Latest news from FE Week | FE Week

Taking the FE sector forward with new teaching standards

With the Education and Training Foundation (ETF) having recently launched the first new FE teaching standards in seven years, Andrew Morris looks at how they have been received and how they might best be embedded.

It is just as important to create the right conditions for teachers to learn as it is for their students — and new professional standards published by the ETF promise to give us the opportunity to achieve this.

Moreover, the standards should ensure that teachers and their institutions are very much in control of their own destiny.

The standards were launched at the LSRN workshop in London last month. The event brought together teachers, leaders, researchers, unions and the main sector bodies to consider professionalism and the new standards.

Tricia Odell from the ETF explained how the standards were developed in close consultation with the sector and by looking at the way standards operate in other professions.

Three vital areas are covered: values and attributes, knowledge and understanding and professional skills.

Small-scale studies at classroom level are crucial in adapting teaching approaches for particular learner groups and stimulating innovation

The standards are intended to set clear expectations of effective practice and enable teachers and trainers to identify areas for their own professional development as well as to inform teacher education.

The key message from expert discussion groups at the workshop was around creating the right conditions for teachers to learn.

We know that teacher professionalism is best developed through engaging with evidence in a safe and supportive environment.

As Sally Dicketts, chief executive of Activate Learning, a group of providers in Oxfordshire and Berkshire, put it: “Brain studies tell us it takes 10 years to become an expert, so we need to be kind to one another, to create good emotional environments for teachers to learn in, not fight-or-flight ones.”

Much is left open for organisations to interpret, so it is important that “the whole sector takes ownership of the standards” said John Lea, programme director for post-graduate teaching and learning at Canterbury Christ Church University.

Research evidence shows the importance of collaboration in professional development.

It’s not just an individual pursuit; communities of practice in which teachers, trainers and researchers work together to interpret public evidence and engage in systematic enquiries of their own, are proving effective.

Maggie Gregson, director of the Centre for Excellence in Teacher Training (SUNCETT) at the University of Sunderland, called for joint practice development — “an approach that takes account of existing practice and balances research evidence with local insight”.

How should providers respond to the new standards? Clear demand from all sides at the launch event was for two things.

First, people throughout the sector must be made aware of the standards and the opportunity they present for creating a sense of professional identity. Second, it is essential the profession takes ownership and control, rather than allowing other powerful forces to act on its behalf.

The workshop called for several parallel efforts to raise awareness of the standards.

A bottom-up approach through practitioner networks and organisations would have the greatest effect. For the speediest response a top-down approach via national representative bodies and leadership teams is required. For the widest take-up a sideways approach works best through peer-to-peer dialogue at the local level. All are needed.

A sector that prides itself on the rich diversity of its provision is well-placed to understand the diversity of evidence needed to support practice.

Small-scale studies at classroom level are crucial in adapting teaching approaches for particular learner groups and stimulating innovation.

Qualitative accounts that offer powerful stories and quantitative studies that provide data and track trends are both needed. So too are larger scale studies that attempt to measure effectiveness rigorously across a range of contexts.

The plea from the workshop is for an inclusive approach that galvanises the teachers and trainers, the academics, the unions and professional associations and national organisations in a combined effort to develop a self–determined professional culture in which collaboration and the use of evidence become the norm.

Let this be the rallying point for a sector that shakes off its deference to others and shapes its own concept of professional standards and use of evidence.

Andrew Morris, member of the Learning and Skills Research Network planning group and a member of the Policy Consortium

Taking apprenticeships further

The AELP does a remarkable job of bringing together an otherwise disparate group of providers.

It has created unity and delivered joined-up thinking in a sector that’s been battered and broken over the last few years — a sector that has been completely deprived of anything close to a long-term strategy from this government.

At their best, properly resourced and given room for long-term manoeuvre, those represented by the AELP are key to unlocking a bigger, better skilled economy, where the jobs are well paid and inequality is down.

How is this so? It’s simple. A successful economy requires a number of things, but above all else, it needs clear pathways to high level skills and for any skills gaps to be addressed.

The latter poses a serious problem for our nation — between 2011 and 2013, the number of job vacancies without qualified applicants in Britain rose from 91,000 to 146,000.

To address this, we must do two things. First off, it’s imperative that we encourage investment in training by employers, especially given the fact that such spending has fallen by £2.4bn since 2011.

Apprenticeships are often stuck in a rut and this exacerbates the harmful public perception that they’re a poor cousin to university degrees

According to the Social Market Foundation, in-work training that leads to a nationally recognized qualification gives a 10 per cent earning premium to employees, coupled with increased productivity and a reduced demand on tax credits.

Secondly, we need to transform the numbers embarking on a vocational path to higher level skills.

The last Labour government’s target of getting 50 per cent of young people into university was right and good, but now it’s time to focus on those who do not go to university — those who may not be academic in nature and who have been failed by a regressive Tory education policy.

These are the people who need apprenticeships, traineeships and opportunities to up-skill themselves in existing employment. It is not, however, simply about churning people through the system — the provision on offer has to be of the highest standard.

Let’s take apprenticeships for example. Under the Tories, apprenticeship starts have grown exponentially. We’ve seen the numbers rise from 457,200 in 2010/11 to 510,200 in 2013/14. On an Excel spreadsheet, these figures look delightful and the team at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills may well feel they have reason to celebrate.

Not quite.

Lift the lid, and you’ll find that of the 510,200 apprenticeship starts last year, just 9,800 of these were higher apprenticeships, ie those which lead to a level five or above qualification. That means a mere 1.92 per cent of those starting apprenticeships last year could reach anything near a degree-level qualification through their current training.

Learners are being failed by the government’s craving for numbers.

A German apprenticeship, typically lasting three years, involves at least one day a-week of classroom teaching and is rigorously assessed. This is replicated by only a few English apprenticeships — Jaguar Land Rover and Rolls Royce for example — but for the rest, there is no sense of ‘elevation’.

Apprenticeships are often stuck in a rut and this exacerbates the harmful public perception that they’re a poor cousin to university degrees.

Employers have spoken to me at length about their desires to create a loyal and skilled workforce, identifying apprenticeships and training as key to this. And, of course, those represented by the AELP – many of whom I look forward to meeting at the conference – are ready and rearing to provide the high quality training that will open the door to a better skilled, brighter Britain.

The annual conference of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers takes place on Monday, June 2 and on Tuesday at Hammersmith’s Novotel London West.

Among the scheduled speakers on day one is Employment Minister Esther McVey, and on day two is Shadow Skills Minister Liam Byrne.

New apprentice funding model ‘no simple system’

The newly-announced apprenticeship funding system in which employers will contribute 33 per cent of the cash has been described by Association of Employment and Learning Providers chief executive Stewart Segal as “no simple system”.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) had described the employer-led pilot model for the first Trailblazers’ group — made up of employers and professional bodies in eight sectors including aerospace and electrotechnical — as “simple”.

But Mr Segal said its “variables are quite numerous”.

Delivering a webinar on the reforms on Thursday (May 29), he said: “You can summarise it in a clear table, and yes, what we’re moving from is a payment for every individual framework qualification to an overall payment, an averaging payment, but it’s the combination of all those different elements which means it’s still very difficult to know how much you’re going to get for each apprentice.”
He added: “This is no simple system. The variables are quite numerous.”

Meanwhile, other sector groups have welcomed the new system, but conceded the trial run would be a learning curve.

Teresa Frith, senior skills policy manager for the Association of Colleges (AoC), said: “There is currently no cost to employers for 16 to 18-year-olds, but the new government one-off payment shows they recognise that employers may need to invest in additional training for young apprentices.

“It is important to remember that this is a trial and it is difficult to predict how employers will respond at this early stage. We must learn as much as we can from this trial to make sure that when the funding changes are rolled out across the whole range of apprenticeships, they benefit both the employer and the apprentice.”

Employer-led apprenticeship reform has been a key theme of Skills Minister Matthew Hancock’s time in office, and he has previously said he wants it to “become the norm for young people to go into an apprenticeship or go to university or do both in the case of higher apprenticeships”.

A technical consultation on funding reforms that ended on May 1 attracted more than 1,200 responses.

“The results and next steps will be announced in the autumn,” said a BIS spokesperson.

John Allan, Federation of Small Businesses national chairman, said: “We welcome the move to create an apprenticeship system that puts employers in the driving seat. However, as BIS research has found, there is a risk that setting the employers’ contribution too high will put some businesses off hiring an apprentice.

“A reformed apprenticeship system should be simple, easy to navigate and the phasing of payments and grants must be designed in a way that does not harm cash flow.

“While we welcome the proposed additional grant for small businesses, getting the design of the system right is crucial and it must avoid unnecessary administrative burdens.

“This is critical to maintaining and, hopefully, increasing the number of small firms that take on apprentices.”

Kathryn Rudd, principal, National Star College

Looking out onto the beautiful rolling hills of the Cotswolds, it’s hard to imagine a greater draw to working at the National Star College.

But after a career dedicated almost exclusively to the education of young people with special educational needs, it is clear that the natural beauty of the college’s Gloucestershire setting came second in the mind of Kathryn Rudd when as she said ‘yes’ to a job at this unique institution.

Rudd, aged 42, has headed the specialist further education college, which provides training and personal development for young people with complex

physical disabilities, for four years and is also chair of the Association of National Specialist Colleges (NATSPEC).

Her passion and enthusiasm for specialist education is obvious from the start of our conversation.

She tells me that once she started working with young people who needed extra support, initially at Park Lane general FE college in Leeds, she never looked back.

“I could see the opportunities for these young people,” she says, “and in many of the places that I have worked, the opportunities weren’t there for them — it was just too painful not to work with that group of young people because there was so much progress they could make and so many opportunities for them, and yet they weren’t getting it.

My intention was to stay a year and get some experience… 14 years later you can see I never found a trapdoor

“And yet, at that time, young people with disabilities usually came in by a separate entrance in the college, and they were taught in a separate annexe, and they had separate breaks. This was the 1990s, and I always remember being told by somebody, ‘could you go and get one of your students?’

“This is what really annoys me about the whole ‘everybody must be included’ — well actually, those young people were, allegedly, included. But there was

Kathryn Rudd with students Jasper Farrow-Jones Cumming, aged 20, and Katie Derham, 20

no inclusion — in reality, they were a segregated part of an FE college.”

An only child born in Coventry in 1971, Rudd enjoyed being part of her community and loved reading. When she was 11, her family moved to Kenilworth, where she went to a “posh” comprehensive. She described the whole experience as a “culture change”.

“It was actually my first understanding about how young people who find it difficult at school got taught,” she says.

“Because one of the things we hadn’t done at my previous school was French, and all the kids in my new school had been learning French for years, so of course I went in, and instead of being in the top set, which I was fairly used to, I was in the bottom set.

“We were supposed to be doing French, but actually all we did was colour in triangles. I thought, ‘this is just dire’, and that’s driven me since that point, that if you don’t fit into that norm, if you don’t fit into the right place in school, you don’t get the right provision for you because people say you’re either in that box or we’re not actually going to bother with you.”

Rudd, who was awarded the OBE in April for services to FE for young adults with learning difficulties, studied English literature at the University of Leeds, hoping to become a journalist. But the closest she came to life in a newsroom was a job selling media space in the Yorkshire Post. Her move into the world of education happened, she says, by accident, with a job at what was then Park Lane College.

“It was wonderful,” she says. “I worked with young people with learning difficulties initially, and it was just fantastic, seeing the skills of the tutors there in terms of enabling them to progress and how they were achieving, and the value that was placed on them.”

An emerging desire to teach took Rudd back to Leeds University for a Master’s Degree in special educational needs teaching, and she ended up as school links co-ordinator at Park Lane before applying for a job at Warrington Collegiate, a job which presented her with a big challenge — the dreaded driving test.

“I had tried to drive when I was 17 and it was the world’s worst thing, and I hadn’t ever gone back into it, says Rudd. I had a weekend’s worth of driving, passed my test on the Monday morning, and drove the M62 between Leeds and Warrington in the afternoon. I thought, ‘nothing will ever scare you again’.”

In 2000, after five years in Warrington, Rudd saw an advert for an “interesting” job at National Star College, in Ullenwood, near Cheltenham. But she thought her chances were limited when she arrived late for her first appointment.

“I was three quarters of an hour late for my interview here because I got myself hopelessly lost,” she admits. “This was so far south for me that I needed a passport. I had no idea of where it was. I ended up in Oxford, rang my dad and said, ‘where is Cheltenham in relation to Oxford?’ He said, ‘get driving, fast’.

Young people with disabilities usually came in by a separate entrance in the college, and they were taught in a separate annexe, and they had separate breaks. This was the 1990s

“I remember coming in, and it’s always the way, isn’t it, when you think you’ve blown an interview, and you get quite blasé, and it’s all right, and the interview went fine.

“They didn’t offer me the job I went for, they offered me another job running the therapy teams and supporting the therapy teams, and looking at funding and recruitment. And my intention was to stay a year and get some experience — so 14 years later, you can see I never found a trapdoor.”

kr-skiing-e104 — Kathryn skiing in Bulgaria

In her 14 years at the college, Rudd has held “every post with principal in it” and eventually rose to the top job in 2010. She has chaired NATSPEC for two years and the insight she has gained as part of the organisation seems to have created a fair number of misgivings about policy, and in particular, the “postcode lottery” for learners with special educational needs.

She says: “Because the funding has been devolved to local authorities, we work with 56 different local authorities, so it’s an absolute postcode lottery.

“Because what one local authority is doing is totally different to another one, so depending on where you sit depends on what provision you get, and I don’t believe that that’s fundamentally right. I think that it is destroying, as I said before, the choice and aspiration of young people.

“I think there is a huge lack of independent information, advice and guidance, which is having a really detrimental effect across the sector, and I think that young people’s options are being limited by the agenda of ‘you can only go to your local college’, whether it meets your needs — or ‘whether it can achieve your aspirations’ is probably the better terminology — but that is a very real
issue.”

But life in Cheltenham is good for Rudd.

“I live near the racecourse,” she says. “I have an ever-suffering partner called Mark and a very miserable Collie called Tilly in my life. She has the typical Collie look — ‘They beat me and lock me in rooms when you’re not here’. She does that a lot.”

But she’s hoping to put smiles on faces having agreed to take part in a Strictly
Come Dancing-style competition aimed at raising money for the National Star charity.

“This is a whole new area of comfort and pain for me,” she says. “We have been paired with our unfortunate partners, and we have got until September 20 to learn how to jive, jitter and lindy hop.”

Looking backwards, looking forwards: policy and possibilities

As I write what my calendar tells me is my last FE Insider of 2013/14, the words ‘what a year it has been’ feel inadequate.

A highly experienced colleague said recently that he’d never known a period quite like the one FE seems to be going through at the moment.

I began this calendar year with an attempted poem criticising the government’s 17.5 per cent cut to education funding rate for 18-year-olds.

While we didn’t ‘win’ that battle in the conventional sense (the government didn’t reverse the cut), mitigation was offered, but more importantly, the sector showed its fighting spirit in a way I hadn’t seen before.

It felt hugely exciting to lots of us — FE colleges rising up together to make their voices heard in new and effective ways — and, if nothing else, it has raised awareness of our fantastic work in the minds of many MPs and other influential figures.

Alongside the damage wreaked by that cut, other money matters have given the sector plenty to think about, from proposals for changing apprenticeship funding to the cull of shorter adult qualifications.

Research has been published by representative bodies, campaign groups and others, bringing FE into a much more debated and public place than perhaps before

A platform for airing concerns and opinions on such policy issues has been provided by FE Week and — as with our response to the 18-year-old cut — this has been of real value. So, in my opinion, has been the steady increase in attention paid to colleges by the Parliamentary select committees.

For the second year running, Ofsted’s chief inspector took his FE and skills director with him to his annual appearance before the Education Committee, where a robust discussion on careers guidance was just one aspect of an interesting session.

Down the corridor the BIS Committee has looked at adult literacy and numeracy, while the MPs charged with scrutinising science, technology, engineering and maths policy have made science A-levels a key aspect of their programme.

Elsewhere, a plethora of research has been published by representative bodies, campaign groups and others, bringing FE into a much more debated and public place than perhaps before. This can only be a good thing, particularly when our funds are being decimated.

There is still a very long way to go before FE has the attention it needs, particularly from politicians. I was fascinated that during the recent European election campaigns the emotive subject of education barely seemed to come up.

Regardless of our individual feelings about the EU, there’s no denying that British education — including colleges and universities — receive considerable funds from it, and that the EU also facilitates other programmes advantageous to young people, everything from employability projects to orchestras. And yet despite this major contribution — which like everything has its positive and negative sides — education and skills hardly seemed to crop up.

So what happens next? There is an appetite from some politicians at least to explore FE further, and to make some bold and positive statements about our sector.

My challenge to colleges would be to work out what we really want from manifestos and to contribute before it’s too late. FE Week and others have got the ball rolling on this, and for starters many of us might be tempted to agree with the 157 Group that the most useful thing would be a period of calm — a moratorium on policy changes after what feels like a deluge over recent months.

What I’m sure of (and it might not make me popular) is that we’re in no position to whinge if we don’t contribute proactively at this stage.

I am still hopeful that at least one party might have the courage to promise a reversal of the 18-year-old cut which is not only financially damaging, but the one which shows the grossest misunderstanding of what our sector is about.

But whatever we’re after, we should head into party conference territory after the summer sure of our goals, and ready to build on the unity and fighting spirit we found this year to try and make them come true.

Ex-Barnfield boss talks ghost learners, financial probes and the Audi pay-off

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.”

Process document offers glimpse of inner-workings of new FE Commissioner role

Providers have been offered an insight into the work of FE Commissioner Dr David Collins with the publication of a new document.

The document, Intervention in Further Education: The strengthened intervention process, sets out information about the process Dr Collins and his advisers follow when they intervene with providers.

It also includes detail of plans to publish Dr Collins’s findings in the public domain, revealed by FE Week on May 1.

It reveals that the Minister’s letter to colleges, including a summary of findings and recommendations, will be published online, but only once the college or institution has responded with its action plan.

It says the final reports on any structure and prospects appraisal will be published, along with any letter from Dr Collins to colleges in which he shares reflections from interventions.

An annual report of lessons learned will also be published, including case studies.

Dr Collins was appointed to the role last year, and his interventions are triggered either by a grade four Ofsted rating, a notice of financial concern from the Skills Funding Agency or Education Funding Agency, or failure to meet national minimum standards of performance set by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills or the Department for Education.

The Commissioner has so far visited LeSoCo, Barnfield College, Stockport College, City of Liverpool College, K College, City of Bristol College, Weymouth College, Bicton College, City of Wolverhampton College and Stratford-upon-Avon College.

Party politics worry over new quality mark

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.

Esol hold-up welcomed amid new qual concerns

The extension of existing funding rules and postponement of new qualifications for English for Speakers of Other Languages (Esol) courses does not go far enough to help providers manage impending changes, it has been claimed.

The Skills Funding Agency (SFA) has revealed that funding rates for Skills for Life (SfL) Esol courses in 2014/15 will remain the same as in the current academic year, and that the introduction of new qualifications, due in August, will be postponed until January.

But the National Association for Teaching English and other Community Languages to Adults (NATECLA) warned the postponement would still not give providers enough time to prepare for the change.

Its co-chair, Diana Tremayne, told FE Week: “We welcome the extension of current qualifications and funding rates, with class codes for those who need extended periods of learning, as our members have been reporting rising concern about programme planning, hours and funding for next academic year from August 1.

“However, in order for providers with a variety of long and short programmes and learners who take different units at different times to plan and offer a coherent programme next year we would ask for a year-long extension of existing arrangements.

“It’s really difficult for us to model our funding, plan provision, train teachers in new qualifications, decide which awarding organisations to use and make a massive change one third of the way through the year.”

She said NATECLA members had worked with awarding organisations, the Association of Colleges, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and the SFA and had asked for another year.

Pamela Baxter, assistant director at Cambridge English Language Assessment, which is an arm of awarding organisation OCR, said: “We welcome the continuity for colleges as September is very close and changing arrangements now would make it difficult for them to plan.

“However, ultimately we would like to see long term stable plans in place for the Esol sector in the UK. To this end, we are working with Demos to undertake research to inform a coherent strategy for Esol in the UK and expect to see the report launched this summer.”

In a guidance document, the SFA said: “In February 2013 we set out the principles to shape the future suite of new SfL Esol qualifications. Since that time awarding organisations have been developing a number of new Esol SfL qualifications and some of these have been submitted to Ofqual for accreditation.

“To enable providers to complete their planning for 2014 to 2015 and to ensure there is time to prepare for the delivery of the new qualifications we have agreed with BIS and Ofqual to put in place interim arrangements to continue funding the existing Esol adult basic certificates and ‘units’ for a further period up to December 31, 2014.
“In 2014 to 2015 existing ESOL adult basic certificates will be funded at the same published rates as 2013 to 2014. These were based on historical national delivery patterns and awarding organisation recommended guided learning hours.”