The issue of class prejudice has raised its ugly head, says Mick Fletcher, with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills pushing ahead with its National Colleges plan

The idea that the problems of English FE can be solved by creating a new cadre of elite colleges was a bad idea when suggested by Shadow Education Secretary Tristram Hunt, bad when trailed as government policy by Business Secretary Vince Cable and bad now it has been officially launched by Skills Minister Matthew Hancock.

Despite the unusual distinction of endorsement by all three major political parties the idea that segregation leads to success ignores all the lessons of history and risks damaging rather than developing progression routes to advanced vocational study.

Fundamentally, however, it is wrong because it is suffused with the corrosive prejudices of the English class system.

Class prejudice in England is so deeply ingrained that it is easily overlooked. Consider for example, the defence of engineering, endlessly quoted in almost every discussion of the subject — “people think it’s all about men with oily rags”.

It is true that engineering as a discipline can be a demanding theoretical subject, but the unspoken assumption is that it’s understandable, acceptable even, to look down on men who work with their hands and with the apocryphal oily rag. Those men (and women) who keep our vehicles safe, keep the lights on in schools and hospitals and keep the wheels of industry turning are obviously less worthy of our respect than those who work in clean suits at a desk: so obviously that it’s not worth stating.

The unspoken assumption behind the elite colleges proposal is that it will remove those studying the more abstract aspects of vocational programmes from those with oily rags and grubby overalls, who are to be left behind in their local technical colleges. This will add to their status, though at the expense of those left behind since status is a zero sum game.

It is the same prejudice that taints the otherwise laudable development of University Technical Colleges — they make it clear to everyone that they focus on ‘clean’ technical subjects while the oily rag men go to studio schools.

Although they will gain in status from being distanced from those who get their hands dirty the new vocational vanguard will not make it into the social elite.

This is why we need to create new institutions despite having a range of world class universities delivering high level technical skills.

The clue as to why can be found in another class-based mantra of middle England — a profession of regret that the admirable polytechnics became universities.

Underpinning these expressions of concern about the ‘loss’ of polytechnics is a deep mistrust of mass higher education.

The polytechnics, like the colleges of advanced technology before them, did not abandon technical studies when they changed their name — far from being ‘lost’ their applied and technical students gained the status of a university degree.

The real concern is that too many did, undermining the English assumption that degree level study is only for the elect.

They may also have got ideas above their station in life by having studied alongside those following non technical disciplines — unexceptionable when offered to the few in a traditional university, but somehow unacceptable when made more widely available.

This is why the elite colleges, despite their name, will aspire mainly to ‘sub degree level work’.

The clue, as they say, is in the name. The intention is to develop a corps of non commissioned officers, given a little status by their separation from the foot soldiers but under no illusion that they dine at the top table.

Moreover, students at these new colleges will not be distracted by the other possibilities offered in institutions with a broad and balanced range of disciplines — true polytechnics.

These monotechnics are not simply focussed around a discipline but around projects if the HS2 model is typical.
Limited in breadth and limited in ambition; it is a peculiarly circumscribed notion of elite.

Mick Fletcher is a founder member of the Policy Consortium, a director of RCU Ltd, a visiting research fellow at the Institute of Education, University of London, and a regular contributor to the FE Week Experts section

 

With a University and College Union study of graded lesson observations having reached negative conclusion about the effect they have on staff, and Ofsted revealing an FE and skills pilot in which they do not feature, David Russell looks at whether there is alternative quality measure.

Feelings can run high on the topic of graded lesson observations. Battle lines are drawn, entrenchments deepened.

On one side, in favour of graded observations, we may find managers anxious to track quality and manage performance. Alongside them inspectors hunker down, keen to retain this tool for making evidence-based judgements (though Ofsted’s recent announcement of trials of inspections without graded lesson observations is an important development).

In the opposing trench we may find an uneasy alliance. Traditionally, we have those who object to the stressful and judgmental nature of the process. Joining them recently we may find critics coming from a pro-accountability standpoint. For example, Prof Rob Coe of Durham University, who has written provocatively about the poor reliability of graded observations, and questioned their relationship to other measures of quality in teaching and learning.

So where does the ETF stand?

Our role is to lead and support professionalism in education and training, and to stimulate and challenge the system to achieve new heights. More than this, it seeks to empower the profession itself to take control of policy debate and the standards agenda.

Informed, reflective and effective practice is the defining edge of excellence in education, and it is there we should look for answers to debates about what works best.

The ETF recently funded a seminar led by the Institute of Education discussing approaches to improving professionalism, one of a series on leadership of professionalism from different perspectives. As part of this, support for research and evidence-based improvement, contextualised and practitioner-led, has been important.

Melanie Hunt and John Webber, of Sussex Downs College, reflected on their last three Ofsted inspections and set out a series of measures which, along with a culture of showcasing and celebrating good practice, led to a more collegiate atmosphere, and were effective because they were perceived to be peer-led rather than top-down.

These included establishing teacher learning communities; providing small development grants to run a series of supported experiments; handing responsibility for leading quality improvement to curriculum managers, with teachers placed on a range of CPD pathways; and seconding strong practitioners and opinion leaders as ‘development advisers’ once a-week, to support improvement elsewhere.

When asked about what the process felt like for practitioners, Melanie highlighted the importance of ‘local colour’, and giving teachers the autonomy to interpret quality in a way that worked for their own area, while John added that leadership and buy-in from senior management was key to making the process sustainable, as was an understanding that what the staff felt was going on was as important as analysis of data.

Paul Wakeling, College Principal, and Paul Nutter, Assistant Principal, from Havering Sixth Form College described how they had promoted a learning culture within the college through leading by example, demonstrating their own commitment to learning and improving their own practices, and ensuring that staff had the time for professional reflection.

At Havering, lesson observations are now concentrated into one period of the year and the grade only given if staff request it — very few do. Now people ask to be observed when they are trying something out in order to get feedback for reflection. Their challenge at this point is to involve students in the process more and to scale up the approach to all departments.

Both Havering Sixth Form College and Sussex Downs College have previously taken advantage of programmes to support evidence-based improvement and practitioner-led research.

The message we can take from both of the examples here is not about our taking a stance on lesson observations — whether to grade or not grade — but the vital importance of supporting research in the sector; instilling a culture of evidence-based improvement, and giving practitioners themselves the permission, time and resources to undertake evidence-based reflection and improvement.

David Russell, Education and Training Foundation (ETF) chief executive

Click here for an expert piece on lesson grading by former inspector Phil Hatton

 

Educators are unlikely militants. Most FE teachers I have met would do anything rather than let down their learners. So what has brought us to the position where Lambeth College teachers are into their third week of indefinite strike action?

Our members are committed professionals, but they are not pushovers. The college has imposed an inferior contract for new staff, and the crux of the dispute is that they say its terms are “non-negotiable”.

My hope is
that this initiative will lead to a more positive dialogue with the college

Our members’ fears about the contracts will be obvious to most — the creation of a two-tier workforce will undermine current staff conditions; some staff will be paid less for the same work as colleagues; and conditions which compare poorly to similar London colleges will make it even harder for a college which already has 24 per cent staff turnover to recruit. Yet the college refuses to listen to these concerns or to even acknowledge the worries that staff have.

Twice members have been balloted. Twice they have delivered massive majorities for action on turnouts that even Boris Johnson would think provided a mandate. Yet as said, the decision to go on strike has been agonising for most and the impact upon students is always at the top of their minds.

That is why when I read of students’ pleas to both sides to “sort it out so we can get our teachers back,” I asked officials to once again contact the college to offer unconditional talks.

My hope is that this initiative will lead to a more positive dialogue with the college. I speak from experience when I say that it is only through genuine negotiation that this dispute will be solved and until that time, as FE Week readers would expect, my union will stand 100 per cent behind our members.

Sally Hunt, University and College Union (UCU) general secretary

—————————————————————————————————————

 

 

 

 

 

The new contract for new staff is part of the wider plan to ensure the long-term success of the college, so that it is ‘fit for purpose’ and able to secure outstanding provision alongside financial sustainability.

Following a failed Ofsted inspection in early 2012, alongside years of declining enrolments, worsening finances and crumbling buildings, the college has been on a remarkable journey of change and improvement.

We now have a much improved Ofsted report (2013) alongside increased success rates and enrolment figures. However, to manage on-going funding cuts and financial deficits of the last few years, the college must have a teaching contract that reflects a modern operating environment and sector norms.

The new contracts allow the college to meet the changing needs of its learners

Most importantly, the new contracts allow the college to meet the changing needs of its learners. It is disappointing that UCU has not engaged constructively in helping to shape the College so that it can be secure for the future. That said, we remain willing to work with them if they are willing to do so.

The new contract merely reflects normal practice in most other colleges and will enable learners to have teaching provision throughout the year — something employers want to see.

The extra days in college will also allow for staff development, planning and preparation to support continuous improvement in teaching and learning. We consulted staff and Unions in March; spent two days at ACAS; and have always said that we are willing to have dialogue about assurances for existing staff, but the new contract is in operation and staff are signing up to it. Thankfully, most staff have continued to work and most students are unaffected by the strike.

We hope that UCU will call off this action, so that all staff can return to college to support student success.

Mark Silverman, Lambeth College principal

 

 

Funding and learner involvement figured in Feltag recommendations earlier this year. Bob Harrison outlines his view of the government response issued this month.

So Skills Minister Matthew Hancock has finally published his response to the 30-plus recommendations in the Feltag report launched in 2014 at the Education Innovation Conference in Manchester.

The reason for the delay in releasing the response may be a reflection of the cumbersome and bureaucratic machinations of government, but I think it has more to do with the barriers to innovation and change which are culturally and systemically built into our FE and skills sector.

The main recommendations were around the themes of horizon scanning, regulation, infrastructure, funding, learner involvement, employer engagement and probably the most important workforce capability and capacity.

All recommendations have been accepted with some needing further clarification and behind the scenes conversations and negotiations.

None has been rejected, suggesting a meeting of Feltag members’ and ministerial minds.

It is obvious from the Minister’s response that some agencies have been accommodating and responsive, but reading between the lines it is clear where the resistance has come from and those issues are now areas for further work and negotiation.

Reading
between the lines it is clear where the resistance has come from and those issues are now areas for further work and negotiation

There will be some who will argue the response does not go far enough. For example, many contributors to the process wanted the “50 per cent online” set as a target and to be achieved much earlier. However, there were others that claimed that would be unachievable for many providers and would create system instability.

Personally, I am pleased with the overall response and would much rather the Minister tries to take people with him on this journey rather than a Ministerial
dictat which frankly is not Mr Hancock’s style.

This will be a long term paradigm shift where subtle nudges to a range of drivers will eventually create a culture where teachers will feel confident to innovate with technology enhanced learning.

Some people have concerns that a lot of the actions have been delegated to agencies such as Jisc [formerly the Joint Information Systems Committee] and Education and Training Foundation.

Martyn Harrow, JISC chief executive and Feltag board member, has given assurances that FE will be a bigger priority in future and in fact has increased the resources and restructured the FE team to support the work of the Regional Support Centres.

The ETF is still finding its feet and while it has had a massive investment from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills — budgeted nearly £30m so far — there are some FE governors, principals, providers and teachers asking questions about the pace and impact of its work.

Personally, I am concerned that the £1m ETF has allocated to support learning technology is hopelessly inadequate and will go nowhere near the massive up-skilling which needs to happen and quickly.

We are still awaiting an announcement as to who the preferred bidders are for the Learning Technology tender issued early in 2014.

So how do we embrace and adopt ‘the spirit of Feltag’ rather than focus on minimums like “10 per cent online” courses?

How do we ensure we do not fall into the trap of thinking that technology-enhanced learning is just about online learning?

I am convinced we can grasp the opportunity that Feltag presents and catalyse FE in its transition from an industrial model to one which embraces and exploits the digital world.

Don’t be fooled — Feltag is not about technology. It is about mindset, vision, leadership and political will.

Bob Harrison, Member of the Further Education Learning Technology Action Group (Feltag) and the Education Technology Action Group, vice governors’ chair Northern College, board member of the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education board member and the UfI Trust, and education adviser for Toshiba Information Systems