The publication of the delayed Skills Funding Agency Grant Letter loomed over National Apprenticeships Week (which starts on March 9) a bit like … well, anything else that looms.

Whether it was a further cut of 25 per cent to the non-apprenticeship Adult Skills Budget, the 25 per cent increase in the budget for 24+ loans while learner numbers plummet or the £33m cut in learner support funding, it might be a little more difficult for some to get too excited about apprenticeships.

One group of people who have been particularly excited about apprenticeships over the last couple of weeks has been Labour and Conservative politicians, with leaders of both parties giving key education policy speeches recently.

An extra 3m funded apprenticeships were promised by Prime Minister David Cameron at a Conservative Party policy speech at the end of January, with funding coming from removing housing benefit for 18 to 21-year-olds on Jobseekers’ Allowance and reducing the benefit cap from £26,000 to £23,000 per household.

Labour sparked controversy in the sector in February over their plans to only fund apprenticeships at and above level three, leaving us to speculate as to what would happen to the half a million apprentices currently studying at level two.

We should also keep an eye on what’s going on in Northern Ireland and Wales whose devolved governments are already set to implement this policy.

Alongside this, Labour leader Ed Miliband alluded to a minimum academic standard young people would need to achieve to gain access to an apprenticeship, causing some to worry about that the door to apprenticeships would be slammed shut in the faces of young people without a good set of A-levels. Oh, and of course pledging an extra 80,000 apprenticeships a-year for the numbers race.

The Liberal Democrats have put themselves in a fascinating position on apprentice pay.

In October, Business Secretary Vince Cable wrote to the Low Pay Commission (LPC) suggesting that the apprentice rate of the National Minimum Wage should be abolished, and apprentices should instead be entitled to the regular ‘age appropriate’ minimum wage.

Unfortunately though, the LPC rejected Dr Cable’s recommendation, instead offering an extra 8p to the apprentice minimum wage, bringing it up to £2.80 from October. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is expected to respond formally to the LPC recommendations later this month and all eyes will be on the Secretary of State to see if he’ll abolish the apprentice rate as he wanted to, or bow to the LPC’s recommendation.

I hadn’t realised that apprentices who are paid below £111 a-week were not entitled to statutory sick pay

Call me naive, but if I was him, with two months left in office, I’d go for the former.

We don’t talk about the welfare of apprentices enough. I was struck by the story of an apprentice I met at the Association of Colleges’ conference in November who works weekends as well as his full time apprenticeship to make ends meet.

Thanks to the National Union of Students (NUS) Forget Me Not report [see page 5] we’ve now got something to work with, but it’s hard to find any response from the sector on this.

One of the many great advantages of being an apprentice should be having access to the benefits of being a student, and an employee. I hadn’t realised that apprentices who are paid below £111 a-week were not entitled to statutory sick pay, so the NUS suggestion that statutory sick pay regulations are amended so eligibility is based on hours worked rather than earnings sounds sensible to me.

My message for National Apprenticeship Week 2015 is this; let’s celebrate apprentices, their tutors and their employers.

But let’s stop making out that the ‘quality’ of an apprenticeship stops at how shiny their ‘gold standard’ qualification is, but actually start to look at the quality of learning and working experience.

Oh, and if anyone’s got any polling on how impressive the electorate find wrangling over apprenticeship numbers, do let me know.

 

Where the FE and skills sector leaders of tomorrow will come from is a question on the minds not only of today’s principals and managing directors, but also their staff lower down the career ladder whose eyes are fixed firmly on the top, as Nikki Gilbey explains.

As an aspiring college principal, I found the Education and Training Foundation (ETF) summit earlier this year entitled Developing the Leadership Pipeline a great opportunity to look at how the sector provides opportunities for people like me.

I met up at the summit with fellow 29-year-old Oliver Trailor, who is the managing director of Kent independent learning provider Runway Training, having been in contact with him on Twitter about leadership issues.

I have spent the last five years developing my career from lecturer to advanced practitioner and on into a cross college management role, with a recent move to head of learning land-based, alongside time served as academic staff governor and freelance curriculum writer.

Since I wrote a piece for FE Week back in May 2013 outlining the reasons behind my principalship ambition, the future principal hashtag (#FuturePrincipal) has been developing on Twitter, with offers of mentoring, guidance and advice flowing in.

But during undoubtedly challenging times for FE and skills, it is all too easy to focus on the present and ignore issues that may present even greater problems down the line, such as poor or even non-existent succession planning.

While fast-track schemes, well-established routes to management and senior posts exist in other sectors, for example with primary education, they feel as though FE would do well to move away from a time-served to a more pragmatic approach, encouraging middle managers with the talent and drive to apply for more senior roles.

Supporting staff to complete level five and level seven qualifications in leadership and management is a great start and, as a new manager, I have found such courses invaluable.

However, they are not sector specific and, although my current cohort are mostly FE managers, the course is not aimed solely at developing new leaders to lead outstanding FE organisations in the next decade or two.

Knowledge-sharing activities, such as shadowing, can be invaluable experiences and present senior leaders with an opportunity to give something back, while ensuring the sector is providing opportunities for future leaders to gain an insight into the world of senior leadership.

Yet in terms of truly developing a leadership pipeline, I believe not enough middle managers and aspiring FE leaders are being encouraged to apply for more senior posts, nor given the time to access and learn from senior leaders.

Oliver and I have both been going against the grain though, actively pursuing opportunities to learn from senior leaders.

We are both openly ambitious and keen to drive forward opportunities for middle managers to gain exposure to senior leaders and benefit from these experiences in the same way mentoring schemes work so successfully in other sectors.

In December, Oliver visited Doncaster College and spent time with the principal and deputy principal, who talked him through their career paths, the type of leaders they are and what they look for in aspiring leaders.

The visit also gave him an insight into the everyday challenges found in leading such a large organisation, and how the senior management team had fostered a culture of transforming lives.

Shadowing is an incredibly useful activity that has great value when planned well. However, there is nowhere for middle managers at present, with existing mechanisms for knowledge-sharing predominantly aimed at the top, ie for deputy principals and above, rather than for those looking to secure their first senior leadership position.

We are currently working with the ETF as it develops The Leadership Register, which is aimed at bringing leaders together from across the FE sector. It hopes the register will provide a platform for both aspiring leaders and existing senior leaders to share ideas and provide opportunities for aspiring leaders to learn from those in senior positions and share best practice.

 

Middlesbrough College was one of the first seven general FE colleges to directly recruit learners from the age of 14 two years ago. Zoe Lewis outlines the lessons learned since then.

In early 2012, Middlesbrough College was considering developing a direct offer for 14-year-olds from September of that year.

The rationale was clear, GCSE results in the town were not good enough, disengagement levels and exclusions were high in secondary schools and the college believed it could do better for many young people.

However, we had no track record, no real experience of offering full time 14 to 16 provision and also had to seriously consider the impact that this could have on our relationship with local schools.

After long deliberations and careful analysis of the risks, costs and opportunities for schools and the college, the governing body determined we would start a modest full time offer, in partnership with one local school and the pupil referral unit.

There were two primary drivers for this decision. Firstly, we could start small and build up our expertise at minimal risk to us and the students involved, and secondly, we would not risk damaging the relationship with local schools and thereby ensure we maintain good access to help inform future students about their post-16 options.

However there were drawbacks to this approach too. We knew that ‘partnership’ meant schools selecting students they felt would fair best in a college environment.

We were realistic that this would also mean students who would be unlikely to get five GCSEs including English and maths. Nevertheless, we were resolute in our belief that we could provide a positive alternative route for these young people.

The DfE has fallen short of making any league table concessions for colleges offering 14 to 16 ‘alternative’ provision

We therefore went into this partnership with our eyes wide open and commenced open discussions with the Department for Education (DfE) on the league table impact to determine the level of risk we would be taking on under this scenario.

The DfE has maintained its willingness to engage in this debate, to understand the issues we are facing and to sympathise with our dilemma, but to date has fallen short of making any league table concessions for colleges offering 14 to 16 ‘alternative’ provision.

This does continue to represent a significant reputational risk for colleges through, for example, poor comparative league table positions and potential floor target triggers, without the context and narrative attached.

In addition to this reputational risk, the college was aware that college funding was simply not sufficient to pay for the additional support needs of these students and so last year, our first year, we ran the provision at a considerable loss.

However, notwithstanding all of the above, for the young people involved, the results have been quite remarkable.

We have therefore expanded our provision this year, recruiting a further 15 Year 10 students from six partner schools, all of whom are of a similar profile to last year’s intake.

So what have we learned? Well, an awful lot.

The welfare and behavioural needs, the information provided by schools (or lack of it), the ‘set-up’ time and the funding issues all provided significant challenges for us last year and we are happy to share our lessons learned.

This year, our second year, has proven far more straightforward. The transition from school has worked well.

Our initial testing has been developed further, our curriculum offer has continued to develop, our welfare arrangements improved and our commercial arrangement with schools been refined so they now pay a top-up sum to us to help cover our real delivery costs.

Was this the high quality ‘parity of esteem’, vocational offer that Professor Alison Wolf had in mind for our talented 14-year-olds? I am not sure.

Is it transforming lives and making our communities better places? Without a doubt.

So, where are we going next with this. Well to a large extent, that depends upon how the DfE responds to the first wave of college league table results which will be published next year.

While Progress 8 [a performance measure set to be introduced in 2016/17 that will recognise providers that “offer a broad and balanced curriculum”] may help our league table position over the longer term, the reality is that there are still many practical barriers preventing a whole scale take-up of this across the college sector.

 

Skills Funding Agency (SFA) guidance on how college budgets could be affected by their relationship — or lack thereof — with Leps last week caused concern within the sector. Alex Pratt addresses fears about Leps and their power over funding.

Are you wondering what the point of Leps is, why on earth we need another set of institutions, and just how they are supposed to fit with the already complex skills governance arrangements? If so, read on.

We stand alone among the leading western democracies having such over-centralised economic power and decision-making. Nationally conceived, silo-delivered policies at the pace of government offer a poor substitute for the strategic integration of the means of growth at the level of the places in which our firms actually exist.

Growth is delivered inside businesses, every business needs what it needs, when it needs it, and not according to a well-meaning policy timetable.

Furthermore, businesses exist in the places from which they largely draw the necessary means of production.

There is only one growth sin worse than denying our growth businesses what they need to add value and grow the tax take, and that is making it wastefully available when they don’t need or have an appetite for it. Timing is everything. Every opportunity is time-specific and the speed of innovative progress is the currency of competition.

Skills are undeniably a major underpinning component of growth in so far as they impact on the available labour pool, a fundamental factor of production on which all economic growth is founded. On this everyone agrees.

If colleges are unsuccessful in making a powerful enough case for skills investment against the alternatives of roads and buses to Leps looking to drive their local economies forward, they should expect to see budgets diminish

In England we have some of the most innovative, professional, capable learning providers on the planet, and inevitably some which are less well-led. It would be remarkable were it to be any different. On this everyone agrees.

The dual purposes of upskilling an individual to improve their life chances while enhancing the pool of labour available to firms in their quest for competitiveness and productivity are both denied if skills provision does not match the needs of businesses. This makes a close and effective relationship between skills providers and businesses at the level of places an essential growth component. On this everyone agrees.

It would therefore have been beyond disbelief had the SFA pronounced that colleges should ignore Leps and not be required to demonstrate a productive constructive relationship with them. Would it not?

Furthermore, in a highly competitive environment for very tight resources those Leps, colleges and private learning providers who fail the mutual engagement test, should surely all be disadvantaged against their more mature, more constructive competitors?

Let’s be honest, if colleges are unsuccessful in making a powerful enough case for skills investment against the alternatives of roads and buses to Leps looking to drive their local economies forward, they should expect to see budgets diminish, else why bother with an economic prioritisation exercise in the first place?

Are the strengths, scale and approach of the 39 Leps highly variable and is there huge scope for improvement in communications within and between individual Leps? You bet there is. We are nothing if not realistic about the challenges we face.

Are Leps a panacea for economic growth? Of course not.

They are, however, an essential missing component in orchestrating the necessary foundations for growth in the image of the private sector firms we rely upon to deliver it.

We all understand just how important skills are to our economic future and it has to be in our mutual interests to work hand in glove together, as challenging as that can sometimes be.

 

Further education leaders hold the key to unlocking technology in the sector, according to the government review of progress a year after the recommendations of the Further Education Learning Technology Action Group. Dr Sue Pember looks at what this means for leaders.

It seems we really are now on the edge of a digital/technological revolution. I know we have said that lots of times, but we are really there.

The government review of progress on the Further Education Learning Technology Action Group recommendations said “it will be the leadership of the sector that will make it happen”.

I would go further — it has to be everyone working together.

It is very positive that government has taken a lead and the work that Jisc, the Education and Training Foundation and Gazelle are doing will ensure the infrastructure will support this development.

The real revolution, however, will come when every college governor, leader, teacher and support worker embraces technology and has their own ambitious action plan.

When I think back to my time as a college lecturer all we had to get excited about was a grant to purchase a CAD machine and whether we could count our students on computer and produce electronic registers within two weeks of term starting.

All that sounds a bit tame now but, the CAD machine did introduce a new ways of thinking about delivery and supported new joint projects with industry in North London.

Now we can do all the things we wished for. The technology is out there and our students know how to use it, so let’s join them and make our college environment, processes, systems, learning content and delivery methods take full advantage.

Leaders do need to take control and have a plan showing how their college is going use technology to improve governance, management processes, teaching and learning, assessment, communication and underpinning systems

We can already do real time online enrolment, set up automatic late comer prompts by text and, instantly converse with our students and staff through Twitter.

We can tell the world about our achievements through blogs and put our best practice on YouTube.

Our teaching staff can supplement their learning materials by picking up the best content from various sources. Why reinvent the wheel when the material is out there?

We can make our subjects come alive. For example, in geography, we can use a host of scientific websites and stream content into the classroom with live shots of volcanoes.

For fashion students, we can download the Paris fashion shows.

And, students following politics, can critique Wednesday PM Questions live. Some primary schools are already there by using quality YouTube material that puts fun into learning times tables.

So leaders do need to take control and have a plan showing how their college is going use technology to improve governance, management processes, teaching and learning, assessment, communication and underpinning systems.

But that is not enough — every member of staff should have their own plan.

Lecturers need to show how they are going to bring online learning into their delivery.

Support staff should indicate what new systems and working practices they intend to adopt, and senior managers need to make room for development, and find the funds.

Governors need to assure plans are met and lead by example through adopting e-governance ways of working.

We need to put programming and coding on the agenda — teach it, learn it and appoint staff who can do it.

And we need to get out there with our students and visit high-tech industry partners — it is so incredible to see how technology is changing the workplace.

But don’t get me wrong, while I really do believe the time is right to create the technological environment with online delivery and content being the norm, nothing can substitute the real learning and intellectual development gained by interacting with gifted teachers and peers.

We might be able to source material and content from the web, but we cannot replace real life interface, connection and enthusiasm for a subject, and that is what the students of the future will come to college for.

 

Mick Fletcher takes a closer look at the skills funding letter to see what else it indicates other than a depressing budget cut of up to 24 per cent for providers next academic year.

Much of the response to the skills funding letter published today has concentrated on the effective 24 per cent cut to the adult skills budget. It is shocking even if wholly predictable.

The consequence will be further cuts in provision and cuts further down the line too as funding for franchise partners, often for work with the most disadvantaged communities, is withdrawn to help balance the books.

An increase in the loan allocation will be of little help since institutions are clearly struggling to make use of what they already have.

These cuts need to be seen alongside the collapse in part time higher education, the closure of libraries up and down the land and the drop in workforce training offered by employers.

Taken together they mean that the opportunities for individuals to better themselves through education are shrinking fast.

Along with the figures, however, the grant letter gives interesting evidence of the growing marginalisation of the Skills Funding Agency (SFA).

Six out of the 14 funding lines in the document are managed by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) or some agency other than the SFA, which must encourage speculation about its future.

The grant letter gives interesting evidence of the growing marginalisation of the Skills Funding Agency

There have been rumours in the past about merging BIS with the Department for Education in order to bring all education back under one roof, but the transfer of at least some BIS activities around ‘remedial’ education to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) looks equally likely. Either way I wouldn’t bet on the SFA lasting until Xmas.

A careful reading of the funding letter enables one to see two possible strands of a future settlement.

One of them gives slight grounds for optimism and the other more cause for alarm. The choice will be affected but not wholly determined by outcome of the election so those in the sector need to read the signs carefully.

The optimistic vision of the future is the reflection in adult education of wider trends towards devolution.

The recent, supposedly ‘premature’ SFA letter outlining ways in which Local Enterprise Partnerships (Leps) can influence adult skills budgets was widely criticised, but local influence (as opposed to detailed second guessing of institutional management) must be right.

To the extent that local authorities can add a broader community vision and some democratic legitimacy to the enthusiasm and employer engagement brought by LEPs localism offers more opportunities than threats.

There is a chance that adult education might be rescued by localities even as it is abandoned by the centre; after all the FE system was mainly built locally in the absence of any coherent national vision and finds its strongest support in local communities rather than the corridors of Whitehall.

The less optimistic future concerns the retention by BIS of funds for individual pet projects of which perhaps the most egregious example is the Employer Ownership pilots; their funding is up by 17 per cent despite a track record of success that is all but invisible.

The shadowy process for identifying new National Colleges is another example of opportunistic politics.

The risk is that any rational architecture for setting policy priorities for investment in adult education is undermined by an expansion of the pork-barrel politics associated with City Deals, where every public investment is timed and framed to suit short term political agendas rather than wider public need.

Colleges and other providers may be able to influence how these competing trends play out. If they give their active support to the local coalitions that are emerging in and around our major cities they may find that civic pride and a care for communities is a better source of support for adult education that the narrow economic instrumentalism that motivates BIS.

If they resist then the risk is that future arrangements will not only be short of funding but also short of any transparent logic.