In June 2005, Peter Birkett joined Barnfield College as principal. But six years later, having been knighted for “services to education” and with the college boasting an apparently successful federation of four primary and six secondary school academies, Sir Peter left having become director-general of the Barnfield Federation.

Within months serious questions were being asked about federation finances. In a frank interview with FE Week reporter Rebecca Cooney, Sir Peter talks about his Barnfield experience.

“We changed the world — the country’s FE and skills programme,” says Sir Peter Birkett.

“We were the first college to sponsor an academy, now there are 45 other colleges doing it.”

But his comments about Barnfield College are in light of investigations into the wider federation by the Education Funding Agency (EFA) and the Skills Funding Agency (SFA), allegations of grade massaging, an unexpected Audi and a visit from the FE Commissioner.

They all took place after his resignation late last year, but Sir Peter is nevertheless keen to downplay their significance.

“I wasn’t surprised there were some audits carried out because they always carry out audits when there’s a change of leadership,” he says.

“I was surprised that it was so well-publicised and seen as a negative thing but I wasn’t surprised that audits were carried out.”

It has been a torrid time for me because I’ve known the truth

However, he does acknowledge that the probes were no ordinary audits and, he says, he was “surprised” by the allegations.

“Every signal in the college was green. All our internal and external audits were showing that everything was, not perfect, but planned-for and known about.

“I was confident when I left that all of those things were in order… there was no grade massaging, which the SFA report said, so I wasn’t surprised when I read that, because I knew that, they said that there was no fraud.”

However, the report did raise questions about the financial rewards given to Sir Peter when he left the college — as departing director general he took a lump sum equivalent to his annual bonus, a further lump sum not in his contract as part of a compromise agreement and his company car, an £30,000 Audi Q5.

According to the SFA and EFA reports, compromise agreements are used to prevent the former employees making claims against their employers after their contract has been terminated.

But both reports questioned why a compromise agreement had been paid out, when Sir Peter himself had resigned.

The SFA report also told how governors let him keep his company car — which they thought was a three-year-old Jaguar, when it was in fact a newer and “considerably” more expensive Audi.

“Despite the governors being very concerned that the transfer of this much more expensive vehicle was not what they intended, they did not challenge the agreement,” said the report.

However, the funding agencies’ reports also noted that Sir Peter had not asked for the settlement. Instead, they pointed out, he asked for leave not taken over the previous four years.

He may not have asked for the two lump sums (the compromise sum he describes as a “pension top-up”) and the car, but, he
tells me, he feels fully justified in accepting them.

“I felt it would have been an insult to the board and I would have looked ungrateful to say, ‘I don’t want it’, when they wanted to give me that for what I’d created, what I’d done and the hard work that I’d put into the organisation,” says Sir Peter.

As for the overstatement of nearly £1m uncovered by auditors KPMG, which led to allegations of ghost learners with guided learning hours failing to match attendance registers, Sir Peter maintains this has been “blown out of proportion”.

“They were real life, proper students — they weren’t ghost students. They were there, but my understanding is there was some error in recording students,” he says.

The problem, he adds, would easily have been solved through SFA clawback and EFA re-basing processes which balance out the amount of money given the following year.

They were real life, proper students — they weren’t ghost students. They were there, but my understanding is there was some error in recording students

“The college had about £5m of subcontractor work and two of them underperformed their targets… when I left they were on target, or so they said, my assumption the money owed through them would be clawed back from the subcontractors,” he adds.

“I think that was just human error, but I have to tell you every year FE colleges have to look at what they’ve delivered and whether they have to pay back or not — and that’s the way it is in the world.”

Normally, he says “those adjustments would have been made and nothing would have been said about that” but due to the investigations, “it became an issue with the media and the press who say ‘million pound pay back, ghosts on the books’”.

“It would be nice in the nicest possible way if that could be brought out, because — I’ll be totally honest with you — it has been a torrid time for me because I’ve known the truth.”

But Sir Peter retired from Barnfield in part, he says, because “I felt that Barnfield needed to change its governance structure and governance arrangements, and for two years I was trying to do that with legal advice and wasn’t able to.”

It’s a view that appears to have had the backing of the FE Commissioner Dr David Collins who, having visited Barnfield in January, called for at least half the governors to be replaced and for “significant changes” to the federation leadership.

He said found that “the governing body has not provided sufficient oversight of the corporation and the federation as its sponsor, nor has it provided adequate scrutiny and challenge of the executive team.”

The federation appointed Dame Jackie Fisher as its new chief executive the month after Dr Collins’ visit, but Sir Peter is clear about his experience of Barnfield governance.

“The organisation had outgrown the board — the board you need to run a college is not the same as the board you need to run a large organisation like a federation… but getting a decision from them was proving pretty difficult,” he says.

“Some of them weren’t the right people for a board that was dynamic, innovative and entrepreneurial… it’s not their fault it had outgrown them, the issue was they weren’t pushing with me quickly enough to create this new governance structure.”

He adds: “People don’t know about all the things I had to go through to sponsor an academy.

“There were a number of things that I did really quickly — and I say ‘I’ because it was I at the beginning it then became ‘we’ because I didn’t have the time to do it.”

His hope for the college, he tells me, is that “it builds on the results, puts in new structure that’s needed, and continues to improve year-on-year and continues to rebuild the brand which has been slightly tarnished”.

“I just want it to be successful — I created the right foundation so that it was sustainable and continuing to develop. I just want to see Barnfield where it ought to be,” he says.

The college performed well in last year’s success rates — “top FE college in the country in all-length 16 to 18 courses,” Sir Peter tells me (which it is, if you discount South Devon College on the grounds that it is both a tertiary and FE college).

But does Sir Peter think his own reputation has been tarnished?

“The people who just read the headlines, of course that will be fixed in their mind,” he says.

“But the people in high level positions, who read below the headlines, I think believe that you can always do things different and better but also know there was nothing that was seriously damaging in the reports.

“Have I been damaged? Time will tell.”

 

——————————————————————————————–

Barnfield ‘moves on’ from Sir Peter

 

A spokesperson for the Barnfield Federation told FE Week: “Barnfield has severed all links with Sir Peter Birkett, and we regret that he finds it necessary to discuss the organisation in his retirement. Barnfield has moved on.”

In a statement to FE Week in October, a federation spokesperson said it had been “engaging with the SFA and the EFA to undertake a review of the federation’s operations at Barnfield College and its sponsored academies.

“The college has significant cash reserves and is financially stable.

“Our students are at the very centre of all we do at Barnfield and our recent restructure was designed to create even better education delivery in the future, reduce our costs and enable us to offer an excellent service to the Luton community.”

They added: “Our focus continues to be on our students, parents and staff.

“They are our priority always; and we are re-shaping Barnfield to ensure that we provide excellent education. That’s what the future is about.”

In March, a spokesperson said the federation had been, “working for some months to address the issues raised by the agency investigation, and are putting in place a set of actions which address those issues”.

She added: “We are determined to put Barnfield Federation at the forefront of local education provision.

“We are proud of our education record and we are determined to maintain and exceed those standards for future generations of students and their parents.”

And, following her appointment as Barnfield chief executive in February, Dame Jackie Fisher said: “There is much to do but we are all working hard and pulling together to rapidly put in place our plans for improvement.

“There are excellent activities taking place in the college and the academies and we continue to focus on providing excellent educational experiences for all young people.”

Senior FE and skills figures have told of their concerns that the sector’s new chartered status quality mark could become a political football or simply “sink without trace”.

In a random survey of colleges and independent learning providers (ILPs) from across the country, FE Week has uncovered serious concerns about chartered status, which will be bestowed by the newly-formed Institute of Further Education (IFE).

While there was widespread support for the quality mark — there were fears it might be subject to the changing make-up of successive governments, or suffer the same fate as similar schemes from the past.

John Hyde (pictured), chairman of West Sussex-based HIT Training, said: “Chartered status will succeed if it survives a decade and any changes of political parties and ministers. We have seen several previous schemes in the FE sector which have all withered on the vine.

“Before providers invest in both time and money… they need reassurance from the policy-makers and political parties that it is a long term proposition.”

And Verity Hancock, principal of Leicester College, said: “Colleges are bound to be sceptical about the value of another quality mark for which they are being asked to pay.

“The Training Quality Standard (TQS) was badged as the mark that colleges would need.

“However, it was not understood by employers for whom it was intended to be an indicator, was very expensive and has now sunk without trace.”

Matt Atkinson, principal of City of Bath College, warned against chartered status going “down the same route as the TQS” which was introduced in 2008.

But Richard Weston, strategy manager for Manchester-based ILP Mantra Learning, hoped it would be more successful than previous markers, as “this time the initiative is being driven by the sector for the benefit of the employers and learners”.

The IFE chair, Lord Lingfield, confirmed in March that representatives from a “small group” of providers, who have not been identified, had been chosen to “refine” plans developed by the institute.

And it is understood representatives from the chosen colleges and ILPs will hold talks on chartered status on Wednesday (June 4).

Among the issues likely to be up for discussion is the qualifying criteria for chartered status, and the results of the FE Week survey indicated general agreement that Ofsted inspection results should play a key role.

Mike Hopkins, principal of South & City College Birmingham, said qualification should also recognise providers’ financial health, leadership, responsiveness to business needs, and student and employer satisfaction.

Most respondents agreed there should be a charge for the marker, to cover assessment and administrations costs.

Sohail Oosman, head of quality at Hounslow-based ILP Redwood Education and Skills Ltd, thought providers granted chartered status should pay a £300 annual fee.

However, Mr Hyde rejected yearly payments, but said: “Initial assessment fees will probably need to be around £10,000, depending on the size of the company… with a further fee each time chartered status is re-assessed, say every three years.”

There were mixed views on whether chartered status should just improve providers’ reputations, or entail other benefits such as increased access to funding, while Katy Edwards, managing director of Reading-based ILP Chiltern Training, warned against chartered status being “geared towards colleges and not ILPs”.

A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills declined to comment, but the IFE said: “We are still discussing with the sector, including of course those who are particularly interested in becoming members, matters such as the details of how the institution might operate, and possible admission criteria. We are always keen to hear the views of interested parties.”

 

The following questions on chartered status were asked of each of the nine survey participants. Some answered each question and some provided one all-encompassing statement.

 

Question 1

What requirements should be in place in order to achieve chartered status — for example Ofsted grading, size of SFA/EFA contract, number of learners, success rates, balance sheet, etc?

Question 2

What benefits should chartered status have — should it be purely reputational or something else, such as entitling providers to increased access to funding?

Question 3

How much would you pay for the title and how (ie annual fee/one-off)?

Question 4

What are your general thoughts/hope concerns about chartered status and what does it need to do/be in order to succeed?

Question 5

What would constitute success for chartered status?

 

Richard Atkins, principal of Exeter College and president-elect of the Association of Colleges

Since becoming a college principal almost 20 years ago, I have always felt that England’s 340 incorporated colleges (FE, sixth form, specialist etc) have been disadvantaged by not having a clear brand identity.

These colleges have struggled nationally to raise their profile and stature, to distinguish themselves from University Colleges, secondary schools which call themselves colleges, private colleges (some of which have proven to be of poor quality) and independent schools which call themselves colleges.

Locally, our sector’s colleges have frequently flourished and established strong reputations, but regionally and nationally we regularly have to explain who we are, what we do and why we do it well.

I feel that chartered status has the potential to address this issue. I understand that gaining a Royal Charter can take many years, but I think the journey would be worth it to achieve recognition of the importance, quality and scope of our colleges.

The Worshipful Company of Educators, a City livery company, was finally established in 2009 after more than a decade of preparation, and serves as a useful example of achieving formal recognition for the education and skills sector.

Following this logic, I therefore believe that all colleges judged good or outstanding by Ofsted, and with sound financial health, should be eligible to apply for chartered status.

I accept that if a college subsequently falls below this benchmark, then it would lose its chartered status. I understand that each college should pay a fee for the privilege and recognition of chartered status, based on a simple framework related to the size of the college.

I also believe that, as with the Company of Educators, the group leading and promoting the concept of chartered status for colleges should include representatives who are currently leading colleges.

Chartered status confers recognition and status on all sorts of professional bodies and organisations in English society. Why not extend this to a sector which educates and trains millions of our citizens, young and old?

Potentially, this is one way of addressing a traditional English problem — raising the status of vocational teaching and learning.

 

Matt Atkinson, principal of City of Bath College

1)      This is difficult because are we convinced that we need this? However, on the basis that this is going ahead any criteria must be based on genuine quality. I would also throw something in on effective community and employer engagement.

2)      We need to be clear here on what makes Chartered status. The most powerful badge a college receives is the Ofsted Outstanding one and this results in huge benefits as well as recognising the excellence of the college.

One concern is that chartered status goes down the same route as the Training Quality Standard — a number of colleges did a lot of work on this and at one stage it was suggested that future funding would be linked to this.

Chartered status can only really bring reputational benefits but again will this add anything to other ratings such as Ofsted?

3)      At a time when FE funding is significantly reducing this needs to be considered very carefully indeed. We need to be convinced of the genuine benefits in order to be prepared to pay for it. We also need to be clear about what we would be paying for exactly.

4)      I think I’ve picked that up in some of my points above — cut and paste as you see fit.

5)      This really depends on what it is designed to do. If this is an investment colleges need to be able to see the return on the investment. Most colleges already have strong reputations and relationships in their local communities so would this enhance this further? Ultimately, if chartered status presents new income generating opportunities to colleges and these are realised that could be considered a success.

 

Mark Brickley, principal of Kensington and Chelsea College

In essence chartered status has the potential to be a positive move for the sector. However, it is important to scrutinise the process by which the status is acquired in the first place, in particular the robustness of the criteria set to meet the charter requirements.

There should also be an emphasis on continued assessment once a provider has gained chartered status. Chartered status should be the pinnacle of excellence and be of true value to potential learners and stakeholders.

It should be something by which any provider who gains chartered status should ultimately be judged, and not simply just another accreditation.

 

Katy Edwards, managing director of Reading-based ILP Chiltern Training

I do think the introduction of a charter mark could be beneficial for the sector as a whole, helping good quality FE providers to raise their status in the communities they serve.

However until providers know more about what the evidence requirements and measures to be used will be and also the costs involved it is hard to say how achievable the Charter Mark might be for smaller, regional providers like Chiltern.

I do also have some real concerns that the chartered status will be geared towards FE colleges and not independent training providers. We also need to know how this status will sit alongside pre-existing quality marks and processes.

The chartered status scheme needs to be carefully introduced so that it is achievable to all the diverse FE providers in order for it to have real meaning and value to the sector.

 

Verity Hancock, principal of Leicester College, (directly answered questions):

1)      We would be concerned if size of contract were a determining factor – size should have no bearing on whether a college were able to achieve chartered status.

While there would sensibly be a quality dimension and naturally Ofsted would be one of the indicators, we would be unhappy if it were only available to ‘outstanding’ colleges.

This would mean it would be restricted to a very small group. It should be a quality mark that is achievable by all colleges otherwise it runs the risk of being ignored by many.

With a range of quality measures in play, there is the potential for a complex matrix of indicators, any one of which might prohibit an otherwise high quality and successful college from achieving chartered status.

We would hope that any decisions based on criteria would be sufficiently sensitive to take into account a range of factors – including learner and employer feedback. Inevitably, the more complex the set of criteria, the more complicated, time-consuming and therefore costly the assessment is likely to be.

If it is to have credibility and genuine value to prospective employer customers and learners, there should be the option for those colleges which are grade 4 or in serious financial difficulty to have their status suspended until the notices to improve are removed.

Evidence for whatever criteria are decided upon could be provided through inspection reports although these will be historical documents, particularly for outstanding colleges.

FE Choices will provide more information and some would need to be provided by the SFA. Some of the evidence to meet these criteria would be qualitative and some quantitative.

In terms of qualitative information, it may be that colleges themselves would need to provide this but we would support a light touch approach which allowed reference to other sources of information as necessary.”

2)      The main benefits should be reputational. The primary use would be for those organisations and learners who may not necessarily be familiar with the multiplicity of measures and definitions of success that are used in FE, notably employers and overseas students.

There has to be a way for genuine and reputable FE colleges that operate and have done for many years in the regulatory and quality frameworks to be differentiated from other ‘colleges’ which cannot offer the same levels of quality or continuity.

These have done much to devalue the status of colleges and as we know the concept of ‘bogus’ colleges muddies the waters when it comes to discussions about colleges at national level.

We do not think there would be much to be gained from using it as a way of differentiating access to funding. In the current financial climate we would be concerned if this were to place more hurdles in front of colleges that are already struggling financially by reducing their ability to bid for certain funding.

Depending upon the criteria, this could mean that many colleges are excluded for accessing some funding which could further destabilise or weaken the sector — this seems counterintuitive given that this is a mark designed to add status to and enhance the reputation of the sector.”

3)      Costs of application might prove a disincentive as they did initially for some colleges seeking the Training Quality Standard.

There needs to be some demonstrable benefit to colleges applying which will depend on chartered status having value to colleges.

It rather depends on how it is awarded and what criteria are used. We suspect it may also depend on how resource intensive it will be to undertake the assessment. Presumably it should be self-financing and so, and if it is labour intensive and requires in depth assessment of evidence, will that also mean that the costs need to be met by the applicant organisation?

If a fee is to be charged, and the rationale for charging that fee that costs must be covered, it would seem logical for the charge to be made whenever assessment takes place, which we hope would not be that frequently.

4)      We think there is value in having a protected title for colleges although it will remain to be seen whether all colleges see the value and consider going through the application process a worthwhile endeavour.

Colleges are bound to be sceptical about the value of another quality mark for which they are being asked to pay. The TQS was badged as the mark that colleges would need.

However it was not understood by employers for whom it was intended to be an indicator, was very expensive and has now sunk without trace.

In order to be understood it needs to be well promoted, nationally and internationally as the primary indicator of a legitimate and reliable college — if indeed that is what it is to be.

Promoting brand recognition outside the sector may help to add value but bearing in mind the restrictions around national communications and marketing strategies, we would be interested to know how the concept and importance of chartered status would be communicated and spread in order to create that value.

As statutory bodies, colleges are different from for profit private providers. They have different missions and different roles within local communities.

As such they occupy a different position in the education sector and have long histories of delivering education and training.

We would have concerns if the protection of chartered status were diluted by extension to organisations that can be much more transitory.

For chartered status to have credibility there needs to be some measure of assurance that it can be removed under certain exceptional circumstances – for example, quality or financial factors.

However, we think that regular reassessment is unnecessary, could be burdensome and costly, and so once awarded, it should be in place for 6 years.”

5)      Chartered status is still in existence and achieved by the majority of colleges over a reasonable period of time, say 10-15 years and that it is seen as a valuable quality measure by employers and by international students.”

 

Mike Hopkins, principal of South & City College Birmingham

I do believe that establishing chartered status for FE colleges will be a good thing and enhance colleges’ positions and reputations and at the same time improve the reputation of the FE sector.

It should replace and provide a significantly better and broader kitemark than the previous Beacon status as it will include far more than just Ofsted gradings and assessment.

To be credible, the criteria for achieving chartered status needs to include quality, which may include Ofsted gradings and success rates; financial Health, which should include the balance sheet and perhaps operational surpluses and perhaps an internal and external audit assessment; a data integrity assessment; good leadership and management — not just as determined by the new Ofsted grading; responsiveness to local businesses and the local economy; student outcomes in terms of progression and employment; student satisfaction; and, employer satisfaction.

All of this needs to be assessed by a fair and transparent process.

As a college, achieving and retaining chartered status would raise our profile and provide and accepted benchmark for excellence which will assist in student recruitment both locally, and from overseas.

It would be a significant reference point for external work with employers and for contracting/bidding and, hopefully enable far greater autonomy.

While I accept that there will be some form of charge/fee for acquiring chartered status and I am comfortable with this, I have no views at this stage on either how this should be calculated or the level of fee.

 

John Hyde, chair of West Sussex-based HIT Training

1)      While all the above should be taken into account, other external accreditations should be considered, particularly from the sector the provider operates in, for example we have accreditation from People 1^st, our sector skills council.

Ofsted is important, but a narrow measure so detailed satisfaction levels from employers and learners with case study illustrations should be considered to give a fuller view of how provider meets its sector or local needs and responsibilities.

It should also consider any innovative and cutting edge activities the provider is pioneering. It also needs to consider the professional expertise of the provider’s staff, both the train and assess but also their vocational expertise from their sector.

2)      To encourage providers to support chartered status and invest in the time and financial costs, an incentive from SFA/EFA for increased contract size or invitations to pioneer new initiatives ahead of non-chartered status providers should be considered.

3)      If chartered status is to be credible, it needs a vigorous assessment process to include a detailed submission from the provider and on-site interviews with a percentage of provider’s staff, employer clients and learners.

This costs money to be properly undertaken, so initial assessment fees will probably need to be around £10,000 depending on the size of the company. I do not support an annual fee, but a further fee each time the chartered status is re-assessed, say every three years.

4)      Chartered status will enhance the reputation of independent learning providers and counterbalance the damage done by the very small number of corrupt providers, whose illegal activities have dominated policy thinking while demonstrating the weakness of current audit and quality controls.

If apprenticeship funding goes to the employer and they have to select both training and assessment providers, then chartered status, in addition to the other criteria available, will give employers another benchmark to make their choice, especially as the roles of Ofsted and HSE are radically diminished under the new ‘reforms’.

To succeed, chartered status needs to be robust and the routes to achievement transparent and open to public scrutiny. It needs the support of government which could be demonstrated by access to additional contracts and funding, and a reduction of inspections.

5)      It will succeed if it survives a decade and any changes of political parties and ministers. We have seen several previous schemes in the FE sector which have all withered on the vine.

Obviously the policy makers have decided chartered status is another route they wish to use to reward the best providers and encourage the others to aim higher.

Before providers invest in both time and money to achieve chartered status they need reassurance from the policy makers and political parties that it is a long term proposition and will be widely advertised to the public, potential learners and employers to justify their investment.

 

Sohail Oosman, head of quality at Hounslow-based ILP Redwood Education and Skills Ltd

1)      Ofsted grade one and two should enable providers to achieve chartered status, with success rates a minimum of 85 per cent.

2)      Benefits should include priority invitations to tender for new business, reputational and priority access to funding.

3)      An annual fee of £300 is reasonable.

4)      I believe that this is a good idea and would be a kite mark for high quality providers that deserve recognition for the good work that they do. I hope that providers with chartered status would see the benefits of having this status.

Award ceremonies to celebrate the successes of chartered status providers would be well received by members and also regular network meetings to share knowledge and good practice would be beneficial.

5)      Having a network of providers that are market leaders and the first choice for employers and learners seeking vocational training.

 

Richard Weston, strategy manager for Manchester-based ILP Mantra Learning

Mantra Learning wholeheartedly supports the introduction of chartered status for the FE sector.

In the past we have seen many quality marque initiatives that have been imposed on the sector from outside, often with little or no understanding of what we are really about.

This time round the initiative is being driven by the sector for the benefit of the employers and learners that we serve.

Not only do we believe that chartered status will help to drive up standards across the sector but it will also make sure that as providers we are clearly focused on delivering a tangible return on investment for our employers and learners.

In this new world where employers are being compelled to contribute to the cost of training and older learners are taking out loans to pay for their learning programmes – it is only reasonable that as providers we are able to demonstrate the real value of what we deliver.

Through chartered status we have an opportunity to build this credibility with our paying customers.