Large employers’ apprenticeship levy cash should go into one pot to benefit firms of all sizes, AELP tells government

Cash raised by the proposed new large employers’ apprenticeship levy should be combined with government funding in a central pot available to all employers of all sizes under a “simple” new system, the government has been told.

The Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) made the proposal in its submission to the government consultation on the levy proposals, which closed on October 2.

It said: “Our overarching view is that we must keep this system simple, so we would be much clearer that any money raised by the levy goes into a single fund (for England) which would be combined with any investment funds allocated by the government (currently £1.5bn).

“The fund would then support all apprenticeships in England, for both large and small employers.”

Its response to the consultation added that all employers would then have “access [to] the funding support and the level of that support would be set out by the government for each standard (by bands) and for each age group of apprentices”.

An important benefit of this system would be that the “government’s [apprenticeship] contribution would not be dependent on each employer’s contribution or the price agreed for the training,” it added.

It welcomed guidance that the government had provided on its plans to distribute levy funding through a digital voucher system, but criticised the lack of information provided so far on the planned rate and scope of the charge.

It comes after the government was criticised by the CBI, in an FE Week article published on August 21 following the launch of the consultation, for failing to specify what the minimum size of “larger employers” set to pay the levy would be.

But the AELP response said that it “might consider a dual measure [for the minimum size] — either a minimum number of employees such as 250 and/ or a minimum turnover”.

It added: “There needs to be a simple method of calculating the levy and basing this figure on payroll costs appears to be the most straightforward approach.”

It also warned that “employers who are doing internal training, but which does not meet the standards required of an apprenticeship programme, may be tempted to re-badge their own provision to get their funding back”.

It said this could be avoided by, for example, an independent quality assurance process “managed by an organisation such as Ofsted, although this must be more closely managed by employers and stakeholders rather than government”.

Speaking as the consultation response was unveiled this morning, AELP chief executive Stewart Segal (pictured) said: “We accept that the levy will be a source of additional investment and will engage more larger employers.

“However we have to be cautious about the impact on the smaller employers in the apprenticeship programme and how the levy will focus the attention of employers on the programme’s financial cost rather than the quality of delivery.”

The consultation responses of a number of other sector bodies, including the Association of Colleges (AoC) and CBI were reported in edition 149 of FE Week.

The AoC warned the government against “using the levy as a reason to reduce its own £1.5bn annual spending on apprenticeships”.

The CBI’s response called for the levy to be controlled by a new independent board, using the Low Pay Commission as a “blueprint”.

A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) declined to say how many responses it had received, but said: “The government response [to all consultation submissions] will be published in due course.”

Skills Minister Nick Boles reveals government considering signing apprentices up to spread the careers guidance word

Apprentices could be asked to sign contracts upon enrolment requiring them to deliver careers advice, Skills Minister Nick Boles told the Conservative Party conference in Manchester today.

Leading a panel including an apprentice and Crossrail chair Terry Morgan, Mr Boles called for help from delegates in Manchester in persuading young people to take up apprenticeships and in convincing employers to create the earn and learn vacancies.

He said: “One of the things we’re thinking about is asking every apprentice to sign a simple contract. We are going to ask people in that contract to agree to go back to that school and talk to the youngsters coming behind them about the opportunities of apprenticeships, so everybody really understands from the horse’s mouth what a great thing this is.”

Mr Boles also admitted to having felt “quite pleased” with himself when the government claimed to have hit its 2m starts target of the last Parliament around a year ago, which was followed by the pledge by Prime Minister David Cameron that the target would be 3m in this Parliament.

“I need your help as parents, as grandparents, as friends and neighbours to persuade young people like Josh that an apprenticeship is a great thing for their future,” said Mr Boles.

“And I need your help as councillors, as businesspeople, as members of rotary and round table, in persuading employers like Terry that they should be investing in apprenticeships to create those opportunities for young people.

“We have a lot of work to do, but it’s good work and it’s very exciting to be a part of it.”

The panel discussion was followed by a speech from Business Secretary Sajid Javid, who said the government was “going further” in its bid to create apprenticeship starts.

Business Secretary Sajid Javid speaks at Conservative Party Conference Pic: PA Photo/Jon Super
Business Secretary Sajid Javid speaks at Conservative Party Conference. Pic: PA Photo/Jon Super

He added: “Our targets are not just numbers. Our targets are people. Like Josh, the young man we saw on stage this morning. Someone filled with drive, dedication and determination. The sort of person that this one nation government is unashamedly on the side of, and will always be.”

Mr Javid also celebrated his party’s win in May’s general election, and even heaped some criticism on his Liberal Democrat predecessor in his government post, Dr Vince Cable.

He said: “It’s been nearly 20 years since the last Conservative secretary of state left the Department of Trade and Industry. Two decades of countless Labour ministers. Two decades of side-lining and marginalising business, including five years of Vince Cable, and believe me, that was more than enough.”

Apprenticeships also featured in other speeches, with Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin announcing that he would work with Crossrail’s Mr Morgan to create “30,000 apprenticeships across road and rail by 2020”.

Click here for coverage of last week’s Labour conference. Expect further conference coverage in a free supplement with edition 150 of FE Week, dated Monday, October 12.

Main pic: Nick Boles at Conservative Party conference today. Pic: PA

‘Soviet-style’ apprenticeship quality question

The government’s record on improving the quality of the apprenticeships programme has come in for questioning.

Falling success rates, exemptions from minimum standards and publicly-aired doubts from the education watchdog’s chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw (pictured below right) have cast a shadow over the government’s 3m apprenticeship starts target for this Parliament.Sir Michael Wilshaw

It’s a situation that has led Shadow Skills Minister Gordon Marsden (pictured above) to warn against a “Soviet-style five-year plan simply churning out numbers at the expense of quality and progression”.

He said he was “especially concerned” that success rates for apprentices aged 19 and above fell by almost six percentage points, from 74.3 per cent in 2011/12 to 68.4 per cent in 2013/14.

The same national success rates table, reported by FE Week in April, showed that overall apprenticeship success rates had fallen by nearly 5 percentage points, from 73.8 per in 2011/12 to 68.9 per cent in 2013/14.

Mr Marsden said: “These statistics should be a wake-up call to this government to establish if this trend is continuing. They should be talking urgently to colleges and other providers including representatives from both service and manufacturing sectors for their take on the situation.”

It comes after FE Week reported last month that the government had rejected calls to stop employers running in-house ‘apprenticeships’ of less than 12 months, despite a 12-month minimum duration being a key element for ensuring quality for publicly-funded apprenticeships.

Meanwhile, the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) has said it will not publish achievement rates for the new apprenticeship standards in the national success rate tables, and that apprenticeship standards will not be included in minimum standards for 2015 to 2016.

The SFA has also opted to keep the minimum standard threshold for apprenticeship success rates at 55 per cent for 2014/15 — although it has said it is “intending” to raise that threshold to 62 per cent for 2015/16.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) has also raised the possibility, in its consultation for the proposed large employers’ apprenticeship levy, of allowing employers to use the services of providers that are not subject to an approval system or even Ofsted inspections.

Meanwhile, Ofsted chief inspector Sir Michael last year wrote in his annual report on FE and skills for 2013/14 that the “quality of apprenticeships is still not good enough”.

It all comes with the publication of Ofsted’s much-awaited review of apprenticeships expected on October 22.

A BIS spokesperson said: “The apprenticeship success rates from 2011 to 2014 do not reflect our fundamental reforms and the new [employer led] Trailblazer [apprenticeships] that will drive up quality.”

“All providers will still be expected to follow the SFA Trailblazer funding rules, meet the expectations set out in their quality statement and will be subject to the terms in their intervention policy,” the spokesperson added.

“During 2015/2016, the SFA will explore how to best incorporate apprenticeship standards into qualification achievement rates,” he said.

The SFA declined to comment.

The Indy Scene: Edition 150

Chancellor George Osborne’s decision to impose a levy on employers to fund apprenticeships is a positive move if carefully and fairly implemented and if the unintended consequences and opportunities for fraud are thought through in advance.

Training prescribed by industrial training boards was funded by a statutory levy until abandoned by Margaret Thatcher in the 1990s. My first work-based learning job was with the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board, one of 32 training boards funded by a statutory levy.

Compulsion to take an apprenticeship will probably drive the completion rates down from their current highest ever level into the 60 per cent range

In those days, most companies paying the levy ensured they undertook sufficient prescribed training to claim back in full their levy payments. As it was compulsory, some employees and employers benefited from the training delivered and others begrudged it.

But this is no different from today when a head office HR department imposes apprenticeship programmes across the whole company without explaining to the site managers, supervisors and potential apprentices the benefits and responsibilities.

Any taxation, which is what the levy is, has to be perceived as fair by all required to pay it. The danger lies with limiting it to companies with at least 250 employees.

They will see themselves paying and training staff, who, when competent, will be poached by smaller companies.

The levy should encompass all employers, apart from the very small, say those with fewer than 25 employees.

The powerhouse for economic growth is the small and medium-sized enterprises, so they should be encouraged to take on apprentices, albeit through the imposition of a levy.

The increased income raised by including all employers in the levy, apart from the very smallest, would allow those employers with fewer than 25 employees to have free apprenticeship training.

Of course there will be consequences. Being forced to undertake an apprenticeship so their employer can recoup their levy payments will drive up early leavers.

Our statistics show the highest number of early leavers come from employers who demand the age grant and only pay the minimum apprentice wage.

Compulsion to take an apprenticeship
will probably drive the completion rates down from their current highest ever level into the 60 per cent range. However as Prime Minister David Cameron’s target is only for 3m starts, completions and early leavers will not figure and most early leavers will not join the unemployment register.

How the levy is raised is being pondered by government, whether on a company’s turnover or a headcount of employees.

In some sectors, this may induce employers to make their staff self-employed to avoid paying the levy. It is common practice in hairdressing for the saloon owner to rent out ‘chairs.’

This could convert into other sectors, for example self-employed waiters could ‘rent’ tables from the restaurateur. I have no doubt a whole industry of ‘levy advisers’ will evolve to show employers how to avoid or minimise payments. These people will creep out of the woodwork in the same way there are a plethora of ‘consultants’ who trade sub-contracting around FE colleges and providers for a ‘small’ fee.

I think it is important that the smaller companies and enterprises, ie those with 25 or more employees are brought into the levy as well as large employers.

The overwhelming message from government is the 3m target. If this is not met by manufacturing and service industry employers, it will be easy for the government to switch the tap on for national and local government departments and the NHS to ‘fill their boots’ with apprentices.

While this may benefit the efficiency and productivity of the government departments concerned, the emphasis for apprenticeship recruitment should be concentrated on manufacturing and service employers who need the improved efficiency and productivity a skilled workforce can bring and thus contribute through taxes to the Treasury to fund and improve state services.

And if there is not enough money in the pot to pay for all these increased apprenticeship and there is no other source of government funding, simple — just raise
the levy.

 

Memories of a ‘welcoming’ Umpqua Community College shattered by gun death tragedy

When news broke last week that nine people had been killed by a gunman at Umpqua Community College, in Oregon, Iain Mackinnon’s thoughts jumped to the time he spent there a decade ago.

By chance I’ve visited Umpqua Community College in Oregon, scene of the latest mass killings.

This is no inner city madhouse where students live in constant fear — it’s Ambleside, not the Bronx.

Nor is it a coven of far-right extremists, or even a bunch of hillbillies fitting in a bit of college round another hunting trip. It’s a lovely, welcoming rural community. And the killings are sadly yet more evidence of a deeper, and baffling, structural problem in America.

It was 1995 and I was on a month-long study trip to the USA funded by the German Marshall Fund of the United States and the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

I spent a day in Douglas County, hosted by Norm Gershon, president of a local job training non-profit, and also a member of the state legislature.

There were certainly no entry barriers, which most urban colleges in Britain sadly have to have. Umpqua was about as far from being an inner city hell hole as it is possible to be

Norm took me to meet a group of staff at Umpqua Community College. They were just the sort of hard-working, kind, deeply committed, college staff who we all know from our own colleges over here.

The college worked and still works primarily with adults, many of them ‘displaced’ as Americans call it — a less personally negative word than ‘redundant’ — helping them to re-train.

And helping them to re-train for better jobs where they could — there was a strong emphasis in Norm’s non-profit and in the college and with other providers, that simply getting someone into another minimum wage job was a poor second best.

They worked hard to give them a leg up to something better (and their placement data recorded how much a successfully-placed student earned in their new job).

It was heart-warming stuff. And the college was a welcoming place. Pleasant buildings, pleasant surroundings. There were certainly no entry barriers, which most urban colleges in Britain sadly have to have. Umpqua was about as far from being an inner city hell hole as it is possible to be.

But they weren’t hillbilly rednecks either, pillars of the National Rifle Association (NRA).

Douglas County was — and seems still to be — a warm, welcoming, liberal-minded, lovely place to be.

I was Norm’s guest the night before our visit to the college at the county’s annual First Citizen’s dinner. More than 700 of us packed a sports hall and at least 50 of us were invited to stand in turn to be applauded by the rest (‘this is a bit of a marathon, I’m afraid, Iain — you’re doing well’). I was one of those to be applauded as the MC, who struggled with my weird first name, announced: ‘Mr Ay-ain Mackinnon from London, England, our furthest travelled guest of the evening’.

I’ve dug out my notes to refresh my memory. They took a lot of trouble to dress all the tables. They paraded the flag. They stood to pledge the Oath of Allegiance. There was a real sense of community and huge local pride on show. ‘Isn’t this a great place to live,’ said one speaker, to huge applause.

It clearly was, and is, a great place to live — and it will be again. But right now they’re hurting, and they’ll need all that warm community spirit to help them cope with this tragedy.

Again and again we in Britain struggle to understand how so many Americans are still so reluctant to tighten their gun laws to stop these near-daily mass murders, so commonly targeted on schools and colleges and universities — and despite overwhelming evidence that gun control works.

I feel as powerless to stop this tragedy in America as I am to stop the tragedy in Syria (and it’s no comfort that even President Barack Obama shares that frustration).

In my note to Norm the day after the tragedy, I said: “There are many people this side of the pond thinking of you all today”, and I hope that being remembered is at least better than being ignored.

We can and should keep repeating our dismay than an otherwise civilised society can’t sort this out.

‘Consider all facts’ on new performance data measure before launching intervention action, urges AELP boss

Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) chief executive Stewart Segal urged the government to ensure that “all the facts are considered” before destination performance data is used to trigger “transformational improvements”.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) launched a consultation on Wednesday (September 30), which will close on December 2, on its proposal for an outcome-based success measure to complement the existing qualification achievement success rates.

The 38-page consultation document said providers that don’t achieve “positive outcomes”, should face “intervention action” for example by the Skills Funding Agency (SFA), Education Funding Agency (EFA), Ofsted, and FE Commissioner Dr David Collins.

However, Mr Segal (pictured above) told FE Week: “Performance has to be seen in context. Much of the [performance] data will be out of date by the time it is reviewed, so any decisions around intervention have to be made once all the facts are considered.”David-Corke-cutoutwp

David Corke (pictured right), director of education and skills at the Association of Colleges, said: “Outcome-based success measures can be a useful indicator of the quality of FE as long as courses are judged on a wide range of factors.

“However, judging courses on their outputs creates a league table mentality which can lead to unfairly negative judgements being made on some courses.”

The consultation document stated that: “By introducing minimum standards for learner outcomes, we expect to provoke transformational improvements in the provision that is delivered and will want them to be seen as having ‘bite’”.

It explained that minimum standards, based on current qualification achievement rates, are under the existing framework “not a target to aim for, but are typically set below the levels that a good or average performing provider is achieving”.

The government would still, under the new framework incorporating the destination measures, “expect to set them below the level that a good or average provider is achieving”, it added.

But “if a provider fell below the minimum standards on either qualification achievement rates or positive destinations, government would expect to apply its intervention arrangements to determine whether action was warranted,” it said.

The document said the new outcome measures set for launch in summer 2017 into further learning and into or within employment including apprenticeships, learner progression, to a higher level qualification, and earnings following completion of a course.

But it added that the government was not proposing to use the earnings measure for the minimum standards framework, as it thinks that “is more appropriate for informing choice”.

The government also proposed measuring the proportion of learners that progress to a qualification at a higher level than their existing highest level of attainment, initially covering only 19 to 20-year-old learners, in a previous three-month consultation on the issue launched last August.

But the latest consultation document, which features 10 questions, said that this had proved to be “impractical” because of “greater than expected complexity with creating the required data from the available sources”.

In his foreword to the latest consultation, Skills Minister Nick Boles said: “In December 2014, I confirmed my intention to proceed with the new adult (19+) learner outcome measures for FE, to complement the qualification achievement measure we already use.

“The new measures have been developed using data from across government, matched robustly and securely.”

Sector gives BIS committee its views on the Productivity Plan

The task of the first official inquiry of the House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee is to look at the government’s Productivity Plan.

Committee chair Iain Wright (pictured above), announcing the inquiry in July, said he wanted to explore whether the plan addressed the main causes of low productivity in the UK and whether it was likely to achieve its desired results.

The Productivity Plan itself had been launched earlier that month and it outlines, among other things, how the government intends to reform FE to boost productivity in the UK with proposals for an apprenticeship levy, per-learner funding for adult learning, and new institutes of technology to replace some FE colleges, and further devolution.

And while a Department for Business, Innovation and Skills consultation on the proposed large employers’ apprenticeship levy closed on October 2, the window for submissions on the committee’s productivity plan inquiry closed on September 10.

FE Week has pulled together a selection of these inquiry responses from the FE and skills world on some of the key issues in the plans that affect the sector.

Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP)

On the apprenticeship levy: “There are dangers that in the long term it will create a focus on the financial aspects of the programme and it will not be possible to control the quality of a programme where many employers would not have chosen to be involved. This is a cultural shift and we should not rush the introduction of the programme. AELP has recommended that the apprenticeship programme is built over the next three or four years while we carefully introduce a levy-based system.

“As the levy is only paid by large employers, there is a risk that only they will determine how the money is spent. The drive for productivity means that we have to engage small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who will deliver much of the growth in the programme.”

Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL)

On specialist and technical colleges: “The specialist colleges and higher level technical colleges which will emerge from the area-based reviews are huge investments and are very much leaps of faith in sectors which are deemed to be the future growth industries. While one must applaud leaps of faith and vision these should be provided as additional facilities — not institutions that will replace existing provision. If they fail there is no safety-net provision as they will have merged or closed.”

Federation of Small Businesses (FSB)

On the apprenticeship levy: “The new employer-led apprenticeship system has the potential to address the skills gap in the UK, creating a system that is responsive to the skills and training needs of businesses. However, small businesses who are integral to achieving this ambitious target must not be priced out of taking on apprenticeships. The current uncertainty around how the funding model will apply to SMEs, what level of contribution these firms will be required to provide for training and the impact of the levy on small firms must be resolved as soon as possible.”

National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (Niace)

On localisation: “Government should involve local areas in the commissioning of provision either through co-commissioning or by fully devolving, so that local provision can be integrated and deliver more sustainable job outcomes. Local enterprise partnerships should take on an oversight role to ensure that local skills providers prioritise long-term unemployed adults such that adequate volumes of skills provision are made available to them.”

National Consortium of Colleges and Providers

On localisation: “The major downside to devolving decisions on basic skills funding to local regions would be the ‘postcode lottery’ that would result from the inconsistent approaches taken by different local authorities.

On per-learner funding: “A per learner system will likely put off employers from helping their staff improve their basic skills. With a potential consequence of this proposal being less training taking place on site, employers will be reluctant to disrupt their business for employees to attend training sessions.”

Confederation of British Industry (CBI)

On the apprenticeship levy: “We are clear that a statutory levy is not the route we would have followed. This is because levies typically distort skills systems by incentivising quantity over quality and by encouraging employers to invest solely in levy funded programmes at the expense of other — often more appropriate — forms of ‘in house’ training.

“Government must give employers real control over standards, so that only business-relevant training is funded. It must also ensure that levy funds are only accessible by levy payers and that employers are consulted on the rate and reach of the levy — not simply on its implementation.”

Edge Foundation

On institutes of technology: “The government has proposed creating two new categories of FE college — National Colleges and Institutes of Technology. We understand the rationale, but believe both could be combined under the single name of ‘Polytechnic Colleges’, with a mission to provide clear lines of sight to professional and technical qualifications at levels four-seven, including higher and degree apprenticeships.”

Government apprenticeship reform adviser Doug Richard in court over child sex charges

Former government adviser on apprenticeships Doug Richard appeared in court today to face child sex charges.

Richard wore a plain white shirt and black trousers and remained impassive throughout his appearance in the dock at Westminster Magistrates’ Court.

Doug Richard arrives at Westminster Magistrates' Court. Pic, and main, above: PA
Doug Richard arrives at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. Pic, and main, above: PA

He faced three counts of sexual activity with a child and one of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity. The alleged offences occurred on January 2 and relate to one victim, aged 13 at the time.

Richard, aged 57 and of Myddelton Square, Islington, spoke briefly in the dock giving his name and date of birth. He gave no indication of plea.

He was described by Lia Yiacoumi, prosecuting, as being of ‘good character’ before senior district judge Howard Riddle granted Richard unconditional bail ahead of his next hearing, at London’s Old Bailey on October 19.

The married father-of-three has denied the allegations. “I absolutely deny the charges against me and will contest this matter in court,” he said in a statement at the time the charges were announced by the Crown Prosecution Service early last month.

Richard’s work continues to impact the FE sector, following the launch of the 2012 Richard Review of Apprenticeships which recommended giving employers control over apprenticeship funding.

The multimillionaire’s previous roles also include working with the government as a member of the Small Business Task Force.

College area review ‘shambles’ — Shadow Minister Nic Dakin hits out over ‘unwieldy’ key meetings

The government has been warned its “hastily put together area reviews have all the ingredients of being yet another Conservative Government shambles” with membership of their “unwieldy” steering groups potentially swelling to around 45.

Dozens of college governors’ board chairs, joined by either their chief executives or principals, and officials from local authorities take part in each steering group.

Also attending will be members of local enterprise partnerships (Leps), the FE Commissioner, the Sixth Form College Commissioner and Regional Schools Commissioners, not to mention officials from the Department for Education (DfE) and also the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS).

It’s a situation that has led to criticism from Shadows Schools Minister, and former Scunthorpe college principal, Nic Dakin.

He said: “These hastily put together area reviews have all the ingredients of being yet another Conservative Government shambles.

“The steering groups look very unwieldy. And the reviews don’t have to involve all post-16 providers in an area with sixth forms, UTCs, free schools and others left out.

“Finally there is no clarity where any additional money will come from to implement any outcomes.  So at first glance it has all the ingredients of another fine mess.”

Invite lists among the first meetings to have been held for the Birmingham and Solihull, Greater Manchester and Sheffield city regions featured, according to FE Week sources, no fewer than 25 members.

And the second lot of area reviews, announced on September 25, could see steering group memberships of more than 40 with, for example, 13 colleges involved in the Solent area review covering 11 local authority areas.

The Sheffield review involves 10 colleges and among them is Longley Park Sixth Form College, whose local MP, Harry Harpham, said the number of meeting attendees could affect the quality of decision-making.

“I am concerned that having 25 members is far too many to be perfectly honest and I believe it is unmanageable,” said the Labour MP for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough.

“If you have any group with over 12 to 13 members then you run into management ability issues. My experience is that you should get a group up to 13 as a limit to make proper decisions and have proper debates.”

The situation has also drawn criticism from former chief executive of the FE Funding Council from 1997 to 2001 David Melville, chair of Pearson Education Ltd and governor of Manchester Metropolitan University, who also said that school sixth forms should be included in the area reviews.

He told FE Week: “It is very difficult with such wide-ranging interests, some of which are conflicting with the exercise, to reach a sensible conclusion.”

He added: “I think it’s an ill-conceived exercise in that it’s clear it’s doing something it’s very difficult to do — review post-16 education without taking into account schools sixth forms.

“It doesn’t make any sense to not do this and the government is trying to make it look like it’s all-embracing.”

The first meeting for the Birmingham and Solihull steering group was on September 18, Greater Manchester’s was three days later and Sheffield’s was on September 28.

Of the second lot form the first round, Tees Valley was on October 1, Sussex Coast was due on October 22 and Solent was due on November 5.

A spokesperson for BIS and DfE said it was a “matter for steering groups to update their own meetings and progress, which they will do in due course.”

 

Editor’s comment

Lost at sea

The area reviews have a fundamental problem that won’t be easy to mend. Colleges are being reviewed in Lep area groups. This makes for both an unworkable and illogical process.

Take the Solent area review for example.

It is unworkable because the Lep area includes 13 colleges with 13 principals and governing bodies with a combined turnover of £190m, 3,558 staff and 64,000 students.

So they are being asked to navigate and launch an area review implementation plan within three to four months. A plan that will need to satisfy 11 local authorities, the LEP board, both commissioners, BIS, DfE, the Regional School Commissioner and presumably Skills Minister Nick Boles. Aside from a drunken sailor, who would think that this is achievable?

It is also illogical to create a college area review on Lep boundaries. For example, Brockenhurst College and South Downs College are in the same Solent Lep and yet 40 miles apart. Whereas the sixth form colleges of Richard Taunton and Totton are in different Leps in the Solent region — and therefore different area reviews — yet just five miles apart.

Before more time and money is diverted away from delivering courses and pointed towards consultants, the government needs to lower the anchor.

Or has the boat from Portsmouth College to the Isle of Wight College already set sail?

Chris Henwood

FE Week editor

chris.henwood@feweek.co.uk