Where can colleges and independent learning providers look as government funding cuts bite, asks David Hughes.
It says something about public sector funding when a 20 per cent cut in funding is met with a certain amount of relief.
The long-anticipated Skills Funding Statement (SFS) 2013-2016 raised a number of emotions and issues for me.
The initial relief came because the headline cut to the adult skills budget of 20 per cent was no greater than had been announced in last year’s spending review and we had feared it would be worse.
I was concerned enough by the noises about further cuts to FE and widening participation funding in higher education that I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister, as did others. My plea was a simple one. I urged him to secure opportunities for adults to progress through learning, all the way from entry-level literacy and numeracy to higher education and beyond, throughout their lives. It seems that he listened to us and the cuts were not extended even further.
The fact remains, though, that this cut is still profoundly and extremely challenging to colleges and independent learning providers.
The blatant fact is there has been a reduction in the adult skills budget from £2.8bn in 2010-11 to £2.0bn in 2015-16 even before inflation is taken into account. Two other vital budgets, for offender learning and community learning, may have been ‘protected’ but have not had inflationary rises for many years. There is growth, of course, in the advanced level learning loans budget, which provides some opportunity in a new ‘market’ for many colleges and providers.
I am seeing signs that some colleges are being creative and more commercial in how they deal with the cuts
Overall, the funding challenge to the range of provision is enormous even though there is a good deal of enthusiasm in the words of the SFS about the breadth and range of priorities required. The list of priorities is impressive, but it raises questions about how achievable it is with the funding available.
At the most simple level, the priorities include basic skills, traineeships, programmes for the unemployed, apprenticeships and higher-level skills; and it is hard not to argue with those.
At a time of economic recovery, when having a workforce with the right skills is what employers are crying out for, it is absolutely essential that there is the right kind of opportunities for adults to learn and retrain at times and in places that are convenient for them.
My concern is whether any individual college or provider can offer the complete range to adults in their locality. Will individual choices by institutions, made in the right spirit and sensible for them really add up in every locality in the country? Those decisions on what to cut and what to keep are devil and deep blue sea decisions and gaps will occur.
Colleges and providers may feel that they have no choice but to cut courses as public subsidy is cut. I am seeing signs, though, that some colleges are being creative and more commercial in how they deal with the cuts.
That creativity and commercialism is surely what is needed to develop new markets and to attract payments from employers and learners, particularly for short courses and those that support people’s careers and their professional development. There is also a latent market for individuals to invest more in their own learning. Not just for enhancing their career prospects, but for leisure learning too.
Attracting employer and learner payments for learning is not easy, and to do so at a time of enormous challenge makes it even tougher. But unless it happens across the country, I fear that we will lose so many vital opportunities for people to learn and for employers to get the skilled workforces they need. The social, community, family, economic impacts of this will be profound.
That’s why I am so keen to see colleges and providers use the loans budget and other opportunities to stimulate (or tap into a demand for?) learning; this must happen to halt the decline in opportunities for adults to learn and to benefit from their learning.
The Institute for Learning has been looking at how teachers have been getting on with the requirements of the new study programmes. Shane Chowen presents the findings.
This week, many students will return to study their final term of the first full year of 16 to 19 study programmes, which were introduced in September 2013 to ensure that all 16 to 19-year-olds in full or part-time education would follow a study programme tailored to their individual needs, and to their education and employment goals.
Over the past few months, the Institute for Learning (IfL) has engaged with teachers and trainers across the country to find out how new approaches to planning and delivery are supporting the delivery of study programmes, as part of a project funded by the Department for Education (DfE).
While it is too early to say for sure what really works and what does not, our initial findings are showing some common themes and challenges.
Teachers and trainers recognise that collaborative working across curriculum teams is key to successful planning and delivery of study programmes. In particular, practitioners are keen to do more to develop joint schemes of work, aligning as far as possible learning objectives between the curriculum for subject qualifications and the English and maths curricula.
On paper this sounds relatively straightforward, but we have discovered that on the ground this is much more difficult to implement in practice.
For a start, some subjects naturally lend themselves to certain elements of the English and maths curricula. But being able to successfully embed English and maths into your lessons requires a level of confidence and creative skill, and some teachers feel that they have not been given the support and development they need.
We found examples where institutional barriers, such as timetabling, meant that subject teachers found it too difficult even to meet English and maths specialists to discuss the progress of their learners and work creatively together to align learning objectives and session plans.
Where it was clear that managers were on top of the acute challenges brought about by the introduction of study programmes, teachers and trainers have been engaged in innovative approaches to planning and delivery, such as focused professional development on behaviour management; multiple and advanced initial assessment methods; and providing resource to offer one-to-one support for learners who need it.
The introduction of study programmes also provides greater opportunities for teachers and trainers to share ideas and methods; discuss the progress of individual learners; and discuss strategies for employer engagement in planning, delivery and assessment.
One particular example that stands out in my mind was a college that had timetabled ‘teacher talks’ every week, bringing practitioners from across curriculum areas to discuss specifically the impacts of introducing certain tasks, activities and pedagogical approaches.
The introduction of compulsory English and maths qualifications, and GCSEs in particular, is another of those things that sounds easy on paper. The reality for a teacher can be very different when face-to-face with learners who left school with the assumption they would never have to sit a maths exam again.
Where teachers and trainers do encounter disengagement with English and maths, they are finding creative ways of confronting learners’ fears with an approach that I unofficially call ‘stealth teaching’ or, as one IfL member put it, ‘Don’t call it maths’.
Teachers and trainers are skilfully working together to ‘make everything functional,’ using things such as business-like project work and multimedia campaigns to deliver authentic English and maths learning with very visible and practical uses.
IfL found significant differences among teachers and trainers relating to their responsibilities for employer engagement, ranging from organising ‘boot camp’ events providing learners with intensive interview experience; to organising open evenings to showcase students’ work; and actively visiting and managing relationships with local employers.
I believe that this exercise has again highlighted the importance of continuing professional development (CPD) and the value of teachers and trainers collaborating with their colleagues and with peers in other institutions, to share their learning of what works and to develop their practice, for the benefit of their learners.
What an interesting few weeks it has been since the funding agencies released details about priorities for next year and our funding agreements.
Without a shadow of doubt up and down the land the collective wringing of principals’ hands will be taking place.
What to do with less? That is the question of the moment and while some colleges are going all out for sometimes risky alternative income streams and growth, many are managing contraction of staff and, dare I say it, the curriculum offer itself.
Which begs the question about learner choice — what of the humble learner, those for whom we exist and serve?
Then, of course, while we’re all living with less we’re also expected to deliver higher standards and quality or we will be in the Ofsted naughty books, too.
Waiting in the wings is Dr David Collins, the FE Commissioner, and his team of trusty advisers ready to catch you when you fall, or not as the case may be.
So what has been achieved by the introduction of the role of FE Commissioner?
Has there been a miraculous turnaround of a failing college? Has the intervention had a positive impact on learners? Or is it simply another layer of bureaucracy to an already heavily burdened sector groaning under the sheer weight and volume of audits, inspections and accreditations.
Perhaps if the sector were to be more commercial and truly market and customer-driven we should be less regulated rather than further regulated by the likes of the FE Commissioner and allowed to get on with the job of educating and training rather than the constant looking over the shoulder we currently have?
Which leads me to another point — it would appear we have a crisis in the sector now and for the future. Simply put, where is the next generation of leaders ?
I work hard in my own college to foster a culture of ambition for younger staff members who have the determination and energy we so badly need in what is a very demanding role.
But so many are put off by the thought of the journey through management
into leadership roles. The chances appear limited to many of them and
the journey simply does not appeal. Why is that?
Part of the problem is the lack of a really well thought-out and developed programme similar to the Learning and Skills Improvement Service senior leaders and aspiring principals programmes which, sadly, has now withered on the vine.
The sector does need to sort this problem out quickly in my view or we will have our very own self-made skills shortage and be found wanting.
Maybe Dr Collins could and should advise young Mr Hancock to switch the focus of the commissioner’s role away from the punitive reactionary model and toward a supportive, and enriching role that enables colleges to develop, flourish and grow.
With the FE loans having launched a year ago, Mike Cooper looks at how the system is bedding in and why previously-unwilling providers might want to re-evaluate their thinking on what is a potential income stream.
Quietly, the new round of online applications for 24+ advanced learning loans has opened.
Learners aged over 23 meeting eligibility criteria, taking eligible level three and four courses, can get funding for 2014/15 course fees in similar ways to higher education loans.
As with the university context, there’s controversy over the principle and the practice.
Nevertheless, FE loans are now an established system, probably for the foreseeable future (even if it’s changeable, as when apprenticeships were dropped from the scheme earlier this year).
But some providers and learners still need to come to terms with greater learner self-funding.
Skills Funding Agency (SFA) figures for 2013/14, as of late January, suggest that provider engagement with the FE Loans policy and practicalities has been patchy.
Analysis of SFA’s combined loans ‘facility’ and ring-fenced bursary funding, shows totals for this year ranging from £7.14m to £5.5k.
Among more than a thousand providers listed, that’s an average of about £276.5k.
Without the near 25 per cent of providers who have no loans allocation at all, the average is near £363k.
Providers felt they should bide their time, and may even have hoped that FE loans might ‘go away’
As a proportion of these providers’ total 2013/14 SFA funding, that averages around 16 per cent. These are significant figures.
The intriguing aspect may be the ‘patchiness’. Are those providers with no current loans funding in that position because they offer no appropriate courses, or have no such learners? Or is it their choice? If it’s the latter, then the absence of this income stream seems potentially problematic — both for the organisation and the learners whom they serve. After all, loans funding can’t be vired — it’s a potential ‘use it or lose it’ income stream. If providers decided not to engage in the first year, will that now change?
Policy Consortium colleague Carolyn Medlin was involved in the joint SFA/Learning and Skills Improvement Service (LSIS) initial support programme in 2012/13, with more than 1,000 participants.
She saw providers who felt they should bide their time, and may even have hoped that FE loans might ‘go away’.
Certainly, some that she recalls from those occasions do not appear on the SFA’s 2013-14 spreadsheet.
One problem for providers entering the loans arena from scratch for this new phase is that external support is now far more restricted.
Subsidised workshops and consultancy through the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)/SFA ended last summer.
True, some resources produced for them can still be found. My own experience working on later LSIS and National Institute of Adult Continuing Education loans support initiatives suggests that they won’t be adequate or sufficient, however.
As if to underscore this point, some of the providers with the largest loans funding in 2013/14 were ones that engaged most actively with support activities, last year.
Finally, three recent publications shed further intriguing light on the FE loans situation.
First, the March 2014 BIS update shows a total of around 60,000 loan applications to date from level three/four learners, for courses other than apprenticeships — 40,000 of those for courses other than access to higher education, such as QCF diplomas and certificates.
Next, the latest BIS research report in this field (No. 159: Tracking the impact of 24+ advanced learning loans) explored levels of awareness, knowledge, understanding and ‘intent’ about loans among providers, employers and learners in 2013.
The results are complex, but support the idea that some providers may still be losing out on the potential benefits which loans could bring, in terms of learners, learning and funding.
Finally, a current BIS consultation looks at proposals to deal with the clash between the current HE loans system and Islamic principles on loans. One established Muslim approach (‘takaful’) is otherwise recognisable as being like credit unions and mutual societies — a proposal that may better open up HE to observant Muslims.
But is such an approach applicable only to higher education loans and Muslim learners? Perhaps there are lessons there for FE, and all learners and communities.
It is perhaps not surprising that when FE Week and the Policy Consortium invited staff across the sector to highlight the issues that really concerned them they should paint a rather troubling picture.
More than a thousand people responded to the opportunity to record what worried them most about the state of FE, and their comments make disturbing reading. It would be wrong however, to dismiss these concerns as just an inevitable consequence of allowing hard-pressed staff to let off steam — there are clear patterns in these responses which deserve serious attention.
One headline finding is the extremely high level of concern about institutional funding, common across all subsectors.
It is revealing that the highest degree of concern is among the most senior staff — those best-placed to see what is going on and perhaps what further cuts are just around the corner.
With protection being given to pre-16 school budgets, cuts in the Department for Education inevitably focus on 16 to 19-year-olds despite their already being less well-resourced than those in earlier years. With university teaching largely funded through student fees, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills funding cuts also focus on the FE sector, and with apprenticeships given priority everything else is under threat. Staff are fearful of the future for their learners and their institutions and perhaps rightly so.
Another message that comes through strongly is concern over the pace of change, whether in funding mechanisms, curriculum content or institutional arrangements. Staff report that they have not had time to assimilate one set of changes when another is upon them, giving nothing time to bed down or to settle in.
In most cases this is not hostility to specific innovations as such. There is little criticism of fundamental changes such as the move to study programmes or the new priority given to English and maths for example. What comes across is the sheer frustration of not being given a chance to get on and do a good job before the rules change yet again.
Two specific changes stand out as exceptions to this rule. Proposals to transfer apprenticeship funding to employers attracted serious criticism in a series of comments from those in training providers but also from staff in colleges. Staff echoed concerns made by many national organisations about the potential impact on the engagement of small and medium-sized enterprises with the apprenticeship programme.
Transferring funding for those with high level needs to local authorities raised similar fears for both college staff and those in independent specialist providers, sometimes linked with fears about the reduction in funding levels for learners with disabilities more generally. In both cases staff concern is focussed around a move away from established arrangements that are understood and work tolerably well to a new system that in their view threatens to destabilise provision and restrict opportunities for learners.
Several respondents were very sceptical of the inspectorate’s independence from government and the centralist influence on both inspection findings and inspection priorities. Inconsistency was also felt to be operating at a local level where individual inspectors were seen as having individual agendas leading to considerable variability.
The inspection framework and its operation were often felt to ignore the context in which individual providers were working in.
This applied to the type of provider (college, independent learning provider, etc), provision (especially LLDD/SEN) and also in addressing deficits that were perceived as the responsibility of schools rather than FE.
Finally, many comments suggest that FE staff do not see government sponsored changes to the sector as wholly legitimate; initiatives are described as politically inspired and respondents talked frequently of political ‘interference’ or ‘meddling’. There is not so much a sense of partnership between internal and external stakeholders as of the sector being ‘used’ by politicians for their own, often short term and extrinsic ends.
If political leaders are to secure sector support to take forward the reforms they believe in they will need to make far greater efforts to convince staff that they are motivated by a genuine desire to improve outcomes for learners, rather than just indulging in change for its own sake.
With two offices across two government departments, two Secretaries of State as bosses and one of the broadest ministerial briefs around, life is hectic for Matthew Hancock.
But while it certainly isn’t cricket — a game he regrets not having the time for anymore — things seem to have gone quite well for our 35-year-old Skills Minister.
Promoted to replace John Hayes last year, Hancock had big shoes to fill.
And while some may have doubted whether the role was right for him — an Oxford PPE grad with a background in economics — no one can deny he expresses a passion for the challenge.
And it is this passion with which the father-of-three speaks when I meet him in his large office, set roughly halfway up one side of the impressive glass atrium (which aides admit turns their offices into a sweltering greenhouse in the summer) at the Department for Education — one of the government departments he calls home.
“I find my job is juggling,” he says, his trademark pink jumper hanging neatly behind his desk below a painting by his six-year-old son, Ferdinand.
Politics is a team game, so you play the part in the team that you are asked to play
“I juggle two departments, I’ve juggled two secretaries of state, three children, and a job as an MP as well as a job as a minister…doing the job effectively means juggling all these competing demands.”
Born in Chester and brought up by small business owners in the Cheshire countryside, Hancock attended a village primary school before moving onto secondary school in the city of his birth.
His decision to attend an FE college — albeit to study one subject — sets him apart from most on the Tory benches, although his politics, philosophy and economics degree from Oxford does less to defy stereotype.
Above: Matthew Hancock after playing the northernmost game of cricket on record near the North Pole in 2005
“I went [to West Cheshire College] because my school wouldn’t do computing A-level,” he says.
“I came from this computing background and I wanted to get the deeper underpinning of what it was all about.
“It was pretty unusual. Actually, my brother did it as well, he went to a different college for sixth form. But it wasn’t usual at all. But I was looking out to what I wanted to achieve. One of the things I really wanted to do was to get a full grip of what was going on in the business.
“But [it] was an experience that really changed what I wanted to do at about that time — in the early 1990s recession, the business had a perfectly decent product, but because of late payments by a client that was struggling in the recession, we got to a point where, if we hadn’t got the cheque by the end of the week, the business would have gone under.”
It was that interest in how business success could rise and fall so sharply which took him to Oxford and then on to a job at the Bank of England, but it wasn’t until five years later that a conversation with a certain Shadow Chancellor set him on the path to public office.
“The Conservatives had just lost the 2005 election,” he says.
“I had met George Osborne once, and we had talked about my trip to the North Pole, but also about some policy things and he called me up and said, ‘Why don’t you come and get involved?’ So I took a gamble and went to work for him.
“I had been in the Conservative Party for a period, and I had got involved in the 2005 election supporting a friend of mine, Nick Boles (now Planning Minister), who was then a candidate. So, I was involved — but as a grassroots activist, so it was leaflets through letterboxes.
“I still have a scar on the back of my hand from where a dog tried to bite me in Hove, and I pulled my hand out of the letterbox and there must have been a nail or something catching on it. It was in a tower block so probably not our most productive area.”
It wasn’t long before his work for Osborne, along with a realisation that the real power lay in government, had inspired Hancock to seek a seat of his own, and East Anglia, rather than his native Cheshire, beckoned.
But he is keen to point out that he was not “parachuted” in to the safe seat of West Suffolk.
En route to the North Pole
He says: “In the Conservative Party, that’s not how it works, and this concept of parachuting doesn’t exist in the same way as it does in some of the other parties.
“The final decision for every selection comes down to the local people in the room, and so you have to fight your corner — and in some cases, being a candidate who is close to the leadership isn’t helpful.”
Hancock won the support of locals and comfortably won the seat in May 2010, devoting his first few years on the back benches to fighting for his constituency and co-writing Masters of Nothing, a book about the financial crash, with fellow Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi. He still lists achievements like the dualling of the A11 and improved rail links among his proudest in the Commons.
Had a coalition agreement with the Lib Dems not been in place, Hancock’s economics background would have made him an attractive choice for Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but he claims he was more than happy to be offered his dual role for skills, which he shares between Michael Gove’s Department for Education and Vince Cable’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
He says: “As a backbencher you tend to pick up the phone when the Prime Minister is on the line during a reshuffle and say, ‘yes, Prime Minister, that sounds fascinating.’
“But it was an area that I had an interest in, and I know that the party knew that I was interested in it, and I had been doing some work on apprenticeships as a back bencher anyway and had spoken up about them a lot. I don’t know whether or not that had been noticed, but I was absolutely delighted to be offered.”
Family remains important to Hancock, who lives with wife Martha and children Hope, seven, Ferdinand and Humphrey, nine months, in Little Thurlow, Suffolk. The Hancocks moved to the village shortly after he was selected to fight his seat.
But he is ashamed to admit that his devotion to cricket has suffered as a result of his newfound hectic lifestyle.
He says: “The one thing that has been squeezed out since I have been a minister is almost all of my cricket. In fact, having run the parliamentary cricket club the year before as a back bencher, last year I was scheduled to play three games of cricket.
Hancock is depicted in the FE Week edition 49 cartoon (his first) riding off with former Shadow Education Secretary Stephen Twigg’s plans for a Tech Bacc
“One was rained off, my son was born during another, and in the other I faced one ball which I hit straight to a fielder without bouncing. So I had, literally, the worst batting season you could ever have, which involved facing one ball.”
Suitably non-committal about his future, Hancock doesn’t respond to the news that Paddy Power have him at 7/4 to be promoted into the Cabinet at the next reshuffle along with the likes of Liz Truss and Anna Soubry.
When asked if he would accept a Cabinet role if it was offered, he simply says: “Politics is a team game, so you play the part in the team that you are asked to play.”
The Art of Captaincy, by Mike Brearley. It’s about dealing with strong characters to get the best out of them in difficult circumstances
What do you do to switch off from work?
I spend time with my children as much as I can. I like to cook. I am not particularly good, but I am blessed with performing a lifelong apprenticeship to my wife, who is a brilliant cook. I cooked a chicken and mushroom risotto recently
Do you have a pet hate?
I hate the fact that I hate split infinitives. I hate split infinitives, and then I get cross with myself for being so pernickety. So I wish I was more relaxed about it but it makes me stop every time I see one
What did you want to be when you were growing up?
I think I went through a whole series of them. At one stage I definitely wanted to be a pilot, and now I definitely don’t
If you could invite anyone, living or dead, to a dinner party, who would it be?
I would want RA Butler to talk to him about his Education Act and what he envisaged of it. I would like Oscar Wilde for his wit and repartee. I’d like Albert Einstein, as much for his pithy quotes as much as his physics knowledge. And I would like Tim Berners-Lee, to talk about the future
Employers will be able to anonymously rate, review and compare providers using an online tool launched by Ofsted today (Monday, April 28).
Employer View will allow staff to share their thoughts on providers they have worked with, and find out what other employers think about any provider which trains their employees, apprentices and work placement or work experience staff.
The site is open to the public, but employers’ details will be kept confidential.
Ofsted national director for FE and skills Lorna Fitzjohn said: “The tool will inform inspectors’ understanding of the effectiveness of provision, increase employers’ engagement in education and training, and help them and employees to choose the provider that is right for them.”
A questionnaire on the site asks employers to rate their provider partners on the quality of their communication, monitoring of employee progress, training provision, and feedback and support.
“Employers in the past have often not been sufficiently included in the education and training of learners, including apprentices, and we recognised that this needed to change,” said Ms Fitzjohn.
“Engagement with employers was highlighted as a major theme for improvement in Ofsted’s Annual Report and we hope Employer View will facilitate a dialogue between employers and providers that will improve the provision of further education and training.
“Employer View underpins Ofsted’s aim to raise standards in education and training.
“I therefore urge all employers using a provider inspected by Ofsted to visit the Employer View page on our website and contribute to improving the standard of training across the further education sector.”
A statement by Ofsted said safeguards would be in place to prevent the site from abuse.
The Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) chief executive Stewart Segal said: “We are pleased Ofsted is giving more recognition to the views of employers.
“We have always said that the more focus we put on outcomes and views of the ultimate customers the better.”
However, he said there was already a “crowded marketplace” for information on providers.
“Employers now have a number of sources of information and support including National Apprenticeship Service website, FE Choices, Ofsted main site, Ofsted Employer Choices, Apprenticeship Makers, National Careers Services which will confuse many smaller employers,” he said.
“We are now looking at how access to these services and support can be made more effective through one single information source.”
He added: “Ofsted need to use the informal information generated by Employer Choices carefully and ensure that this is balanced with the more formal survey information already generated by training providers.
“Responses to the system will be anonymous and may not be statistically significant so there has to be a process where the information is reviewed with the provider as the responses may not be a balanced sample.”
The tool will use the same model as Learner View, a tool launched in September 2012 to allow learners to rate their providers.
FE Week understands that Ofsted will also be launching a data dashboard for colleges in May, which will display information on learner destination and attainment, as well as Local Enterprise Partnership priorities.
The principal and governors’ chair at a grade four London college that Ofsted said was failing to improve are clinging to their posts — despite FE Commissioner Dr David Collins having identified leadership as a weakness, FE Week can reveal.
LeSoCo was rated inadequate in January and came in for renewed criticism from the education watchdog this month when inspectors said there was insufficient monitoring of sub-standard teaching at the 17,600-learner college.
But principal Maxine Room (pictured) and governors’ chair John Landeryou remain in post and it has now emerged that Skills Minister Matthew Hancock’s FE Commissioner, Dr David Collins, questioned those at the top of LeSoCo.
Dr Collins’ two-week assessment of the college took place from January 27 having been triggered by the inadequate inspection result. A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) said Dr Collins “identified some weaknesses in the governance and leadership of the college”.
She said: “The chair is required to produce an action plan for how they will address the weaknesses and ensure improvements are made. The commissioner will monitor progress regularly and provide advice to the minister on the college’s progress.”
But a LeSoCo spokesperson confirmed none of its leadership team was standing down.
She said: “The FE Commissioner has made a number of recommendations which the college is acting upon.
“We are working towards improvements in curriculum delivery, quality control and financial management, and assessing options for developing the breadth of skills and experience on the senior leadership team and board of governors as suggested by the commissioner.
“Any changes to the senior leadership team and board of governors will be focused on recruiting additional expertise in line with the commissioner’s findings.
“We remain committed to the journey of transformation that was necessitated by the merger that created LeSoCo, and look forward to working further with the FE Commissioner and Ofsted to raise standards.”
The college was formed after a merger in 2012 between Lewisham College — rated outstanding in 2006, before dropping to satisfactory (a grade three and now termed ‘requires improvement’) in 2012 — and Southwark College, which was graded inadequate in December 2011.
LeSoCo, which has a current Skills Funding Agency allocation of £25.5m, resigned from the 157 Group after January’s grade four rating. Ofsted’s report criticised overall teaching standards and said improvements were needed to tutorials.
Inspectors on an initial follow-up inspection painted a picture of a college struggling to improve and a second monitoring visit inspection found there was still insufficient monitoring of sub-standard teaching and “too many tutorial sessions have low attendance”.
However, “reasonable improvement” had been made in the quality of teaching, learning and assessment in foundation English and maths.
Email fraudsters are targeting FE and skills providers by posing as the Skills Funding Agency.
The sector has been warned about ‘phishing’ attempts to get bank details. Deceptive emails have been reported, asking for details that would allow the sender to take money from the provider’s bank account — a practice known as phishing.
One attempt is known of and it proved unsuccessful, but the agency has asked providers to report any suspicious emails they receive. The Association of Employment and Learning Providers has also alerted its members to the issue in its weekly Countdown newsletter.
An agency spokesperson told FE Week: “We have been made aware of a phishing attempt, where a person/body has used the agency name as a cover to attempt to obtain the bank details of a provider.
“We ask providers to be aware and remain vigilant. If you receive any phishing emails, please inform your relationship manager so we can provide intelligence to the police about this attempted fraud.”
Tony Neate (pictured), chief executive of government internet advisory body Get Safe Online, said it was common for fraudsters to pose as government agencies.
“Phishing has been happening for years but recently it’s become very sophisticated, using targeted phishing or ‘spear phishing’, which targets an individual with the sort of email they would expect to receive,” he said.
“This happens with all the major banks, retailers, government departments — we’ve even seen phishing emails with the Get Safe Online logo on them.
“Students have been sent emails supposedly from the Student Loans Company — it’s to do with money so you’re going to take it seriously and many students did hand over their details.”
He urged providers to be on their guard about emails asking for any company or personal details.
“It’s unlikely banks or government agencies will ever ask for your details by email, so check it comes from an email address and a URL you recognise — for example if the website is usually a .com address, be careful if an email has come from a .tv address,” he said.
“Check any landline numbers and street addresses given match those on an organisation’s website and check it comes from the person you’d usually deal with — if not, contact them and ask if they know anything about it.
“Above all, be cautious, be suspicious.”
Have you been targeted? Send any ‘phishing’ emails you have received, purporting to be from the Skills Funding Agency, to news@feweek.co.uk
