The chief executive of a college group under fire for a £93,000 rebrand has defended the spend.

A Freedom of Information request by the Oxford Mail revealed that Activate Learning forked out £93,742 over the last two years on a rebranding exercise to move away from the previous name of Oxford and Cherwell Valley College (OCVC).

Activate Learning, which runs Reading College, City of Oxford College, and Banbury and Bicester College, rebranded in November last year.

The group, which also includes two University Technical Colleges (UTCs) in Didcot and Reading and its own apprenticeships arm in Activate Enterprise along with colleges in Saudi Arabia, spent £13,878 on polling and focus groups, £12,792 on “brand DNA” and £4,350 on the name Activate Learning.

A UCU spokesperson said: “I doubt we will be alone in asking for a justification of why £13,000 of public money was spent on ‘brand DNA’ and what exactly that entails. The total spend is particularly galling when colleges are being told to tighten their belts and brace themselves for more funding cuts.”

However, Activate Learning chief executive Sally Dicketts (pictured beow) defended the spending. “The spending was justified,” she told FE Week.

“The governors said we must come up with a new name and we had to make sure we spoke to staff, students and across all our colleges and schools.

“It is not free when you do it yourself. If we had got our own staff to do it that still would have cost money. This was a job which needed to be done and we chose to outsource it.”

It comes after London-based college LeSoCo, formerly Lewisham and Southwark College, was criticised over a £290,000 rebrand which has since been reversed on many of its campuses.

But Ms Dicketts said the OCVC name needed to change when it expanded to include other establishments where the Oxford-related brand was unsuitable.

She said: “When we were OCVC, we took on responsibility for Reading College, but Reading people were very unhappy about all the branding with Oxford on it. So were the people in Banbury.

“We were losing business because of the name. My role is to increase interest and make sure people want to come to us.

“We were going into a change and having schools for the first time and becoming a private training provider too and the governors said it was the opportunity to choose a theme which all stakeholders wanted and that wasn’t associated with the individual areas.”

Group director of marketing and communications Miriam Braham said: “A new group structure was proposed, including developing a new group entity and re-organising the existing campuses of OCVC to create two new FE colleges [City of Oxford College, and Banbury and Bicester College].

“The total figure quoted reflects our work … across an 18-month period from 2012 to deliver significant pieces of work. This work included extensive consultation with our staff, students and external partners to ensure that our development was in line with customers’ needs.”

 

Association of Colleges (AoC) chief executive Martin Doel took time out from his preparations for the AoC annual conference in Birmingham to speak to
FE Week editor Chris Henwood.

He talked about his thoughts on the political parties in the run-up to the general election next year and also answered questions on a range of FE and skills issues including employer cash contributions reform of apprenticeship funding and Lep (local enterprise partnership) engagement with colleges.

“The difference between our pre-general election conference in 2009 and now, interestingly, is pretty much in terms of the headline policies — it’s hard to see the difference between each of the parties.”

Yes, it’s fair to say Association of Colleges (AoC) chief executive Martin Doel is struggling to differentiate between blue, red and yellow on FE and skills policy in the run-up to next year’s election.

“They each seem to be saying the same things around four broad areas — more and better quality of apprenticeships, greater devolution, higher quality 16 to 18 education and a focus on higher-level skills,” he explains, speaking to me just days ahead of the AoC annual conference.

These are, says Mr Doel, the four broad areas that will also provide key themes for discussion at the conference, not to mention content for his own speech to delegates tomorrow (Tuesday, November 18) morning.

“If you start to talk about what more and better apprenticeships could be, it seems to me that they’re missing some important points, that no government can create an apprenticeship — an apprenticeship has to be created with an employer,” he says.

“And they are also not saying what the consequences of the current reform programme we’ve had on quantity and quality are, and how that would roll out in terms of the propensity of employers to fund apprenticeships and take on more apprentices and how that’s going to be achieved effectively.

They [main political parties] each seem to be saying the same things around four broad areas

“We need to have a much more comprehensive approach to this, about how you prepare young people to access a high-quality apprenticeship, how they become attractive to employers to be taken on as apprentices, and how you present the offer to employers to see that an apprenticeship is the route to have a more productive and high-quality workforce.”

He adds, on his second point: “When you come to the issue of devolution, after the Scottish referendum, everyone’s talking about more devolution and you get things like devo Manc — Manchester getting a devolved skills budget. Nobody’s quite saying to me how that’s going to work, or what the consequences are.

“If Manchester gets devolution, what does that mean for the rest of the system? How does that fit in with the Leps [local enterprise partnerships]? Everyone’s got a different level to which they are going to devolve responsibility and elements perhaps of the skills budget, but nobody is talking in any kind of precision about how that will be done, nor have they expressed any real understanding of the consequences that may have for things like having a national framework for apprenticeships, but a locally-funded system.

“Nor has it been addressed how you will actually cover the cost of the administration in doing things differently and at 39 different places in the country, when colleges are delivering across Lep boundaries. The road is a lot more complicated than those people that make broad assertions in local government association or other organisations seem to realise.”

The third area in which Mr Doel sees little or no difference between the parties is 16 to 18 education.

“I don’t mean to argue against wanting better quality education for 16 to 18-year-olds, of course we all agree that, but again, what does it mean that young people are spending more time doing English and maths than the vocational aspect of their studying? There’s only so much you can fit into a curriculum,” he says.

“That probably means more young people only get to level two in the vocational aspect of their studies by 18, which means if you want to get to level three, you probably need another year, which means they enter the twilight world of another 17.5 per cent cut to their funding to a rate of funding which is already 22 per cent below 11 to 16-year-olds.

“And the fourth area they are all talking about is the technician gap, and how we can deliver the type of skills that young people need above level three — above A-level — but short of full honours degree in a way that is flexible and allows part-time learning which is deliverable into the workplace, something much more employer-facing at those higher levels.

“So the Labour Party is talking about a technical degree. Well, how is that different from any other degree? Why would universities deliver it? And the government is talking about more higher level apprenticeships. How is the relatively small number of apprenticeships they are talking about at the higher levels going to transform and respond to the technician gap?

“I don’t see enough in the Trailblazers to make that scale of difference to our economy. So how do you make good on those broad aspirations and what they need to do, and in that latter one I think we’d say that colleges have had a much stronger, clearer role in doing that, and actually be incentivised to do that.”

Pre-conference Q&A with AoC chief Doel

Did you raise an eyebrow when you heard the political parties’ promises about the apprenticeship numbers they would deliver if in power after next May?

You’re into political rhetoric from people who only have limited understanding of what an apprenticeship is in the 21st century, but it’s a political-friendly policy.

From any number of dimensions, you can see why apprenticeships would be a good thing to ask for more of, but again you have to understand what an apprenticeship is, what the required characteristics are, and how you actually grow it.

People like Nick Boles or Liam Byrne will be the ones who, if elected, have to turn those things into reality. They are going to have to think hard about doing it, and I have to say, in terms of the current apprenticeship reform programme, we can already see the difficulties where Doug Richard’s apparently simple, straightforward recommendations are proving a little bit more difficult than might be anticipated to turn into a reform programme. This is tricky stuff.

Were you happy to hear the softening of language from Skills Minister Nick Boles towards the cash contributions element of apprenticeship funding reform?

I don’t want to dissuade employers from taking on apprentices — that’s clearly not what you want to do. On the other hand, if you’re not going to have the employer contribution, which is the basis on which the funding has been agreed, the question becomes where do you get the money from? And therefore, how are you going to fund that many more apprenticeships if the employers aren’t paying one third towards it?

Your budget is then one third down from where it would be, which is kind of saying you can have a third fewer apprentices because you’ve not got as much to go around. So there’s a resource consequence for not having the money there. My great concern out of that would be that you’re going to try and raid other elements of the adult skills budget.

What are your thoughts on the end of the Institute for Learning?

It’s hard to say where it went wrong, but I think the fork in the road was when it became almost a regulating arm of government and that was hard to reconcile with individual members paying for a service. From an AoC perspective, I don’t ever want to be in a position where I dictate to my members.

How do you assess the performance of Nick Boles as Skills Minister?

He’s refreshingly realistic about saying what he can achieve in what’s only nine months from the end of a governance period. I’ve found his pragmatism around English and maths to be refreshing and we need to continue to have conversations about that.

He’s said he wants colleges to be enterprising and take advantage of these freedoms that they have. I’d be a bit more quizzical about that insofar as my impression of this sector is it’s probably the most entrepreneurial of any within education.

Interestingly, he keeps saying he doesn’t know anything about FE. He knows a lot more and he is a very quick learner, but he can only carry on saying he knows nothing about FE for about another month in my estimation.

The FE Commissioner has recommended three college mergers following around 10 inspections. Are you concerned Dr David Collins might be too merger-friendly?

David’s not for or against mergers. He’s the ultimate pragmatist and he will do what he thinks is best in the circumstances and generally I haven’t found many arguments with the judgments he has made.

I think we need to think about how we support the consolidation process and you’ve got to begin to ask in some circumstances, why would a succeeding college, doing well in really strained times, volunteer to take on the liabilities and difficulties of another college, apart from an altruistic wish to do a good job for others?

It would be quite logical for a board of a college in those circumstances to say ‘Well, I support these students, this community, and I don’t want to put that at risk by going over the road to do that’.

I really do think we need to think about how we support the colleges that are stepping up to do the right thing to assist their colleague institutions that have got themselves into difficulty. I have argued that I think we need to talk about an innovation and growth fund where there is an amount of money made available to support how you can get innovative ways to actually survive in the circumstances we are in and also grow from this position.

You mentioned you hadn’t had many arguments with the FE Commissioner’s findings. What were these arguments?

I think some of the public statements need to be carefully worded in order to retain confidence, while being properly challenging if he finds things that he doesn’t think is going right. There is an issue about retaining confidence in things like banks that invest in the sector, an issue about retaining confidence in people that are employed within the sector and also around confidence among those who access learning within colleges.

Making a statement about some of those colleges that have put themselves into difficulty always needs to be balanced with, ‘But the great majority, in difficult circumstances, are delivering high-quality’.

Do you have any concerns about the Ofsted proposals for a unified common inspection framework?

I kind of buy into the potential of a single inspection framework up to the age of 18 which is predominantly orientated towards directly delivered teaching in a classroom or an equivalent-type environment, but I have some difficulty seeing how it can apply as easily to post-19 and work-based learning circumstances.

It’s hard, for instance, to see how you would assess character formation at a college of an apprentice they only see once a week on day-release? Also, how can you can reasonably sample what a large college does in many different locations? I don’t quite see in that inspection framework how you would have a proper way of understanding responsiveness to local economic need and I don’t see that Ofsted has the expertise currently to make those kinds of assessments.

How do you assess the relationship between Leps and colleges?

All but, I would say, two Leps — and I’m not going to name the two — are now engaged with their colleges. The way in which they are engaged is different in every place. I’m much happier now that Leps are engaged with colleges.

We’ve now got to talk about the quality of that engagement and the quality of the conversations they’re having on both sides. I think without trying to lay down one model, I am interested in the notion of outcome agreements between colleges and their
Leps, but I’d prefer that come from the college to say ‘This is what we’re proposing to do with the monies we have been allocated by government, does this seem right to
you? Are there things you think we ought to be adjusting the mix around?’

 

Main pic Martin Doel outside the AoC’s central London HQ

The third national Skills Show kicked off in Birmingham on Thursday (November 13) with have-a-gos, careers advice, skills competitions and the finals of the National Apprenticeship Awards.

At a dinner welcoming exhibitors, visitors and VIPs to the show on Wednesday, Skills Show patron Theo Paphitis said he was delighted to be returning for the third year in a row.

“The first time I came to the Skills Show, it was like a light coming on,” he said.

“Even as someone in business, I find as a parent I don’t always know how to advise my children on what they’re going to do with the rest of their lives, so having something like this is terrific.

“We should have been doing this years ago.”

As if making up for lost time, the first day of the show had more than 50 exhibitors and have-a-gos ensuring there was plenty to inspire the first batch of the Skills Show’s predicted 75,000 visitors, many from Midland primary schools.

Among the visitors was Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and FE Week caught up with him during his tour of the show.

“It’s been absolutely brilliant,” he said. “I was here for a day last year and I just really wanted to come back again this year.

“Yes, it’s a skills showcase but it’s also actually a celebration of a way of learning which I think we should do more of in this country — learning by doing.

“It’s about metaphorically and literally getting your hands dirty, learning things from the people who are mentoring you and learning some practical skills not just conceptual ones.

“We should be valuing both vocational and academic qualifications equally and I think that’s what’s on ample display at the Skills Show.”

Head of the National Apprenticeship Service (NAS) Sue Husband was also among the first day’s visitors.

“It’s just been so invigorating — that’s the word I’d use,” she said.

“It just hasn’t stopped and it’s been brilliant seeing the young people’s faces — some of them were just getting so excited.

When Ms Husband spoke to FE Week, it was too early to tell how many visitors had passed through the NEC during the first day, but she said early indications suggested it had been “better than expected”.

“In terms of the timings, people are getting here earlier now,” she said.

“Usually there’s an hour or so at the beginning where it’s really quiet but it picked up straight away this morning and we’re pleased with that.

“And some of the stands that were probably not expecting that much interaction today because there’s been mainly primary schools were actually surprised by how many came and interacted on the stands.”

She added: “I know it sounds a bit trite, but meeting apprentices has been my favourite bit of today — although I did secretly enjoy meeting the Strictly Come Dancing stars.”

WorldSkills champ Terron wins again

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg opened the National Apprenticeship Awards ceremony before WorldSkills 2013 gold medal-winning bricklayer Ashley Terron (pictured) claimed the apprentice champion of the year prize.

“The National Apprenticeship Awards really is one of my favourite events of the whole year,” Mr Clegg told the assembled employers, apprentices and sector figures.

“This night is always a celebration showcasing the talent, hard work and commitment shown by Britain’s top apprentices.”

“I was honoured and I wasn’t expecting to win,” said Mr Terron.

Mr Terron, whose father is also a bricklayer, said he was driven to achieve in his apprenticeship and to promote it to others by his headteacher, who questioned why someone as bright as him might do a bricklaying apprenticeship.

“I took a bit of offence, that he was questioning my family trade and me — even though I had my path set out,” said Mr Terron.

“And I’ve always had that in my mind. That spurred me on to try to strive and achieve the next best thing and that’s kept me going.

“I’ve since got back in touch with the school and oddly he’s taken a U-turn on his stance on apprenticeships.”

He added: “I was lucky that I worked with my dad so I had a chance to try bricklaying, but a lot of people don’t have that and more needs to be done to help people see what kind of opportunities are out there.”

Intermediate apprentice of the year went to Co-operative business admin apprentice Lois McClure, aged 20, who did her apprenticeship through Learndirect.

“I took an apprenticeship I didn’t really know what it was about they didn’t talk about it at school or college,” she said.

“I think I’ve won because I’ve just taken every opportunity I can. It’s amazing to win.”

Higher apprentice of the year was won by Hayley James, a Highbury College apprentice with IBM UK, while advanced apprentice of the year went to Anna Schlautmann, 21, a logistics apprentice with Alliance Learning, employed by MBDA Missile Systems.

Small employer of the year went to design company Blue Moon Creative, the medium employer award went to hovercraft designers Griffin Hoverwork, large employer of the year went to MBDA UK and the macro employer award went to housing developer Barratt Development.

 

Skills gap ‘between school and degree’

The Skills Show’s opening day also saw the publication of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD Skills Beyond School report at the National Vocational Education and Training (VET) Conference.

The conference took place alongside the Skills Show at the Birmingham NEC.

The report called for the UK to put workplace learning at the centre of vocational education, warning that there would otherwise be a widening gap between qualifications and the skills employers need.

Simon Field, OECD lead vocational education researcher said the report contained two key messages for the UK.

“One is the need to do more to provide intermediate technical and professional skills, beyond school but less than a bachelor’s degree,” he said.

“The second is to integrate work-based learning systematically into programmes.”

The UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES) welcomed the report.

Michael Davis, UKCES chief executive, said: “We support the view that higher level vocational training must have a clear line of sight to a job. Employers must be as close as possible to training to ensure the skills people develop are the ones businesses need.”

Association of Colleges chief executive Martin Doel said: “As OECD’s report says, ensuring workers have basic skills is important, but what is even more important is that education does not stop when someone enters the workplace.”

He added colleges in England worked` with an average of 600 businesses and were “always ready and willing to do more.”

 

All pics : ©2014 Professional Images

Ofsted’s eight-week consultation on bringing an end to its independent FE and skills inspection regime comes to a close next month.

All education inspections would be “harmonised” under the proposed common inspection framework (CIF) for nurseries, schools and colleges from September next year, as revealed exclusively by FE Week at the start of August.

It is also proposing to halve the time between inspections of good FE and skills providers. Currently, good FE and skills providers face reinspection up to every six years if there are no concerns to trigger an earlier revisit — but Ofsted is looking at changing that to a “short inspection” up to every three years, unless concerns trigger one sooner.

The consultation further sets out proposals for four categories for judgements — leadership and management; teaching, learning and assessment; personal development, behaviour and welfare; and outcomes for children and learners.

With the consultation — available on www.ofsted.gov.uk — closing on December 5, Ofsted director of FE and skills Lorna Fitzjohn (pictured) spoke exclusively to FE Week to address concerns the proposals have raised within the sector.

What would the proposals mean for FE?

The proposals we have set out will be some of the most far-reaching reforms for education inspection in the last 25 years. At the heart of these changes are measures to help maintain and accelerate education standards in England.

We plan to introduce more frequent, but shorter inspections for good schools and FE and skills providers, with a clear focus on making sure that standards are staying high.

We are also planning to introduce a common inspection framework across all of our remits. The guidance in the handbook and the report structure will be adapted to suit FE providers. This will make it easier for employers and learners to compare providers and make informed choices.

What do you think is wrong with the way Ofsted inspects FE institutions at the moment? Is there any update on the negotiations about direct inspection of sub-contractors?

Ofsted has always played a vital role in promoting high standards so that the quality of provision improves for all learners. It is worth noting that more than nine out of ten providers said they were satisfied with how their recent inspection was carried out.

However, there is now a strong case for a more proportionate system where we move away from full inspections for good providers. Instead, we want a system based on professional dialogues between the inspectors and leaders, with a clear focus on whether the good standards are being maintained.

We understand that for some FE providers the use of sub-contractors counts for a substantial part of their provision. This is being looked at as part of the consultation and we are working to ensure that the quality of sub-contracted provision is included in any judgement we make about the provider.

Will there be a period of stability after these proposed changes are enacted?

Ofsted’s duty is to make sure that all learners receive the level of education and training that they deserve. For this reason, we are always reviewing the effectiveness of the way in which we inspect providers.

We understand that some teachers and trainers can feel uncertainty about what Ofsted looks for during inspection and this is something we want to avoid.

We will therefore be shortly publishing a ‘mythbusters’ document specifically aimed at those working in the FE and skills sector. This will dispel some of the rumours and hearsay about the inspection process and help sector workers to focus on what really matters — making sure they are giving learners the best education and training possible.

With the proposed move towards a single CIF, is there a danger that school specialists will inspect FE colleges, and vice-versa?

The move to a single inspection framework will in no way impact Ofsted’s ability to inspect providers. Those with experience in FE and skills will continue to inspect FE and skills providers.

A single framework will make it easier for providers, including University Technical Colleges, 16 to 19 academies and schools with sixth forms, to know what they are being judged against. We feel this will benefit the post-16 sector as a whole.

One proposal is to make clearer our judgements on the different types of provision. For example, someone reading an inspection report for a specific college would be able to clearly identify the quality of any apprenticeships, 16 to 19-year-old provision or adult courses which it offers.

Once the new framework is in place we will issue, as is normal practice, a handbook for FE inspectors on how to interpret the framework for the inspection of FE and skills so that it clearly relates to the sector and the different types of provision offered.

Will the proposals result in any job losses at Ofsted as departments inevitably move closer together?

The changes we are proposing are about maintaining and improving the quality of education and training in England. This is not a money-saving exercise.

We have carefully costed the new model in relation to inspection resource and are confident we can deliver within our existing budget.