The Association of Colleges will hold off on making a pay recommendation for FE staff again this year until the school teacher pay review is published.
Unions, who were told about the decision in a meeting with the membership body yesterday, warned that this is likely to delay vital negotiations with individual colleges for months.
The AoC deployed the same tactic last year when the body refused to make a pay recommendation unless government coughed up extra money so colleges could make “a meaningful offer” to staff.
The move was followed by an announcement in June of additional 16 to 19 funding of £470 million in total to be dished out over the next two academic years: £185 million in 2023/24 and £285 million in 2024/25.
Unions have said their pay demands for 2024/25 can be funded by this additional funding.
It took until September for the AoC to make a 6.5 per cent pay rise to colleges last year, mirroring the schoolteacher pay rise recommendation by the arms-length School Teachers Review Body (STRB) in July.
AoC chief executive David Hughes said: “Last year, the government was able to find additional funding to ensure that the pay gap between school and college teachers did not get even wider, and we want to give them the chance to do so again this year. Therefore, we will not be making a recommendation until the STRB report has been published.”
FE pay ‘stagnant too long’
Talks between the AoC and a group of five trade unions began this week following the unions’ pay claim for 2024/25 submitted in March.
The National Joint Forum of unions representing Unite, UCU, Unison, GMB and the National Education Union demanded a 10 per cent pay rise for FE staff next year, or a £3,000 salary increase, to keep up with the pace of inflation.
The pay demand is above the 3.2 per cent consumer price index and 4.3 per cent retail price index inflation rate in the year to March 2024.
The AoC said at the time that unions should “focus their energies” on demanding the government raise the funding rates which haven’t kept up with inflation.
The pay claim also called for a £30,000 minimum starting salary for FE lecturers, matching schools, and urged college bosses to address the 40 per cent real terms pay decline for FE staff since 2009/10 and the “steep” rises in the cost of living.
Unions maintained some demands from last year such as colleges having class size recommendations, a “national policy on the delivery of guided learning hours” and to have a binding national pay agreement.
New claims include a demand for staff to have two mental health days per year and a commitment to close gender, ethnic and disability pay gaps.
Hughes said: “AoC met with the college staff unions on Monday 20 May to begin pay negotiations for 2024/25. There is strong agreement between employer and staff representatives on the need to improve pay in the FE sector, and AoC has been campaigning consistently for the pay gap between school and FE teachers to be eradicated.”
A UCU spokesperson said: “Pay across the FE sector has been stagnant for far too long which is why we urgently need a new deal for FE. Whilst it is important for AoC to attempt to source further additional funding to resolve the pay gap between school and college teachers, waiting to see what the teachers’ pay review board recommends could mean we are waiting for months, and our members need a pay rise now.
“Our claim is about more than pay. We need binding national outcomes in FE just as there are for schools and sixth forms across England.”
Knock on effect in FE of school teacher pay delay
The AoC claimed the decision to delay its pay recommendation was due to its campaign to eradicate the pay gap between school and FE teachers.
This year’s STRB report has not yet been released by the government, sparking concern from teachers’ unions.
Teacher union NASUWT said last week that it fears ministers will delay the report for as long as possible as a general election draws closer this year.
“The pay review body is not the property of the education secretary,” said Dr Patrick Roach, NASUWT general secretary. “Teachers and employers have a right to know immediately the opinions and recommendations of the School Teachers Review Body, without interference from ministers.”
In previous years, the pay report has not been published until late July.
Skills bootcamps will be “targeted” at sectors facing staff shortages due to tighter immigration rules, a senior minister has claimed.
In a speech today, work and pensions secretary Mel Stride said a new government taskforce is looking at “interventions” to help recruitment into sectors such as construction, care and hospitality.
Stride said new visa rules which are expected to cut migration are a “huge opportunity” for jobseekers already living in the UK who should take on roles previously filled by “overseas workers”.
His taskforce has only met once and is yet to release any detailed plans.
It will reportedly try to emulate initiatives used to fill HGV driver shortages in 2021, which included skills bootcamps and jobcentre training schemes.
However, it remains unclear how the government will encourage more people to sign up to bootcamps as they are already free for any adult aged 19 or over who is not in work.
A spokesperson for the Department for Work and Pensions told FE Week measures such as incentives for employers and targeted funding could be used to boost bootcamp numbers, but stopped short of providing any further detail.
Unspent bootcamp budget
The government has significant amounts of unspent funding from the £584 million set aside for bootcamps between 2022 and 2025.
According to a freedom of information request response last year, of the £150 million set aside in 2022-23, only £85 million was spent.
The government has not yet published details of how much of the remaining £498 million was spent in 2023-24.
Stride said the government will also deliver a “major new advertising campaign” encouraging businesses to recruit from local Jobcentres.
Courses for the unemployed
Skills bootcamps are flagship government post-pandemic work programme that aims to help people progress in their career or move into a new sector such as digital, construction or engineering.
They are open to the unemployed for free, as well as employed people, but their employer has to pay up to a 30 per cent cash contribution.
They involve a combination of training, work experience and a guaranteed job interview over a period of up to 16 weeks.
Despite the half a billion pound-budget, there is limited evidence to show whether skills bootcamps are successful at getting people into employment or achieving other positive outcomes.
A government-commissioned study of the courses found about half of participants in 2021-22 started a new job, a new role with their employer or were given increased responsibilities with the same employer.
Since then, the government has only published the number of people starting the programme, despite also collecting data on how many complete them and move into new jobs.
Lack of joined up support
Responding to Stride’s announcement, Stephen Evans, chief executive of Learning and Work Institute, said the main reason people who can work are unemployed is a “lack of effective joined-up support” rather than migration.
He added: “Many employers are already working with jobcentres and of course more should do so.
“But to make a real difference we need to employers to look at how they structure jobs to fit with people’s health needs and caring responsibilities and think more broadly about where they recruit, given many people are out of work but not on benefits.
“That needs to be coupled with a step change in joined-up work, health and skills support for people, since only one in ten out-of-work disabled people get help to find work each year.”
Employers have renewed calls for an “apprenticeship guarantee” to reverse a collapse in apprenticeship starts for young people.
Then prime minister Boris Johnson hit national media headlines in 2020 after he backed such a proposal put forward by former skills minister Robert Halfon.
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has brought the idea back into play in a new report published today that highlights a stark drop in apprenticeships for young people, as employers rebadge training for existing staff as apprenticeships to make use of their levy contributions.
But questions remain over how apprenticeships can be “guaranteed”, given that apprenticeships are jobs and government cannot force employers to offer them.
Here’re the key takeaways from today’s report.
The case for an ‘apprenticeship guarantee’
Dramatic fall among young people…
CIPD’s report included a survey of 2,000 employers, which found more than half (60 per cent) think that the primary purpose of apprenticeships should be supporting young people to enter the workplace. Just 15 per cent of employers said apprenticeships should primarily be used to develop existing staff.
Despite this, government data shows a 41 per cent fall in apprenticeship starts for the under 19s and a 36 per cent decline for those aged 19 to 24 years old between 2015/16 and 2022/23.
There has been a well-documented shift in the share of apprenticeship starts for those aged 25 and older over this period. And while all age groups have seen large declines in level 2, the dramatic shift to level 4 and above apprenticeships has “clearly favoured those aged 25 and above”, CIPD’s report said.
It claimed: “Apprenticeships in England now predominantly attract individuals already active in the labour market rather than those transitioning from school to work, in contrast to many other countries.”
…SME starts also ‘collapse’
Figures also show that between 2016/17 and 2020/21 apprenticeship starts for small employers decreased by nearly half (−45 per cent), and in medium-sized enterprises, starts dropped by more than half (−56 per cent).
Larger employers also saw a decline, but this was notably less pronounced (−14 per cent).
CIPD said the “collapse” in apprenticeship starts among SMEs has “undermined” opportunities for young people as it is this group of employers who are more likely to take on young apprentices and train people with lower qualification levels.
Data also shows the introduction of the levy coincides with the number of people undertaking apprenticeships from the most deprived areas of England, falling from 250,000 to 150,000 between 2015/16 and 2022/23.
Employers ‘incentivised’ to rebadge training
CIPD also repeats warnings, raised in the past by Ofsted and multiple think tanks, that employers have been “incentivised” to rebadge existing training courses as apprenticeships to utilise their apprenticeship levy money.
Today’s survey showed 54 per cent of organisations paying the levy “admitted they had converted existing training activity into apprenticeships programmes to claim back their allowance”.
Backing for ‘apprenticeship guarantee’ – but is it possible?
To combat these trends, nine in ten (89 per cent) of employers in CIPD’s survey supported the HR body’s recommendation of an “apprenticeship guarantee” for young people up to the age of 24. The policy would “ensure that a level 2 or level 3 apprenticeship place is available for every young person who wants one and meets the minimum entry requirements”.
However, the practicality of implementing the proposal is still in question. Apprenticeships are jobs and government cannot force employers to offer them.
In 2009, the Labour government attempted to establish an “apprentice guarantee” through the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act, but the plans ultimately fell through.
A recent paper titled ‘The Economy 2030 Inquiry’ explained that the 2009 act placed a duty on the CEO of the Skills Funding Agency to ensure an offer of an apprenticeship place to all qualified 16–18-year-old applicants.
The paper said the young person could choose an apprenticeship at either level 2 or level 3 from apprenticeship frameworks in two sectors (which were to be defined as those covered by a Sector Skills Council), plus they must be “suitably qualified” with GCSE English and maths and be placed within a “reasonable travel areas”.
The guarantee was not to come fully into force until 2013. But, after the change of government in 2010, that part of the act was repealed.
Authors of the 2030 inquiry said this proposal “remains the best vision of the system we need to create for people up to age 24”, but noted issues around funding, supply and low English and maths pass rates.
In May 2020 the idea of an apprenticeship guarantee resurfaced after then-education select committee chair Robert Halfon asked Boris Johnson during the government’s Liaison Committee if he would “consider introducing a guarantee offering every young person from 16 to 25 a guaranteed apprenticeship providing they can get their qualifications from level 2 right up to degree level”.
Johnson responded positively and then reaffirmed his liking of the idea during a televised Covid briefing days later, telling the nation that “it is going to be vital that we guarantee apprenticeships for young people”.
Then shadow skills minister Toby Perkins labelled the commitment as a “deception” at the time, saying he was “concerned” that young people were being given “false reassurance” by Boris Johnson at a time when they are facing “a very difficult job market”.
The government has never since said it would adopt an “apprenticeship guarantee” as policy and the idea appeared to be quickly dropped.
Newly elected mayor of the West Midlands, Richard Parker, included an “apprenticeship guarantee” for young people in his manifesto, but didn’t detail how it would be implemented.
After publishing today’s report, Peter Cheese, chief executive of the CIPD, said: “The evidence in this report shows clearly that young people most need and benefit from apprenticeships, and that the erosion of this pathway has had a negative impact on social mobility for the most disadvantaged. The introduction of an apprenticeship guarantee would help reclaim apprenticeships primarily for young people and reverse the decline in opportunities for them.”
David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said: “A guarantee for young people to be able to access a good apprenticeship and more targeted use of the levy to train older staff would result in more people benefitting from the skills they need.”
In recent weeks I’ve had the pleasure of visiting several FE organisations across the country to facilitate sessions on Human Rights Education (HRE) for staff and students.
Some sessions have focused on how human rights frameworks can be integrated into strategy, policy and curriculum while others have been to support Amnesty student groups as they form, learn about human rights and identify suitable projects for activism.
Students and staff alike clearly have a much richer understanding of concepts such as equity, inclusion and intersectionality than they might have had just a few years ago. It is also clear that student voice activity and citizenship curricula are now hugely significant programmes for many institutions.
However, as someone who discusses human rights on a daily basis, it has also been apparent that, although vocabulary and understanding of connected issues is now impressively advanced in many cases, the language of rights is not yet widespread across the sector.
This is in spite of high levels of agreement from FE professionals. Earlier this year, we surveyed the sector and asked how important staff thought it was to teach students about human rights. The average score was 4.96, 5 where 5 signified extremely important.
Professor of International and Multicultural Education, Dr. Monisha Bajaj, distinguishes between three ideological orientations for considering Human Rights Education (HRE).
First is global citizenship, which seeks to develop community through emphasising universal values and standards. Second is coexistence, which focuses more on the interpersonal and intergroup aspects of rights and brings about tolerance and respect for difference. Third is the orientation of transformative action in which HRE includes learners grappling with their own reality – often to challenge economic or political power.
Education must enable those who have been educated to act with agency
While a more thoroughly embedded human rights approach would strengthen the language, principles and philosophy of what exists in the sector, work which can be associated with the first two orientations has already come a very long way in recent years in FE.
To support this ongoing progress, in the coming months we will publish a pack of resources which will outline how to teach several topics from a human rights approach including conflict, the environment, gender justice, economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) and humanitarian law.
But it is work linked to the third orientation that provides the greater challenge, particularly for state-funded and -regulated institutions.
Paulo Freire articulates this challenge clearly when he contrasts education which functions to integrate young people into the logic of the present with a practice which enables people to engage with the world critically and creatively. The former brings about conformity, while the latter brings about transformation.
The re-broadening of the curriculum which is taking place within FE should certainly be celebrated, as should the prioritisation of issues of justice that we have seen in recent years.
However, what makes education a human right in and of itself is its ability to enable those who have been educated to act with agency. This often requires the skills and courage to speak truth to power.
The excellent work that already exists in the sector relating to issues of justice gives a really solid platform on which to build. So in addition to providing resources to help practitioners with that work, we are also looking for colleges to participate in the 2024/25 Youth Activism Programme.
As part of that programme, we will train a member of staff from each participating organisation on Human Rights Education, pair them with an Amnesty activism coach and support them to form a group of students who will take action on an issue which matters to them.
The sector has recognised that its students face an uncertain future in which they will need to make their voices heard. Together, let’s teach them the skills to bring about the change they want to see.
To register your college’s interest in the Youth Activism Programme, please complete this form
Most colleges run some form of survey to find out the views of their students. Most also have a student union, who act as the students’ voice and a sounding board for new initiatives and policies. Some even have student representatives. Box ticked.
Well, not quite. Student voice is critical to enhancing the learner experience, but only when it leads to meaningful change.
Research has shown time and time again that we should be ‘designing in’ ongoing student voice mechanisms in the classroom, not just sending out mammoth surveys once a year that many students don’t complete or take seriously.
If you’re ‘doing student voice’ to compare your students’ thoughts and feelings with a college in another city or down the road, you’re not really doing it to find out what they want and need. They will sense that.
But when students feel their opinions are valued and play a role in shaping the organisation, they are much more likely to be engaged, motivated and committed to their studies. Just like us at work.
Allowing students to contribute to decision making and really making an effort to hear their voices creates a stronger sense of belonging and community. It makes students feel like they are an integral part of the college and not just passing through.
FE colleges are rooted in their communities; They make up the fabric of a place. Given the well-documented rise in poor behaviour in and out of the classroom, whatever its cause, the solutions must come from the students themselves.
Let’s face it, we’re not really down with the kids – no matter how much we like to think we are. Colleges that listen to students’ fresh perspectives and innovative ideas will be better equipped to develop policies and practices that improve satisfaction – and outcomes.
At the heart of this work must be genuine accountability and transparency – a two-way dialogue instigated by the college with a view to creating a more inclusive environment. In that regard, it’s crucial to seek out the voices of minoritised student groups, especially if your staff (and senior staff in particular) do not reflect the students your serve.
At the heart of this work must be genuine accountability
Minoritised groups often face systemic inequalities and discrimination inside the classroom and in society. Hearing their views helps address unconscious bias, identify issues and create pathways for change. It won’t do to say “I don’t see colour”. If you don’t, then you don’t see the whole of me and what I am experiencing every day in college, on placements and on the street.
For these reasons, we can’t let student voice be skewed towards majority groups. We do this every time we brush aside feedback as the views of ‘only three or four students’. If those three or four are wheelchair users who can’t access parts of the college, we need to address this. Likewise with three or four students who experience discrimination of any sort.
This work is hard and it can cost, financially as well as in staff time. But as my mother used to say, “nothing good comes easy”. Students need to trust the process. If you say responses will be anonymous they must be. Invest in external support if necessary.
Here are my top tips for getting it right. Perhaps they can save you some of the effort:
Be transparent and honest about what you are going to do as a result of feedback – and equally about what you might not do.
Reach out to all students, and put in the leg work to involve minoritised groups.
Offer incentives for engagement to ensure you hear from as many students as possible.
Get the support of the whole staff to promote and explain the opportunity. (Students come and go. This is their chance to leave a legacy.)
Give students the time and space to participate, and don’t be scared that they might say something negative. In this instance, you are the learner.
Make participation easy and flexible, bearing in mind your adult learners and apprentices.
Do run an online survey, but don’t limit yourself to it. It takes longer, but you will get richer data and feedback from one-to-one interviews and focus groups.
Every college governor and governance professional is aware that there is some flexibility in governance arrangements among the regulatory and legal musts. But when is it right to make use of that flexibility? And how?
Colleges that are performing well don’t typically pursue it, though there is a compelling case for those seeking elusive ‘Outstanding’ judgements to consider governance innovations. For colleges that are not performing well, the argument to change or flex governance is clearer.
How to go about it depends on the nature of the underperformance.
The safest bet here is to focus mainly on quality or financial shocks (or even nasty surprises), staying within areas that are short of triggering an ‘Inadequate’ judgement or central government intervention.
The first step a chair might want to take in these shock or nasty surprise circumstances is to review their meeting frequency, those with the principal and chief executive, and those of the college triumvirate.
Those meetings might need to increase, bearing in mind that face-to-face meetings are more effective when it comes to holding senior leaders accountable. Working with their governance professional, the chair might also want to document these meetings.
A second step would be to draw together a group of governors with the skills needed to work through the issues, ideally including some of the committee chairs and the vice chair. This ‘turnaround steering group’ would work closely with the executive leadership, either informally or formally, and its meetings would be action-orientated and – critically – time-limited.
Properly, significant decisions should not be taken outside of existing governance. However, by documenting the discussions and any proposed actions, decision making could be progressed more swiftly with the support of your director of governance through the full corporation.
It is also important to note that this new grouping is not designed to replace any existing committees. Indeed (and this is a third step the chair might consider), if a ‘Carver-type’ model of governance is in place it could be best to suspend it until the issues are worked through.
The approach governors decide represents a key leadership moment
At the same time, a relevant committee could be established. (For example, a finance and resources committee, a quality committee or both). Full corporation would of course continue to meet, although its agenda would most likely be tailored to prioritise the issues in question.
The purpose of the steering group is two-fold: to manage through the specific issues but also to satisfy key governors as far as possible that there are no other shocks on the way. In some situations this will effectively amount to restoring damaged trust.
There will be all sorts of reasons why this approach might be resisted: the chair worrying that they are creating a ‘two-tier’ board, anxiety about increased workload for volunteer governors or the executive team being uncomfortable with the proposed arrangements. Of course, care should be taken to ensure governors are not overstepping the line into the executive realm.
In our work as consultants for Rockborn, we generally see governors working effectively with the college executive. However, there is no doubt that the accountability profile for governors has changed over the past decade.
Governors know that central government holds them as well as the executive leadership accountable for a college’s performance. Following reclassification, there is also now a good chance it will be prepared to intervene at the governance level.
In high-performing colleges, it will usually be right that the board sets the vision and strategic objectives for the college and monitors progress against them. In colleges where something has gone wrong, it is equally right that governors reflect on the balance of their time spent on this versus a more forensic approach to areas of concern.
They may well need to get more ‘hands on’ or ‘lean in’ to the business. And working with the governance professional, the chair may need to sponsor time-limited changes to allow for this to happen.
This might not fit with your leadership culture. Increases in governor workload are also a valid concern. But insisting on an improvement plan is an entirely legitimate and conventional response to serious issues.
In any event, the approach governors decide represents a key leadership moment. After all, failing to make timely changes following a serious issue could result in government flexing your governance for you.
As the use of generative AI (artificial intelligence) expands across our sector, there is much discussion around its advantages and disadvantages.
Does it present a chance to modernise outdated methods of teaching, learning and assessment? Or does it put us at the top of a very slippery slope towards lower standards and a reduced real-world understanding of disciplines and an overall love of learning?
We believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. With the right management, integration and stewardship of the technology, AI gives us the tools we need to take a well-timed and much-needed look at how learners learn and teachers assess.
We need to embrace this, because we can’t keep using nineteenth-century assessment methods in a twenty-first-century economy.
With a self-proclaimed digital optimist at its helm, the team at Hull College have made a conscious effort to embrace and maximise the use of generative AI for teaching, learning and leadership.
Students are encouraged to use it as a research tool, to support assignment structure, to consider different viewpoints, to create inspiration and give ideas, to simplify complex ideas and to evaluate feedback.
Leaders and teachers are encouraged to use it to strategise, to provide ideas, to analyse data and to summarise the sometimes overwhelming wealth of material educators are expected to digest.
AI gives us the opportunity to redefine the role of teachers and to elevate their practice. To move away from the ‘sage on the stage’ and lean towards the ‘guide on the side’. By allowing AI to support teachers in the more bureaucratic areas of their workload, we free them up to focus on what teaching is really about – igniting sparks, sharing passions and building meaningful relationships with students.
These are the things AI can’t do. Which, incidentally, should also reassure those who fear that one day it could replace teachers altogether. Teaching is about a lot more than the transference of knowledge, and it’s hard to imagine it generating the types of ‘light bulb’ moments every good teacher lives for.
If we don’t equip students to use AI, we’re doing them a disservice
Used effectively, AI can lead to huge efficiencies, innovation and increased accessibility. Anecdotal evidence also suggests it helps with levelling up – by potentially providing every student with a digital virtual assistant.
That said, it does provide challenges we need to be aware of and ensure we navigate effectively. And this is where the stewardship comes in. These are issues such as job displacement, changes to the labour market, ethical and privacy concerns about how data is used and concerns about a loss of control.
Used well, the majority of these risks can be minimised. It’s also important to remember that society as a whole is using AI. It is and will continue to be used in the workplace. So if we don’t equip and empower students to use it, we’re doing them a disservice.
Concerns have also been raised about how teachers can no longer trust the work any student does from home, given the amount of AI tools at their disposal.
We would urge all teachers to trust the detection tool you already have access to – your knowledge of the learner. Compare their work to what they have done in the past and don’t be afraid to ask the question: How have you created this and come to the conclusions you have?
AI invites us to consider how we could do things differently. AI literacy is a vital part of modern society. We need to use it to celebrate the art of the possible. And we need to focus on the benefit.
You can hear more from the authors on this theme in the latest episode of the Skills and Education Group podcast, Let’s Go Further. The current series is being produced in collaboration with FE Week
For more than a century, London’s City Lit has been a global beacon of hope and empowerment for deaf people. Jessica Hill finds out what makes the college’s approach to deaf education and training so important to the community.
Helping deaf people in crisis is a proud tradition of adult education college City Lit. Once a haven for soldiers returning from the First World War with bomb-damaged hearing, today its Centre for Deaf Education provides a refuge for around 100 deaf refugees and asylum seekers who have fled turmoil overseas, as well working to support the capital’s wider deaf community.
The centre – the largest of its kind in Europe – is one of very few post-age 16 establishments in England that teach classes using British Sign Language (BSL), so deaf students can learn subjects in their own language. And having a large deaf cohort of over 600 students gives learners the priceless opportunity to mix with their deaf peers both inside and outside the classroom, which they don’t get at mainstream FE colleges.
The college also teaches BSL and lip reading as subjects in their own right, and as the only college in the country offering teacher training courses in those skills, City Lit is vital to the upcoming rollout of a BSL GCSE in schools.
I visited the college, in Holborn, Central London, on its annual Deaf Day, which is thought to be Britain’s biggest event for the deaf community. College principal Mark Malcomson, a BSL user himself, is in a buoyant mood, eager to champion the deaf community which he says is “in the DNA” of college.
Mark Hopkinson, head of the Centre for Deaf Education, with reporter Jessica Hill and interpreter Charmaine Moss
Costs of coronavirus
He admits the last two years have not been easy for City Lit. The coronavirus pandemic blew a hole in the college’s finances, causing the FE Commissioner to step in with a financial notice to improve due to its ‘inadequate’ financial health in 2022.
Later that year, disaster struck in the form of a ransomware attack which caused a month-long IT outage, with major disruption to online classes and enrolment, and causing around £800,000 in exceptional costs.
But things are looking up. The college reported improved ‘requires improvement’ financial health “two years earlier than anticipated” according to its latest accounts. And in May 2023, the college went from ‘good’ to ‘outstanding’ across the board in its first Ofsted inspection for eight years.
Malcomson says: “In usual circumstances [the rating] would have been a significant achievement. However, in the context of the unprecedented and hugely challenging times that the college has recently been through, this result is truly heroic.”
Being lauded by Ofsted improves the college’s prospects for long-term survival, which is vital for the wellbeing of the country’s deaf community.
City Lit students on Deaf Day outside the college
Deaf day ‘summer fete’
Many members of that community are at City Lit for Deaf Day, which Malcomson describes as being like an “enormous summer fete”. Although City Lit is just a stone’s throw from Covent Garden, as I enter the building feels eerily quiet given that it’s bustling with around 4,000 people. All you can hear are footsteps and the odd murmur.
“You’ll probably never see a more diverse community in central London,” says the principal. Some of the cultural differences that can divide people within hearing communities, within spoken English and accent, are absent here.
I’m joined for the afternoon by one of the college’s interpreters, Charmaine, without whom I’m like a foreigner in a new country.
But not everything can be translated easily between languages. Charmaine tells me with a smile how the first time she interpreted for Malcomson, “he talked about the funding for education being like the sword of Damocles hanging over our heads”. That was a tough one for her to communicate.
Mark Hopkinson, head of the Centre for Deaf Education with City Lit staff
Hiring deaf teachers
City Lit’s deaf provision is unique in the college world because it employs deaf teachers – five of them full-time teaching English, maths and computing studies, as well as several interpreters and deaf tutors on hourly contracts.
Malcomson says it was “hugely important” to appoint a member of the deaf community to lead the Centre for Deaf Education.
Before Malcomson joined that wasn’t the case and the college had a separate deaf department with its own office and code on the door.
This “reinforced” the feeling of those staff being “separate” to the others, he says. When the team moved to an open-plan office, its deaf staff wanted to be integrated – but with caveats.
It was important their desks were not positioned so other staff had their backs to them, because “if you’re deaf you want to see people coming towards you”. The deaf education desks were placed right in the centre of the open-plan floor – “fully integrated” – which Malcomson says has been of “huge benefit” to those staff.
To further boost inclusion, the college’s full-time hearing staff are required to take classes in either deaf awareness or BSL in their first six months, so they can communicate with deaf students and staff. Employees see it as an opportunity to explore a different culture.
After starting as a communications executive at the college in November, Daniel Cringean did an eight-week Introduction to BSL course. Before that, he “didn’t know much about the [deaf] community”. “I’ve since fallen in love with the language, it’s so expressive,” he says.
City Lit is “not a bilingual college yet”, although it’s an “aspiration” that Malcomson would “love to get to”. “But just being able to say hello to your [deaf] colleagues as you walk down the corridor is hugely important,” he says.
Deaf BSL mosaic event during City Lit’s Deaf Day
Hope for deaf asylum-seekers
Knowing BSL doesn’t mean staff can necessarily communicate easily with all City Lit’s deaf learners. Over 100 are refugees and asylum seekers (an increase from only around 30 in 2022) who are predominantly from Ukraine, Afghanistan and Iran, and they use different sign languages.
Even countries that share the same native tongue use different sign languages, with British, Irish and American sign languages all differing. BSL also has regional dialects.
Malcomson shows me a picture of the college’s former head of deaf interpreting, James Fitzgerald, with three other signers interpreting at a conference for the Pope in the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel. They’re all signing the same word but in different languages.
Those differences make life challenging for City Lit’s deaf asylum-seeker and refugee students. Their journeys to the UK are typically traumatic, and when they arrive, digital translation technologies such as Google Translate which would normally help in communication with immigration officials and other services are of limited benefit.
Malcomson explains that there’s not yet a video app equivalent to Google Translate for sign language speakers.
Such is City Lit’s international reputation for deaf provision that Mark Hopkinson, the head of the Centre for Deaf Education, says some asylum seekers and refugees come to London specifically in the hope of being able to attend the college.
“They target London because they know that we have good access here”.
Vasyl Yarema with reporter Jessica Hill and interpreter Charmaine Moss
One of them is Vasyl Yarema, who came to London from a small town in Ukraine 18 months ago. He’s now completed his level two in BSL, and is currently taking an English course.
He describes deaf education provision in England as “much better” than in Ukraine. “There are lots of things that I can do here, and services that I can access that I can’t in Ukraine where there are lots of barriers for deaf people,” he says.
“There’s definitely a sense there that deaf people are lower status, whereas here in the UK we’re equal.”
BSL is “completely different” to Ukrainian Sign Language, which uses a one-handed alphabet. So Yarema had to learn to communicate with his left hand too when he arrived in the UK, which he at first “really struggled” with.
Yarema tells me that in Ukraine, he worked in a branch of McDonald’s, but adds: “Now, I’m totally open to anything as I’ve got lots of opportunities. But I’ve got to find the time to do all the learning I would like.”
BSL for hearing people
BSL is predominantly taught at the college to hearing people working in education, health, care, the Metropolitan Police or Transport for London.
It’s the only UK college to offer a Certificate in Rehabilitation Work with Deaf People, aimed at those working in the public sector.
Kate Persaud took BSL courses at City Lit two decades ago when she was a carer, initially to help her communicate with some of her deaf clients.
Kate Persaud, headteacher of Elmfield School for Deaf Children
Persaud, who is now headteacher of Elmfield School for Deaf Children in Bristol, found that learning the language in a deaf environment was “brilliant”.
She says: “Between lessons, you’re sat talking to deaf adults, who are advocating for what the deaf community is. It’s hugely motivating.”
City Lit has seen a rise in hearing people learning BSL this year. Malcomson believes this is partly because a new GCSE in BSL will be available for schools and colleges from September 2025, which will require a pipeline of teachers to be proficient in the language.
Worryingly the percentage of fully qualified teachers of the deaf is declining, a report by the Consortium for Research into Deaf Education (CRIDE) found, despite the number of deaf children rising.
Malcomson questions whether there will be enough teachers with those skills to teach the GCSE.
Meanwhile, Hopkinson says the biggest challenge the Centre for Deaf Education faces is a nationwide shortage of interpreters, rather than teachers. Most interpreters choose not to specialise in education because they can earn more working in other sectors.
Deaf students can only enrol in the courses City Lit offers to the wider public, in counselling, art and drama, for example, if an interpreter can be found and paid for to accompany them. And that’s expensive, Hopkinson says.
The funding from the government is “not enough” as the same pot has to cover support services for other learning needs and disabilities too.
“We have a lot of deaf people who want to do a counselling or an art course, and we’re happy to give them a place,” Hopkinson adds. “But that then means the funding runs out very quickly.
“We have to pay quite often from our own pocket to ensure the students get the support they need.”
CityLit
Courses for deaf students
Putting on courses specifically for deaf people is therefore more cost efficient for the college than teaching those students in mainstream classes with individual interpreters.
Hopkinson says the classes delivered in BSL are “the best learning strategy” for deaf students, as “it’s better to be taught 100 per cent in your first language”.
Deaf students come from across London for the provision, with some also joining remotely from further afield.
In 2023, the college delivered nearly 5,000 courses in total – 40 per cent of which were online. Malcomson sees its online offering as giving the college a “genuinely national reach”.
Deaf provision beyond City Lit
Elsewhere, deaf education is being impacted by local authority budget cuts.
In Birmingham, deaf students aged 16 to 18 will no longer be able to use council-funded taxis or minibuses to get to their colleges.
Persaud describes post-16 deaf provision outside London as being “not good at all”.
When her pupils in Bristol reach 16 they either attend City of Bristol College, where they can get support from communications support workers, or a residential unit 90 minutes away in Exeter. Bristol Council is currently working with Persaud to set up sixth-form provision at her school, but even then “post-18 specialist provision is missing completely” in the city.
But some new deaf adult provision is springing up.
In March, a residential and learning centre for deaf adults, claiming to be the only one of its kind in the UK, opened in Exmouth in a former convent. Prior to its launch, The Deaf Academy’s 19 to 25 cohort stayed in the same building as younger students, but now they have their own residential and learning space.
There is also the Communication Specialist College Doncaster (CSCD) which provides vocational provision to students whose main barrier to learning is communication and social needs.
Meanwhile, back at City Lit, Malcomson sees City Lit’s deaf provision as a “celebration of what FE does best”.
He says: “It’s a huge part of the college’s heritage and bringing together an incredibly diverse community.”
London’s deputy mayor for business is taking on the capital’s £402 million skills budget, following a reshuffle of Sadiq Khan’s top team.
Khan announced last Friday that his recently appointed deputy mayor for business and growth, Howard Dawber, will oversee the capital’s skills and adult education spending – the largest budget of any devolved authority in the country.
The move pairs skills with business after eight years under Jules Pipe, who was also deputy mayor for planning and regeneration.
However, it is unclear why Dawber’s job title does not include “skills”, despite the brief being the largest of the Greater London Authority’s (GLA) budget areas and four times larger than the mayor’s £102 million business and economy budget.
A spokesperson for Khan did not respond to questions about the title, but said pairing the two briefs would require “close collaboration” between London’s businesses and training providers.
“The mayor will continue to champion adult learning and build on his previous success in this area to support even more people to attain the skills they need to acquire good jobs,” the spokesperson added.
Dawber was a managing director at the Canary Wharf Group until 2022 and has an advisory role at the University of East London’s business school.
In a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, he said he met with shadow education secretary Bridget Phillipson this week to talk about Labour’s plans for “skills and future reform”.
The GLA has had responsibility for the capital’s skills spending since 2019, following devolution of the adult education budget from Whitehall.
According to the GLA’s most up-to-date statistics, there were 230,000 funded learners in London in the 2022-23 academic year, up from 213,000 in 2019-20.
An external review of its skills policies between 2019 and 2022, published last summer, found the capital “performed well” in learner participation and enrolments, which have increased 10 per cent.
Areas that are managed directly by the Department for Education have increased 2 per cent.
Pipe, who is now deputy mayor for planning, regeneration and the fire service, said it had been a “pleasure to work with stakeholders and partners across the adult education sector over the last eight years and to have played a part in delivering skills programmes that support Londoners”.
