role in these challenging and exciting times.”

One of her roles will involve oversight of the Education and Training Foundation, with Holex one of its owners along with the Association of Colleges and the Association of Employment and Learning Providers.

Mr Powell is expected to continue occasional duties throughout autumn 2015 to complete existing externally-funded projects.

Mr Powell said Dr Pember would be able to offer “new perspectives on the organisation’s work”.

“I can think of no-one more suited to take on this role as a key part of the team charged with taking Holex forward,” he said.

“Sue’s appointment brings both a breadth of experience and a depth of understanding that I am confident will stand Holex in good stead.

“I have every confidence that Holex member organisations will go forward into this new future with a refreshed impetus, a clear vision and justifiable enthusiasm.”

Holex chair Barbara Holm, said Dr Pember’s “significant experience both in Whitehall and as a leading provider manager ensures we will be able to engage fully in policy debate”.

“Sue will lead for us in our dealings with government, stakeholders and other organisations and will be responsible for keeping colleagues at Holex member organisations up to speed with national developments,” she added.

Dr Pember is expected to begin meeting with practitioners and managers from across the adult learning sector before taking up the post, to ensure a smooth transition.

 

As the dawn of a new government with the possibility of a raft of new policies approaches, former FE lecturer, press officer and communications manager Anne Nicholls (pictured) considers some policies of old and asks whether they’re best left in the past, or ripe for reconsideration.

Folks in the Westminster education and skills bubble have oft been accused of “collective amnesia”.

In its November report Sense and instability City and Guilds revealed how many of today’s policies were simply old ones recycled. But with 61 secretaries of state responsible for skills over the past 30 years it’s hardly surprising that there is little continuity.

Those of us who have been around in the sector for longer than two decades are suffering from an acute case of déjà vu.

As yet another “new” policy initiative jumps on the FE merry-go-round sending the whole sector into a tail spin, are we seeing a rerun of Groundhog Day?

I have worked in FE, intermittently, for nigh on 30 years — as an FE lecturer, journalist, press officer and communications manager, working for City & Guilds, the much lamented Learning and Skills Development Agency and others.

During this time I have witnessed the birth and demise of many policy initiatives, quangos and qualifications, from YOPS, TOPS and YTS, to CPVE, E2E, the FEFC and the LSC.

Some were great ideas but fell foul of the whims of different secretaries of state. Others were half-baked and not thought through properly. And some were just plain daft.

Here are my favourites.

TVEI — The Technical Vocational Education Initiative (1983-97)

Full marks to whoever invented the title for the least catchy acronym and most garbled strapline.

As an FE lecturer in my first job I recall sitting in a seminar listening to people enthusing about TVEI wondering when we would actually get to see inside a television studio.

Fearful of sounding ignorant, it took several weeks for me to pluck up courage and ask someone to explain what TVEI was.

In short, the idea was to inject elements of vocational education into the 14 to 18 curriculum — apparently a dramatic departure from previous education policies at the time.

But as with many initiatives it floundered because of alleged tensions between government departments which were issuing contradictory messages.

As the National Curriculum gained momentum and the (then) Department for Education and Science flexed its muscles, TVEI faded away.

However, at a seminar organised by Pearson recently, there were hints that TVEI might make a comeback. Let’s hope they call it something else in case we think it’s all about television.

PICKUP — Professional and Commercial Updating Programme (1982-92)

The unfortunate acronym PICKUP made this initiative sound like an old dust cart.

It was a government-funded scheme that encouraged colleges (and universities as well) to provide courses for industry and businesses designed around their needs.

Funding was also made available for college lecturers to gain relevant experience outside education.

I took advantage of this by spending three months working on a magazine and then left to forge a new career in journalism and PR. I’ve never looked back.

What exactly happened to PICKUP is not clear. It probably suffered the same fate as other good ideas — running out of money and steam. But the mantra that colleges need to be more responsive to the needs of employers continues.

Franchising (1993-9)

Rewind back to the mid 1990s to a different world when money was plentiful and colleges were being invited to set themselves ambitious expansion targets.

One way of expanding was through franchising — subcontracting to other providers and collecting public funding for courses that colleges sold to organisations such as local businesses.

But it all started to unravel when the Serious Fraud Office was brought in to investigate the misuse of public funds by some colleges, with allegations of “phantom students”.

A report in 1999 revealed that Halton College, in Cheshire, was unable to justify spending more than £6m of public money and accused staff of taking unnecessary expensive overseas trips.

One scam was claiming money for students on franchised courses based in Scotland, who were not eligible for funds from the English funding council.

Halton was not an isolated example. One school was said to be running courses for three colleges, using the same students and therefore getting triple payments.

But franchising, of course, is a perfectly acceptable way of operating. Many universities have sub-contracting arrangements with FE colleges to deliver their courses. But, since the scandals of the 1990s, lessons have been learned and the franchising option is no longer a gravy train.

Individual learning accounts (ILAs)
(2000-1)

The idea behind the ILAs was to provide tax incentives and cash contributions to encourage individuals and employers to invest in learning — particularly in IT skills. Individuals were asked to put £25 of their own money into an account while the government provided £150. Sadly, these good intentions were open to abuse.

Some employers bought ILAs from corrupt learning providers and cashed them, knowing that no-one could check on whether learning had been delivered.

ILAs were a great idea that failed because they were open to abuse. There was some talk, in 2006, of reviving the ILAs but they seem to have dropped off the policy radar. Worth looking at again, maybe?

Key Skills (2000 -)

Functional Skills, Life Skills or Key Skills? They all do much the same thing — trying to get people up to a basic level of competency in literacy, numeracy, IT and being able to hold down a conversation without saying “Errrr”.

While at the Learning and Skills Development Agency I observed the large amounts of money being pumped into providing training and resources for teachers.

The Key Skills qualification, along with Functional Skills, came under attack in the Wolf Report (2011) for being “very easy to pass” and serving the funding requirements of providers rather than the needs of learners or employers.

The solution? Get everyone to study for GCSEs in maths and English — a bit like getting someone to keep on retaking their driving test when all they want to do is ride a bicycle. Thankfully, one or two people have realised the problem.

The Diploma of Vocational Education (2004-7)

After much cogitation and consultation, the Diploma was launched a decade ago as the definitive solution to the age-old debate about vocational-academic parity.

A-levels and GCSEs would remain, keeping the gold-standard pundits happy, but they would be encased in a building block-style framework where students could take vocational subjects as well.

To the pre-war generation it sounded like a revival of the old matriculation.

Huge efforts were put into developing materials and training programmes to get teachers ready for the Diploma, due to be phased in from 2008.

But sources in Whitehall hinted that it was running into problems with fears of a “two-tier system”.

The outcome? Apparently, my sources tell me it was Blair who rejected the Diplomas.

Was it a mistake? My view (and that of some politicians) is that we could have got it right, but like many good ideas the Diplomas were not given enough time to bed in and became the victim of political whims.

Pearson’s crystal ball gazer (alias Steve Besley) has intimated that the Diploma might yet make a comeback.

The Quality Improvement Agency (QIA) for Lifelong Learning (2006-8)

The what? Don’t worry if you’ve never heard of it. Hardly surprising as it lasted just two years (I worked for them for just a month), but then the average lifespan of a quango is only eight.

The QIA was formed out of the Learning and Skills Development Agency which had done an excellent job by combining policy and practice with a foot in both camps.

This meant they were able to understand the needs of teachers and policy makers. But the cry from Whitehall where contestability was the buzzword was “You can’t have an agency doing commissioning and delivery”. Errrrr, why not?

The idea behind the QIA was that it would do the commissioning and others would do the delivery. But after two years people realised that the organisation needed to be owned by the sector, not part of government.

So the QIA morphed into the Learning and Skills Improvement Service (LSIS) which was emphatically not a quango. Sadly, LSIS is no more either, having morphed (well, sort of) into the Education and Training Foundation.

The TechBacc (2014)

My final choice is a good example of a Groundhog Day initiative. As described on the City & Guilds website, the TechBacc (the Technical Baccalaureate) is “an entirely new professional programme designed to give 14 to 19-year-olds an exciting alternative path towards an apprenticeship, higher education or employment”.

It continues by explaining that the current education system is not adequately preparing young people for the world of work and that many of the current qualifications are old, tired and not relevant to today’s industry needs. Bravo.

But the TechBacc is not a new idea. Trawling through my memory (and the internet) I recall that City & Guilds launched a Technological Baccalaureate (note the slight difference in terminology) back in the 1990s.

It was developed jointly with something called the CTC (City Technology Colleges) Trust – another initiative that has faded into history.

The original TechBacc was designed to “achieve parity of status between academic and vocational qualifications”. Now where have we heard that before?

Nevertheless, the current TechBacc sounds like an excellent initiative. Let’s hope that it’s given enough time to bed in without becoming a victim of short-termism.

So there we have it. Eight prime examples of ideas — some good and some flawed — that were launched with much gusto that have bitten the dust or morphed into something else. “They say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. It would be madness to ignore the evidence of three decades of skills and employment policy — yet our politicians have failed to learn from the past,” said City & Guilds Chairman Sir John Armitt.

So perhaps when the next government launches a “new” initiative with a “vision” to bridge the academic-vocational divide or make qualifications more relevant to employers, instead of indulging in collective amnesia civil servants should delve through the archives … or maybe just talk to a few people who’ve seen it all before.

Main pic: Clockwise from above: Tony Blair was said to not be a fan of the Diploma of Vocational Education during his time as Prime Minister and it ended the same year as his time in Number 10; the Serious Fraud Office looked into the issue of franchising during the practiceÕs seven-year lifespan in the 1990s; and the Quality Improvement Agency (QIA) for Lifelong Learning was one of the shorter-lived FE policies, lasting just two years. It was second only in Anne NichollsÕ list in terms of length of existence to the Individual Learning Account

Funding, change, workload and bureaucracy topped the list of concerns in the second annual FE Week sector survey.

Worries about English and maths teaching and the “broad direction of travel” for FE followed close behind as hundreds took the opportunity to express their feelings on FE and skills with the General Election just days away.

And sector leaders have backed the results, using them to call for support and action from the party, or parties, that emerge victorious from Thursday May 7’s vote.

Among them was 157 Group executive director Dr Lynne Sedgmore who said the sector was “at something of a turning point”, and that concern over the ‘broad direction of travel’ (90 per cent concerned) and the rate and volume of change (90.2 per cent concerned) was “very understandable”.

She told FE Week: “I would urge the next government to learn from experiences with the schools sector and engage much more meaningfully in a dialogue with those of us delivering FE on the ground before imposing yet more top-down initiatives.”

Dr Sedgmore said she was reassured that responses on issues like loans and English and maths demonstrated the sector “understood the importance of making those initiatives with which we all agree work”, but added that it remained “important that we are given time to make them work before being judged as underperforming”.

She added: “Concerns about the future direction of Ofsted are perhaps a reflection of the strongly-held belief of many that we are increasingly being held to account for societal problems which are not of our own making.

“The clear message is that we understand what is being asked of us, but that policy — and funding — must match up to the aspirational rhetoric in reality if we are to have the world-class skills system we all want. It is concerning that fears around staff turnover may indicate that many are choosing to leave rather than face the very real challenges of the future.”

David Hughes , chief executive of the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (Niace), said he was saddened by the results, which he said showed the sector did not feel as “confident and supported” as it should.

He said: “Over half of those surveyed are extremely concerned about the ‘broad government ‘direction of travel’ for FE and skills’ and three quarters are extremely concerned about levels of funding. That weight of feeling does not suggest a healthy position for FE and we need to fight to improve it.”

He said Niace was among the organisations calling for funding cuts in FE to stop and repeated his call for a commission to agree a long-term ‘settlement’ for the sector, a call which he said was backed up by the survey results.

He added: “I believe that the next government has a once in a generation opportunity to set out a more positive and clear vision for how the learning, skills and employment needs of the country will be met.

“The productivity deficit, technological change and an ageing population all require more people to continue to learn and develop. Our current system is not geared to deliver that and this survey shows why not. I hope that politicians, civil servants and advisers all read this and pay heed.”

The Sixth Form Colleges’ Association (SFCA) has also called for action on funding in response to the survey results.

James Kewin, SFCA deputy chief executive, said: “It is striking that 89 per cent of respondents were either moderately or extremely concerned about the adequacy of learner funding. Adequacy is the key word here — while the government maintains that it is funding sixth formers to study on a full time basis, there is a big difference between the way the Department for Education defines full time study for funding purposes and the reality of what a full time education actually involves.”

He said students were increasingly receiving “a part time educational experience” and warned this could become the norm without an urgent review of education funding.

He added: “The survey also shows there is deep concern about the funding of students with high needs. We share this concern, and believe that returning responsibility for funding to the EFA and removing the role of local authorities would be a helpful first step on the road to getting a better deal for these young people that need it most.”

Kevin Gilmartin, colleges specialist at the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), said members had been “battling with the inadequacy of 16 to 18 funding” for a number of years and had led a national campaign to highlight the issue.

He added: “Indeed, the April council has just agreed policy to campaign for the quantum per learner for core funding post-16 to be increased from the existing £4,000 to £4,800.

“It is to be hoped that the incoming government listens very carefully to the funding concerns of the FE and post-16 sector, as articulated by ASCL and its other professional partners.”

He said levels of funding per learner “must be increased to an adequate level” in order to produce the “world-class educational and training sector for which we all strive”, adding: “The sector has the passion, skills and expertise to produce this — but it needs the government to give it the basic tools for the job.”

The survey results also sparked concerns among the University and College Union (UCU) and the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL).

Sally Hunt, UCU general secretary, said the survey results made it clear that staff in FE were under “a great deal of strain”.

She added: “It is clear from the survey that staff in further education are under a great deal of strain. 50 per cent of staff are extremely concerned about workload and there are is also apprehension about the pace of change and the ability to retain staff within the sector.

“The findings reinforce the importance of the workload challenge for FE for identifying and addressing specific concerns in terms of workload.”

Ms Hunt said the survey also raised concerns about new English and maths requirements, and said staff needed support in this “crucial” area.

She said: “Once again, though, the overriding concern for staff is the level of institutional funding, and this uncertainty has only been compounded by the massive budget cuts announced for adult learning in 2015/16.

“The next government urgently needs to review the funding situation for FE and ensure that proper investment is made.”

Dr Mary Bousted, general secretary of the ATL, said: “The FE sector has been devastated by the cuts imposed by the coalition government, so it is no surprise this survey reveals funding is of the highest concern to respondents.”

She added that the survey results revealed the “dire impact” of inadequate funding on learners, and that staff were seeing a decline in training opportunities as a result of cuts.

She said: “These responses indicate staff are also seeing a decline in training opportunities as a result of austerity cuts to the FE sector, further undermining their professionalism and limiting their ability to pass on up-to-date skills and knowledge to students.

“Respondents echoed ATL’s view regarding workload; that staff are steadily being run into the ground, as well as revealing many of the other fundamental flaws currently dogging the education sector.

“We need to take heed of these warnings because they reflect the sector’s capacity to deliver crucial skills to the economy and wider opportunities to local communities.”

Survey issues ring true for AoC

The concerns of the FE sector highlighted in the 2015 FE Week FE and skill survey chime with the issues raised in the AoC manifesto for colleges.

It is not surprising that 90 per cent of respondents were concerned about funding — both for educational institutions and for individual students.

We have seen a 24 per cent cut for adult education announced in the last year on top of significant cuts throughout the last Parliament. Colleges are being forced to make tough decisions about the future.

Following such severe cuts and the changes we have seen in policy from the previous government over the past year, many are worried about the direction of travel for the next administration.

At the AoC, we have been lobbying hard to ensure the importance and value of FE is recognised, and it is encouraging that Labour and the Liberal Democrats have pledged to ring-fence funding from 0 to 19.

We would like to see education funding put on a more rational and stable footing and that’s why we are calling for the next government of whatever hue to prioritise a once-in-a-generation funding review of how money is spent at each stage of education to ensure we can adequately educate and train all children and young people.

Colleges are also dealing with increased enrolments of young people who have failed to achieve grade A* to C in English and maths GCSE after 11 years of schooling.

Supporting students who have previously failed these qualifications is not easy as specialist teaching staff are needed to motivate them which all requires funding. Two thirds of respondents to the survey said they were concerned about the number of maths and English teachers available.

However, this funding is dependent on students being able to achieve at least a C grade and more needs to be done to support colleges in recruiting and training additional teachers. There is no quick fix to the maths and English challenge. GCSEs need to be rigorous qualifications, but some young people will never be able to achieve this.

The next government should work with employers and colleges to develop new maths and English qualifications which are related to the world of work and everyday life.

‘We need stability to cope with less funding in a time of higher quality benchmarks’

The FE Week survey reflects many of the issues that we have included in our own manifesto, which we issued back in 2013.

The overall concern is that the reducing budgets and higher quality benchmarks mean that we need a period of stability under the next government so that providers can drive improvements to delivery while funding continues to be a major challenge.

Providers welcome change, but it has to be done in a consistent and predictable policy environment. Around two thirds (65 per cent) of the survey’s respondents were either moderately concerned or extremely concerned that we won’t have enough English and maths teachers in our sector, so political ambitions in respect of GCSE attainment should be tempered accordingly unless backed with significant investment.

We all know that we need to improve the teaching of English and maths, but the policy on issues like Functional Skills must be consistent and supportive. English and maths has been one area of focus in recent Ofsted inspections and the survey echoes provider concerns about the overall inspection regime since the start of the year. Another common inspection framework arrives in September — only two years after the last one.

When you look at the survey’s findings on the lack of confidence in the reliability of inspectors’ findings and match this to the fact that there will be a difficult transition to the new framework, we need to ensure that Ofsted and the government are aware of the impact of these constant changes.

The complexity of the sector’s offer is identified as a significant concern and we know that it is one shared by employers. This is why for non-classroom provision, the AELP believes that future skills and employment provision should be focused on apprenticeships, traineeships, English and maths and programmes for the unemployed.

Making sure that more young people in particular know about these opportunities remains a major task and the survey shows that providers believe that much needs to be done to improve information, advice and guidance. If the next government makes the commitment to work with the sector, then we hope that next year’s survey will show an improvement in measures such as the direction of travel of policy where 70 per cent of respondents are concerned and rates of funding where 72 per cent are extremely concerned.

---

‘Sector virtually unsustainable’

If the data from our 2015 survey painted a less than positive picture, then comments added by respondents to some of the questions offered little in the way of hope.

Here are some of the hardest-hitting statements submitted by some of the 723 respondents to our survey. They were picked from answers in areas ranked highest in terms of levels of concern.

We also have responses to the survey results from representatives of the main three political parties, particularly pertinent as we head into the final countdown for what looks to be one of the closest elections in history. Do any of them convince you that their policies might answer the issues raised by our survey?

---

More analysis of ‘successful’ survey on way

A full report on the findings of the FE Week annual FE and Skills survey is due to be released later this month.

Policy Consortium, the FE Week research partner for the survey, will publish detailed analysis of the findings by its panel of experts on May 11.

The report will be available on both the FE Week and Policy Consortium websites.

“Another year and another hugely successful FE Week annual survey — our second — has laid bare the feelings of those within the sector about what is happening to FE and skills,” said FE Week editor Chris Henwood.

“My sincere thanks go to everyone who took the time to make their opinions known. Just like this newspaper, it is something that simply could not happen without the support of our readers, and it should now go without saying that the survey will be back again next year.”

The survey opened on February 26, and respondents were able to give their views until March 24.

The results of the prize draw, with prizes of an iPad Air and an FE Week subscription, will be announced before the end of May.

Less than half saying funding was biggest issue for cash-starved sector is telling for severity of other concerns

What does it say about the health of the FE and skills sector if funding is the “single biggest issue” for just 44 per cent of those who responded to the survey question, asks Mick Fletcher.

he first headline finding from the Policy Consortium / FE Week survey of the sector in 2015 was a big surprise.

Respondents were asked to identify “the biggest single issue affecting FE and Skills”. Out of all the answers received 44 per cent — under half — were concerned with funding.

Given what is going on in the sector at the moment this figure seems surprisingly low and requires some investigation.

Colleges and other providers are facing a cut of around 24 per cent in their adult skills budget. Rates for 16 to 19 funding are frozen. Support for older students is being switched from grant to loan despite disappointing take-up.

And government is ploughing on with its policy of transferring skills funding to employers despite evidence from the employer ownership pilots that it doesn’t work and evidence from the apprenticeship funding consultation that employers don’t want it.

What on earth is going on?

What must be
the worst funding settlement for any sector of education for some time should be seen as a benchmark for the concerns expressed about other aspects of the current context

The first thought was that the sample might be seriously unrepresentative. Perhaps it was only those in quiet and protected corners of the sector who had the time to fill in the on-line questionnaire; all the rest were too busy cutting classes and sacking their colleagues to notice.

That doesn’t seem to be true, however. While we are not claiming statistical precision for the survey the 723 people who did respond appear to be a broad cross section of the sector.

About half of them described themselves as managers, further 10 per cent as chief executives, 20 per cent administrative or support staff and 10 per cent tutors or lecturers.

About two thirds were from colleges with others coming from training providers, community learning, local government and support agencies.

About half had been in the sector for 13 years or more so were well able to put today’s cuts in context.

The second hypothesis was that people are really not as concerned about funding as recent commentary has suggested.

Perhaps it is only those paid to speak for sector bodies and lobby groups who are making a fuss; those at the ‘chalk face’ just accept retrenchment and cuts in service as part of the job.

Once again however this explanation doesn’t stack up.

When asked specifically about funding rates just under three quarters described themselves as ‘extremely concerned’. Nine out of ten people in this cross section of the sector said that they were either extremely or moderately concerned — a 5 percentage point increase on last year’s already elevated level.

And in case anyone thinks the sample included only ‘moaning minnies’ who would be extremely concerned about anything, the answers to other questions don’t bear that out. Only a quarter for example were ‘extremely concerned’ about discretionary support funds despite all the pressures on that budget.

The comments people made explaining their concerns were also revealing.

Unlike last year when most comments revolved around particular aspects of provision many people this year expressed fears about systemic failure, perceived threats to the viability of institutions, to adult learning as a whole or to FE as we have known it.

The explanation for this initially surprising set of answers has to be that although most people are very concerned about funding they are even more concerned about other things that are going on.

What must be the worst funding settlement for any sector of education for some time should be seen as a benchmark for the concerns expressed about other aspects of the current context.

They include government priorities, mentioned in 16 per cent of responses as of greater concern than funding, concerns about the status of the sector, about curriculum reform, arrangements for inspection and quality and the ability to meet local needs.

The sky was no limit for students and staff from the science, technology, engineering and maths (Stem) departments at Chichester College who launched a balloon into the stratosphere.

Armed with a “payload” of three cameras, a black box and seeds, the team released the high-altitude weather balloon as part of the Global Balloon Challenge, where winners can land prizes for highest altitude, best images, best videos and best team.

After several hours in the air the balloon, flying at about five metres per second, flew over the New Forest before picking up the strengthening winds of the jet stream high in the stratosphere.

It then blew in a north-easterly direction before bursting — just when the team had predicted it would.

Andrew Chater, head of engineering at Chichester College, said: “With all equipment intact and with the data already looking impressive I think we can safely say that we have had a 100 per cent success rate for the mission.”

Main pic: From left: Level two diploma in engineering student Gill Krymcevas, aged 18, Steve Scanlon, engineering lecturer, level two diploma in engineering student Luke Guy, 17, Kevin Twine, motorcycle lecturer, Mick Belt, engineering lecturer, Rik Tooley, engineering lecturer, Chris Hartley, motorcycle lecturer and Carl Lillywhite, motorcycle lecturer