An extra £1.2bn could have been dished out to 16 to 18 providers since 2010 if the government’s education ringfence had extended beyond five to 15-year-olds, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) claimed today.
It claimed that this was because “in 2010 the coalition government decided to ringfence the schools budget, protecting it from the funding cuts that affected many other service areas and departments”.
It said: “However, crucially, this decision protected funding for 5 to 15-year-olds only; the budget for post-16 education was left unprotected. As a necessary consequence, the limited ringfencing of the 5–15 budget has resulted in severe cuts in education areas which fall outside of that age-range.”
The report shows that funding for 16-18 education fell from £7.7bn to £7bn over the course of this parliament. An IPPR spokesperson said that “funding for 16-18 education could have been £1.2bn higher over the course of this parliament by sharing the increase in the 5-15 budget across the whole 5-18”.
The report called on the next government to “reconsider upper-secondary funding and bring more equity to pre- and post-16 figures if they wish to ensure a meaningful, broad curriculum across the phase”.
It comes with the Association of Colleges (AoC) 2015 general election manifesto calling for there to be “no further cuts to spending on 16 to 18-year-olds and, immediately on taking office, the next government should bring this age group within the protective ringfence”.
It also comes with publication, also today, of an Institute for Fiscal Studies report that explains: “The area of Department for Education spending that has suffered the largest cuts has been 16–19 education, where spending has fallen by 14 per cent in real terms between 2010–11 and 2014–15.”
However, Prime Minister David Cameron has said that the ringfence in place from 2010 would continue if his party remained in office after May’s general election
The IPPR report said: “The Conservative plan would see a decrease in the 16–18 budget of 6.7 per cent, compared with a 7.7 per cent increase under the Labour and Lib-Dem plan.
“In real terms, Labour and the Liberal Democrats would freeze the 16–18 budget. This is a significantly better outcome for institutions catering for this age-range, compared with a predicted real-terms cut of 13.4 per under Conservative plans.”
The report also called for the scope of 14 to 19 education to be broadened so that all courses include a mixture of classroom-based learning and work experience and elements of learning covering culture and democratic and social citizenship.
It said that UK policy makers should take note of the success of broader upper secondary education systems in Denmark, Finland, Canada, France and the Netherlands.
Martin Doel (pictured right), AoC chief executive, said: “Young people need a broad education through academic and vocational routes, to prepare them for life, not just their first job or further study.
“However, a rich and broad programme requires teaching time and proper resources and IPPR’s report makes a compelling case to compare the UK with other OECD countries.
“This publication attempts to address the purpose and process of education for 14 to 19-year-olds. Unless we tackle the issues around the curriculum, we are likely to have a ’broken pipeline’ in our state education system for 16 to 18-year-olds with consequences for a generation of young people.”
Principals will have to wait for more struggling colleges to emerge successfully from the FE Commissioner process before the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) publishes guidelines on how intervention ends.
It was based on BIS research, including a survey sent to all colleges that had been inspected and interviews with officials involved with the process from BIS, including Dr Collins, the Skills Funding Agency, Education Funding Agency, the Department for Education and Ofsted.
The report called for “more clarity” surrounding how intervention, which includes “stocktake” progress reports by the commissioner and a Case Review Group to consider ending the process, might be brought to a close.
It said that “to date, only one college [City of Liverpool College] has been removed from intervention. As the circumstances for each intervention differ from case to case it is agreed that more definition or clarity around ending intervention by the FE Commissioner would be welcomed.”
A BIS spokesperson could not give a date for the publication of new guidelines on the issue, but said: “City of Liverpool College successfully addressed its issues and left the intervention process in November [following the initial inspection by Dr Collins a year earlier].
“As more colleges successfully address the issues for which they were put in intervention, we will be able to create a more comprehensive view of the success criteria for ending intervention.”
The report also noted that prior to triggering an inspection by Dr Collins, struggling providers could seek support from a number of organisations including the Education and Training Foundation, the and Joint Information Systems Committee (Jisc), and the Association of Colleges (AoC).
But is said that “the evaluation did highlight that not all the institutions which could benefit from the report are utilising it. This may be because they are unaware of its existence or how to access it.”
It added: “While it is not BIS’s role to provide support to colleges, greater signposting to these resources should be considered and would be welcomed by the sector.”
The BIS spokesperson said: “As the report highlights, there is already support for FE providers through organisations such as the ETF, Jisc and the AoC and BIS is working closely with these organisations to ensure that providers are aware of this.”
Commissioner inspections are triggered if colleges are asses as inadequate by Ofsted, inadequate for financial health by the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) or fail to meet “minimum standards of performance by the Department for Education and the SFA”.
Dr Collins has so far reported on inspections of 19 providers.
Gill Clipson (pictured right), deputy chief executive of the AoC, said: “The evaluation report provides a useful analysis of how colleges view the intervention process, led by the FE Commissioner, is operating.
“The clear and transparent reporting is valued by the small number of colleges visited and the FE Commissioner’s termly letters are appreciated by all.
“AoC welcomes the recommendation that there should be greater clarity and definition about how and when intervention comes to a close and would be happy to work with officials to agree this.”
General FE and sixth form colleges will receive £61m from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce) for courses next academic year.
The figure is 4 per cent down on the £64m given to FE providers for higher education this academic year and a 48 per cent decrease on the £118m funding dished out to the sector for 2012/13.
A Hefce spokesperson said: “Recurrent funding for teaching for 2015/16 shows a reduction compared to 2014/15 as a result of the continuing transition from the old fee and funding regime – when Hefce grant rates were higher because students paid lower tuition fees.
“The reduction is markedly less than for previous years, because the bulk of the transition, relating to students on three-year full-time undergraduate courses, is already complete.”
But Dr Lynne Sedgmore CBE, executive director of the 157 Group, said: “It is clear [from these figures] that public funding is only going in one direction. There is no doubt that reductions in many different funding streams are creating enormous pressure on colleges. It is also clear that priorities into the future will be around higher level technical skills. It is important that colleges are able to respond to these priorities and we will do all we can to help them to do so.”
Nick Davy (pictured right), higher education policy manager for the Association of Colleges (AoC), said: “The decrease in funding to FE colleges from Hefce reflects the fact that higher education teaching is now [largely] funded by the Student Loans Company through tuition fees, rather than Hefce.
“We are pleased to see, however, that Hefce maintains its commitment to widening access to higher education by providing the student opportunity grant, which makes up about 10 per cent of all college higher education income.”
Hefce announced in January that £714,772 would be allocated to FE colleges with higher education provision between now and 2016 in a bid to improve collaboration with schools and other colleges. The FE sector share is less than 6.5 per cent of the £11.02m total allocated to individual universities and colleges.
In the annual grant letter to Hefce, which confirmed that overall funding for universities and FE colleges with higher education provision would rise from £11.1bn for 2014/15 to £12.1bn for 2015/16, Business Secretary Vince Cable (pictured above) and Universities Minister Greg Clark called on Hefce to support joint working between institutions.
They wrote: “The council should facilitate work with higher education institutions and FE colleges to develop innovative curricula and new modes of delivery that will meet employer needs for high levels of technical expertise, contributing to local enterprise partnerships’ growth plans, and to the government’s industrial strategy.”
It came after Hefce reported last year that the number of people starting undergraduate study at FE colleges in 2013/14 was 10,000 higher than in 2010/11, a 57 per cent rise, and former Universities Minister David Willetts expressed his desire to see more learners taking higher education courses at FE colleges.
An awarding organisation and training company are celebrating after being recognised among the best places to work according to prestigious lists compiled by The Sunday Times.
Newcastle-based NCFE was ranked 70th on The Sunday Times top 100 charities to work for, while Basildon-based independent learning provider LifeSkills features at number 94 in the paper’s list of the top 100 small businesses to work for.
NCFE chief executive David Grailey (top, left) said: “Gaining recognition as one of the Top 100 companies to work for, for the sixth time, is an achievement we’re extremely proud of.
“Our people, who we value very highly, have helped to make NCFE one of the top national qualification providers in the UK by demonstrating their commitment, innovation, and sheer hard work every day which helps to make NCFE such a success, even during a tough time for the education sector.
“Ultimately, we believe that the workplace can be an engaging and happy environment whilst also delivering an exceptional level of service to our customers.”
LifeSkills managing director Spencer Fearn (top, right) said: “We are delighted to be recognised in the Times Top 100 company awards for the fifth time, following on from [an Ofsted] grade two and Investors in People Gold award in 2014 we have yet again improved as a company and continued to raise the bar in terms of staff engagement and learner development.”
Government proposals to extend loans to level two and also include learners from the age of 19 were put on hold this week as part of the official response to a two-month consultation launched in June. David Hughes assesses the response and also the future for FE loans.
The Government’s response to its consultation on Advanced Level Learning Loans is, at one level, of hardly any consequence. This is partly because it came out a week before the effective end of the Coalition Government, but also because it results in only minor changes rather than the expansion it might have led to. So hardly worth commenting on, perhaps?
As ever with these things, it is important to read the words carefully, as well as between the lines to appreciate why it is an important response.
The introduction by Nick Boles, the current Skills Minister, sets out clearly that the consultation intelligence gathered will be used as evidence for the Spending Review which the next Government will carry out and which will impact in 2016-17. That’s worth thinking about, particularly in light of the recently announced cut to the Adult Skills Budget.
It’s also worth remembering that the loans were introduced as a means of avoiding even greater cuts. That was in 2010 during what felt like tough negotiations as part of the Spending Review which has led to more than a million learning opportunities lost for adults.
Nobody at that time really wanted loans to be introduced, it was a compromise in which officials and politicians deemed it better to hold onto as much funding for adults as they could, even though the loans were wholly un-tested.
The experience of loans has been mixed, but so far it has to be viewed as a failed policy. The drop in numbers is staggering. Apprenticeships were in, then out of loans: and around half of all loans taken out have been for Access to Higher Education courses (for which the loan is written off if the learner completes an HE course).
Unsurprisingly, the market for part-time, flexible level three and four course has not taken off, very much like the collapse of part-time higher education after loans were introduced.
If loans are not working now, then how will colleges and independent learning providers respond when they are extended? What evidence will be available of what works? Where is the investment in testing and innovation?
For an average college, the business is often not important enough to invest in at a time when cuts are biting all over.
For learners, though, the opportunities to learn have disappeared just at the time when employers are reporting more and more skills shortages and gaps at level three and four.
Our recent Policy Solutions paper, entitled No Limits: from getting by to getting on, also pointed to the almost complete lack of skills and support for the 5m people in low pay.
We proposed a new advancement service for people which would stimulate their demand for skills and help boost productivity. We believe that this would lead to more people progressing onto loan-funded intermediate learning, helping their careers and meeting employers’ needs.
But the reality is that we’ve seen too little action to understand how to stimulate demand and not enough work to find out what would be attractive to learners.
More flexibility, day-release supported by employers, promotion of ‘signature’ qualifications which employers recognise and use of technology could all make a difference. Sadly, this new and un-tested policy has not had the R and D innovation to support it and it is not working.
We need to find out how to make it work, and quickly. The next Spending Review will come at us very soon and the cuts heralded in the recent Budget look brutal.
It is almost inconceivable that loans will not be extended by age (to 21?) and by level (to include level 2?). If loans are not working now, then how will colleges and independent learning providers respond when they are extended? What evidence will be available of what works? Where is the investment in testing and innovation?
Like others, Niace has been shouting about the skills crisis we are already in. The extension of loans will only make that worse unless we find ways to make the loans work.
So, the Government response this week to its own consultation was inconsequential, but there is a storm on the horizon and I don’t believe that we are prepared for it. We need to act fast.
Ofqual is asking for views on its plans to replace the Qualifications Credit Framework (QCF), which is due to be scrapped.
The qualifications watchdog launched a three-month 19-question consultation today on the successor to the QCF, which it says it wants to be “simple and descriptive”.
It is proposing that all regulated qualifications should be described by a new Framework of Regulated Qualifications (FRQ). Under the proposed new approach, qualifications would no longer have to be unitised or credit-bearing, but could be if that was the best way for the qualification to meet its purpose.
Jeremy Benson (pictured right), Ofqual’s executive director for vocational qualifications, said: “The new descriptive framework we’re proposing should make qualifications easier to understand. It’s not like the QCF, which sought to impose a particular view of what qualifications should look like.”
He added: “Removing the QCF rules and introducing a new framework does not mean an end to all QCF qualifications – they can stay so long as they are sufficiently valid. What will matter in future will be whether qualifications can be shown to be good, not whether they are designed to tick particular boxes. We know frameworks can be used to support a range of other purposes too, and we would also welcome the views from others who might look to use the FRQ.”
Awarding organisations (AOs) have welcomed the end of the QCF, but many have expressed concern about proposals for a new way to measure the size of a qualification, included in the 19-question consultation.
Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) head of vocational policy Andy Walls told FE Week: “JCQ and its member awarding organisations welcomed last year Ofqual’s decision to remove the QCF. We look forward to life after the QCF.”
Patrick Craven (pictured left), head of learning, assessment and design practice at City & Guilds, said the QCF had been “rigid”, “confusing and restrictive”.
“This new framework will allow those with real expertise in design of assessment instruments to develop fit-for-purpose qualifications and assessment services,” he said.
“And importantly, they will be held accountable for their effectiveness. Although it may seem like even more change for a sector that needs stability, this change was needed and is a positive step forward.
“If it’s managed in the right way, providers, learners and employers will all see benefits as qualifications are rebuilt.”
Currently, specifications for qualifications should include their objective, any pre-requisites for those wishing to study it, the knowledge and skills assessed, how it was assessed and how attainment was measured.
In addition to these, the document said: “We are proposing that in the future, specifications must also include the level and the size of the qualification so that it can be aligned to the framework.”
To describe what level a course is at, a new range of descriptors for each level would be introduced, which the document said would “better reflect the full range of qualifications” than those under the QCF.
It also proposed ending guided learning hours as a way of measuring the size of a qualification, following a consultation, the results of which were also published today, which found that many uses was confused by whether online, work experience or passively supervised activities should count towards learning hours.
Confusion over the definition of guided learning hours presents a problem for providers who must work out whether a qualification is large enough to count towards a 16 to 18 year old’s hours in education under the raised participation age (RPA).
Instead, the latest consultation proposed introducing a Total Qualification Time (TQT) measure to express the size of a qualification.
The document said: “TQT would be made up of Guided Learning, Directed Study and Dedicated Assessment. This approach would provide a complete picture of the time it will typically take a learner to complete a qualification, of which guided learning hours will often only be a part.”
Graham Hasting-Evans, managing director of NOCN warned the TQT proposals were “likely to be viewed by employers and training providers as too complicated”.
But he said: “The Ofqual consultation document appears to give awarding organisations the flexibility they would want.”
Gemma Gathercole, head of policy for FE and funding at OCR, said the QCF had been “flawed from its inception” and welcomed plans to withdraw it.
“However, we are concerned about the way that this consultation seeks to introduce new names and acronyms to the already complex world of qualifications,” she said.
She suggested the same terminology could be re-introduced to support the new framework, and said it was “unclear” what purpose the introduction of TQT would serve.
“It creates artificial barriers between elements of curriculum and assessment that could create the same challenges to developing fit for purpose qualifications that were a feature of the QCF,” she said.
“A robust and simple definition of guided learning hours would be sufficient to maintaining the duty required by the RPA legislation.”
The Ofqual consultation closes on June 17. Click here to take part.
The system of Functional Skills qualifications is “not broken, but could be improved,” according to the Education and Training Foundation (ETF) review of non-GCSE English and maths, out today.
And it painted a largely positive picture of Functional Skills.
Professor Ed Sallis, OBE
“The system of Functional Skills is not broken but could be improved,” according to the 19-page report, entitled Making maths and English work for all.
“If government continues with the policy of investing in the literacy and numeracy skills of young people the current arrangements for Functional Skills are a good basis on which to build.
“However, there are steps government and others can take to accelerate the rise in employer recognition and further improve the relevance, rigour and value of these qualifications.”
Professor Sallis said: “The review shows [employers] value practical maths and English skills. They value Functional Skills for their practical approach to problem solving and for their flexible assessment.
“The challenge will be to communicate this message and to ensure they are promoted so every learner has the chance to develop the maths and English skills employers require.”
The review heard from nearly 1,400 individuals and organisations — including 646 employers, 489 practitioners, 229 colleges, awarding organisations and independent learning providers, and 31 apprentices — through telephone and face-to-face interviews, online questionnaires, webinars and seminars.
It found 47 per cent of employers were aware of Functional Skills and of those, 87 per cent valued them.
The report said: “While it is vital that the whole education system, pre and post-16, improves success rates in GCSE, this review has found that many employers understand the contribution that non-GCSE qualifications, and especially Functional Skills, play in giving young people and adults the skills they need in the workplace.”
It added Functional Skills should not be seen as a “stepping stone” to help learners achieve GCSE but as “an alternative route … a qualification in its own right with the key purpose of satisfying employer requirements”.
However, the report added: “An alternative route will only have validity and currency if two criteria are met.
“Firstly, the standards have to be aligned to employability and the content has to be based on what employers need for their workforce. Secondly, Functional Skills have to have flexible but more standardised and rigorous assessment to give employers confidence in them.”
The report called for a further review of the standards on which Functional Skills are based and, to ensure maths and English qualifications remain relevant to employers, it also recommended curriculum content and assessment should be regularly reviewed “on the basis of regular, reliable and representative feedback from employers and providers, and student progress and attainment data”.
And the ETF report further said awareness of the purpose and value of non-GCSE English and maths qualifications “particularly Functional Skills” should be raised through a publicity campaign, and it warned the qualifications should not be presented as a “consolation prize” for GCSE failure.
However, the report said the number of non-GCSE qualifications was “confusing” for employers and said the government should consider culling some to give the remaining ones “greater public and employer recognition”.
Mr Boles welcomed the review’s findings and recommendations, which he said showed “the current Functional Skills system is generally serving its purpose, and reflects the Government’s commitment to ensure all adults have the opportunity to study English and maths”.
Jeremy Benson, executive director for vocational qualifications at Ofqual said: “We welcome… confirmation of the important role that Functional Skills qualifications have in recognising the skills that are important to learners and employers.
“The review complements the work that we are doing to secure higher quality assessments and more consistent standards for Functional Skills qualifications. We will continue to work closely with the ETF and Government so that these important qualifications continue to develop in line with both learners’ and employers’ needs.”
David Russell, ETF chief executive said: “Everyone knows — or thinks they know — what a GCSE in maths or English stands for. But other qualifications exist too, and are increasingly common post-16.
“We set out to discover whether employers recognised them, and, if they did, whether they rated them. We found, unsurprisingly, that it is something people really want to talk about. Employers care about the quality of maths and English skills people have, not just the qualification.”
Stewart Segal, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP), said he was “pleased” by the “strong” employer support for functional skills the review highlighted.
“We look forward to working with the ETF and other partners on implementing the recommendations in Professor Sallis’s report to make Functional Skills an even more valued alternative,” he said.
Gill Clipson, deputy chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said the report’s conclusions “support our manifesto recommendation that young people should not routinely be asked to re-sit GCSE English and/or maths”.
She added: “We are looking forward to working with Ministers after May 7 in a joint effort to ensure everyone has suitable English and maths qualifications by the age of 19.”
The system currently applies to learners aged at least 24 and studying at level three or four — but the consultation proposed FE loans should apply to level two and also 19 to 23-year-olds.
Government pays half the course cost for 19 to 23-year-olds staying at levels two and three, but such learners — like those aged 24 and above — would end up having to repay the full cost under the loans system.
However, in the government response to the consultation, out today, Skills Minister Nick Boles (pictured above) wrote: “It makes sense to consider the implications of these changes alongside plans for the overall funding for skills provision in the future.
“For this reason, we will not be going ahead with our plans for expansion at the moment, but will look again at these proposals in the Spending Review.”
However, the government said it would, from 2016/17, remove the rule surrounding concurrent study, which prevents a learner from undertaking two loans-funded courses at the same time.
It would also, from the same academic year, remove the repeat study rule, which prevents a learner from undertaking loans-funded courses of the same type and level.
“There were many examples where the repeat study rule is seen to be hindering progression in some sectors such as health and beauty, and joinery,” it said in the response document.
“As Advanced Learning Loans become further embedded, this may become a more wide-spread problem.”
It added: “The only exception to this will be in the case of Access to HE courses and programmes of A-levels because they are focused on a particular outcome that is related to progression.”
Meanwhile, the rule limiting a learner to a maximum of four loans over their lifetime would remain, but the government would “continue to monitor this, and if necessary, consider amendments in the future”.
Mr Boles wrote: “We will… put more power in the hands of the learner by simplifying the rules on concurrent and repeat study.
“Ensuring that we have the right funding system in place for adult learners is absolutely critical to ensuring a strong economic future. The responses we have received to this consultation give the Government a very strong evidence-base on which to make important decisions about the future of Advanced Learning Loans, in the context of the next Spending Review.”
Julian Gravatt (pictured right), assistant chief executive of the Association of Colleges (AoC), said: “The Government has consulted on the extension of Advanced Learner Loans but its plans won’t become clear until after the 2015 spending review when details of funding are available.
“Removing the restriction to allow students to take out more than one loan at a time, will mean students can study more than one course, but we strongly support the idea of better advice and guidance to explain what it will mean to take out multiple loans.
“Given the current 24 per cent cut to the adult FE and the likelihood of more cuts in 2016, we’re concerned that the delay may mean that any loan extension could not now happen until 2017. The next government will need to take this into account.”
Dr Lynne Sedgmore CBE (pictured left), executive director of the 157 Group, said: “We believe that the system in the future must ensure equality of access for adults to a wide range of educational possibilities and, in that respect, the decision not to extend the availability of loans at this stage is something of a missed opportunity.”
She added: “We must remember that the lack of availability of loans for significant numbers of adults at the same time as a reduction in government grant funding for adult learning will leave a large funding gap for the next two years.
“We will be working hard with the relevant government departments to ensure that we have an equitable, transparent and flexible approach to all adult education funding into the future – even in the context of reducing public funding.”
Continued cuts to the adult skills budget risk wiping out adult education and training in England within five years, the Association of Colleges (AoC) has warned after research showed 190,000 course places could be lost in 2015/16 alone.
The AoC has published research based on data from its 336 member colleges which points to a bleak future for the FE sector, which has faced adult skills budget cuts of around 35 per cent since 2009 and is now gearing up to deal with the consequences of a further 24 per cent cut in 2015/16.
According to the AoC, adult education and training provision could disappear completely by 2020 if cuts continue at the same rate as they have in recent years, with courses in the health, public services and care sectors expected to be hit hardest by next year’s cuts, with the loss of 40,000 course places expected in those areas alone.
AoC chief executive Martin Doel said: “Adult education and training is effectively being decimated. These cuts could mean an end to the vital courses that provide skilled employees for the workforce such as nurses and social care workers.
“The potential loss of provision threatens the future prospects of the millions of people who may need to retrain as they continue to work beyond retirement age as well as unemployed people who need support to train for a new role.
“Adult education and training in England is too important to be lost, to both individuals and the wider economy.”
Other sector leaders and academics have thrown their weight behind Mr Doel’s comments and welcomed the AoC research, which was based on data submissions from 219 colleges and the AoC’s own estimates of the impact of cuts on its 336 members.
David Hughes
David Hughes, chief executive of the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (Niace), said: “This is a very useful analysis of the learning opportunities which are being lost to people and to the economy. Over one million opportunities have disappeared in funding cuts since 2010 and the AoC rightly sets out that more cuts means even fewer opportunities.
“Our businesses face two big challenges – low productivity and skills shortages, particularly at intermediate levels. And with people facing up to working until a later pension age, we need more re-training, not less.
“The funding cuts will hit people who want to work hard to get on, will hit businesses who want to grow and will hamper economic growth. The next government will need to find new ways to fund learning and skills for people aged 19 and over because the cuts have gone too deep now.
“I have been saying for the last year that we are facing a skills crisis. The cuts to come lead me to the same conclusion as AoC – namely that we should all be telling young people to get their state-funded learning in as quickly as they can, because once they hit 21 there won’t be any support left.”
Ewart Keep
Professor Ewart Keep, director of Oxford University’s centre on skills, knowledge and organisational performance, said: “The AoC has produced an alarming, but realistic analysis of the current and potential impact of spending trends on adult education.
“In the light of earlier cuts in public post-19 spending – of the order of 35 per cent over recent years – the latest reductions raise the prospect of provision reaching a tipping point, from which subsequent recovery could be very difficult.
“Cumulative cuts of this magnitude are extremely difficult to absorb, and mean that those colleges and other providers who have a strong focus on adult learners may either go out of business or be forced to re-focus their attention on younger pre-19 students.”
University and College Union general secretary Sally Hunt said: “These cuts are a devastating blow to colleges and risk decimating further education. Slashing budgets this harshly could be the final nail in the coffin for many of the courses that help people get back to work.
Sally Hunt
“Not everyone needs or wants to study an apprenticeship, but colleges are being forced to prioritise them over other kinds of courses. This approach will shut the door to hundreds of thousands of people who want to use adult education as a springboard for improving their skills.”
A spokesperson for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills said: “We fully recognise the important role further education plays in getting people the skills they need to get on.
“That’s why we’ve committed more than £3.9bn in 2015-16 to adult learning and further education, including £770m of apprenticeship funding. We also expect to spend up to £80m on the National Colleges programme.
“While total funding has been reduced, priority has been given the areas where the most impact can be made – apprenticeships, traineeships and support with English and maths.
“Many colleges and training organisations have responded well to the need to find other income streams for skills provision and it is this approach that will help them succeed.”
Case study: Dudley College. Principal: Lowell Williams. Ofsted rating: Good (April 2013)
How will the funding cuts for 2015/16 affect your college?
“The problem we will have is that all of our adult provision has been aligned to the needs of the local community, so whatever provision we take out is going to hurt local people.
Lowell Williams
“For example, we run over 90 short-term employability courses for unemployed local adults who lack basic skills and qualifications, to help them get into a position where they can present themselves for work or further training.
“Those courses will have to be all-but cut out completely in 2015/16 to save around £500,000 of the overall amount that we need to save [more than £1.4m from the SFA budget].
“Up to £500,000 will also have to be saved by cutting the sort of part-time training opportunities that upskill people in existing low-level jobs who want to progress, perhaps by improving their computer or administrative skills, or in other technical areas such as engineering or motor vehicle.
“For example, you might get someone in a low level cleaning job at a care home who wants to become a domiciliary care worker, but they would have to progress through level one to get onto a level two or three apprenticeship.
“We also currently run around 30 skills training programmes for offenders at Featherstone Prison which help offenders progress into work after they are released. These programmes will have to go, which could save up to £400,000.
“We also estimate there will be some 30 posts at risk [through redundancies] comprising managers, lecturers, assessors and administrators.”
What do you expect the situation to be like in 2020?
“Non-apprenticeship adult funding allocations for us at Dudley College have gone from around £7.2m in 2013/14 to a projected £4.8m for 2015/16 and at this rate our adult allocation will have disappeared completely.
“By wiping out funding [for most adult skills courses], the government will be risking recreating an underclass of poorly educated adults. They will effectively be withdrawing the opportunity to train or retrain for the least able.
“It has become a matter of political expediency for all the parties to commit to ringfencing apprenticeship funding, but that won’t help the least able people, who may have left school without five GCSEs or are not able to speak English as their first language. They need help to get into work or to progress up to an apprenticeship.
“The idea that every adult is best served by an apprenticeship, if they don’t go to university, and won’t have any other training needs, is just too simplistic.”
Case study: Tower Hamlets College. Principal: Gerry McDonald. Ofsted rating: Good (December 2013)
How will the funding cuts for 2015/16 affect your college?
“We will be down by about £1m on our SFA funding, which represents a 14 per cent cut that’s obviously better than the 24 per cent across the sector.
Gerry McDonald
“It’s because we run a lot of protected English and maths provision, 1,041 learners so far this academic year, which cushioned us from worse cuts.
“We will wait and see what happens in the [May 7] general election before making final decisions on where to save money.
“If Labour win and they scrap apprenticeships below level three and rebadge traineeships as something covering all level two courses, then the whole funding landscape is going to change again, so it’s going to be quite interesting.
“It’s likely that we’ll be cutting some courses in 2015/16, but our meetings have only just started looking into that.
“We have already launched a voluntary redundancy round which could mean the loss of around 25 positions, but I can’t guarantee staff that there won’t be further compulsory redundancies.
“There is also likely to be slightly larger class sizes — at the moment we average 17 learners per class and it will be around 18— to help save money.”
What do you expect the situation to be like in 2020?
“I agree with the AoC view that the adult skills budget could be entirely gone aside from apprenticeships and English and maths funding. I expect that other courses will be entirely loan driven.
“If there is any funding on top of that, I wouldn’t expect it to be given out by the Skills Funding Agency, which is bound to become less and less relevant.
“It’s largely the lower level pre-apprenticeship training that colleges are going to be forced to cut back on [in the long-term].
“That’s bad news because a lot of people just don’t have the qualifications or skills as it is to get onto apprenticeships.
“It is going to mean less people going on to apprenticeships and an even bigger skills shortage, which is short-sighted in my view.
“English for Speakers of Other Languages (Esol) qualifications, which we run a lot of [1,184 learners so far this academic year], are also likely to face cutbacks.
“That could have all sorts of dangerous implications in terms of community cohesion.
“I think a [money saving] option for a lot of colleges will also be looking at economies of scale through more mergers. It’s not something we would rule in or out at the moment.”
Case study: Yeovil College. Principal: John Evans. Ofsted rating: Good (May 2012)
How will the funding cuts for 2015/16 affect your college?
“They will force us to stop running courses that would have been offered to 200 or more learners.
John Evans
“No decision have been made yet over which courses will have to go, but I know that many of the people who will be affected will either be unemployed or low paid because they are low skilled.
“Yeovil has a reasonably low unemployment rate but a high level of low skill and low paid employees.
“One of our aims as a college has been to support more low-skilled workers into higher skilled jobs.
“It’s going to become increasingly difficult for us to do that because of these cuts.
“We don’t have many 19+ traineeships at the moment, as it was previously focused on 16 to 18-year-olds, but we are going to grow the programme for 19 to 24-year-olds now. It’s certainly worth considering as funding for traineeships is currently protected.
“I wrote to the Education Minister David Laws [on March 2] to express my concern about FE funding cuts and the affect it will have on non-apprenticeship provision and he replied by saying he was concerned.
“I don’t know what difference that will make, but you have to keep beating the drum. I don’t think that most people, even the politicians, understand yet the devastating affect these funding cuts will have on skills training.”
What do you expect the situation to be like in 2020?
“There’s no doubt that we’re a sector under threat. A big part of our budget isn’t ring-fenced, so it’s there to be shot at. We need to protect our funding however we can in order to support the skills development and economical growth of our local areas.
“I have been saying for three or four years now that we are going to reach a point where the FE sector will just be for 16 to 18 provision, apprenticeships and anyone who can afford to pay for other training themselves, as the money won’t come from the government.
“The adult skills role of colleges should be much wider than just providing for apprenticeships.
“I understand that savings have to made, as we’re living in a time of austerity, but the government is sending out a mixed message over adult training.
“It’s pushing adult skills training and retraining on the one hand, but making these funding cuts on the other, but the two do not go hand in hand.”
