The principal of LeSoCo in south east London is to stand down at the end of the academic year, the college’s governors have announced.
Maxine Room has been in the role at the 17,000-learner college, which has a current Skills Funding Agency allocation of £26.2m, for five years, and oversaw the merger which joined Lewisham College with Southwark College in 2012.
Ms Room also presided over an Ofsted inspection last November which resulted in a grade four “inadequate” rating in January, and has previously maintained that she planned to stay in post, despite criticism of the college in a follow-up inspection and the loss of an appeal against the grading.
She also pledged not to resign after FE commissioner Dr David Collins reported that he had identified “weaknesses” in leadership and governance at the college.
A spokesperson for the board of governors said: “LeSoCo is today announcing that after five years as Principal of Lewisham and then LeSoCo, Maxine Room CBE has decided that at the end of this academic year she will retire from her post as Principal and CEO, although she intends to remain active in the FE sector.
“Maxine led the successful merger between Lewisham College and Southwark College and has led on the transformation of both Colleges into one vibrant, ambitious and enterprising college – LeSoCo. The governing body is very grateful for the commitment, passion and leadership that Maxine has shown during her time as Principal.
“We will now begin the search for Maxine’s successor, who we hope to have in place by the beginning of the 2014/2015 academic year.”
A college principal has hit out at proposed changes to the way the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) reports and calculates provider success rates.
Harlow College principal Karen Spencer said the changes, designed to make comparisons between providers easier to understand, would make the system “overly complex”.
Success rates, which measure how many students starting a course go on to achieve the qualification, were divided into long, short, and very short courses.
However, for this academic year, all courses will be grouped by qualification type, according to whether they are classroom-based learning, workplace learning or apprenticeships.
New accountability measures for 16 to 19-year-olds will also be introduced, rating providers against headline measures including progress, attainment, retention, destinations and progress in English and maths (for those without GCSE A* to C).
Announcing the new accountability measures on its website, the SFA said they would give “a clear overview of the performance of a school or college… compared with other institutions nationally”.
However, Ms Spencer, whose college has been in the top three colleges for success rates nationally for the past three years, said: “These changes are supposed to make the data more visible but… this reform is going to miss its target audience of parents and students, because they’d have to have such a high level of understanding of how the skills system works — it’s only going to be used by managers in colleges. It’s overly complex and not good value for money.”
She added: “The critical thing is we want students to be successful, enjoy college and progress — if you’re doing a good job then actually how they cut the data shouldn’t make a difference.”
Joy Mercer, director of policy at the Association of Colleges, said: “Our concern, as always, is that data helps teachers and students make choices without confusing everyone in the move between systems. Ofsted inspectors also need to be up to speed.
“The bigger problem is that between two departments [education, and business, innovation and skills] and two funding agencies [Education Funding Agency and SFA] there is different data to measure success. It’s time for simplification.”
James Kewin, deputy chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges’ Association said: “Any steps to make success rate data more meaningful should be welcomed. But it does seem odd that college data is undergoing further refinement while school success rate data remains in experimental form and is recorded in a different format on a different website.”
He added: “The role and status of success rates in the eyes of government is rather confused. They do not feature in the main performance tables, they have been heavily criticised by Alison Wolf, Sir Michael Wilshaw described them as ‘palpable nonsense’ and yet they still feature prominently in Ofsted inspections and are undergoing further development.”
A new principal has been appointed at an Oldham College-sponsored academy.
Colette Burgess is due to take over from Nigel McQuoid at the Waterhead Academy this autumn.
Ms Burgess is currently principal of The Oldham Academy North, and her new appointment was announced by Alun Francis, principal of the Ofsted grade one-rated Oldham College.
Mr Francis said: “We are delighted to confirm that Ms Colette Burgess will join us as in the Autumn. Ms Burgess has a wealth of knowledge and experience of schools in the North-West.
“As well as establishing The Oldham Academy North as a new school and moving the students and staff into their purpose-built new premises on Broadway, Ms Burgess led the school to the second highest rating, of good, in their Ofsted inspection last year.
“The Oldham Academy North has also been recognised as one the most improved schools in the region and she is highly respected within the profession as a committed, passionate and effective school leader.
“This appointment has been made after a wide-ranging search across the country to find the best possible person to fit into and develop Waterhead Academy which has been established under Nigel McQuoid. As governors and sponsors, we are delighted with the progress made to date and, as Mr McQuoid returns to live with his family in the North-East this summer, it is good to know that he will be able to use the coming months to provide Ms Burgess with a detailed handover so that she can lead our students and staff seamlessly forward into the new academic year.
“We are therefore taking this opportunity both to formally welcome Ms Burgess to our staff team and to thank Mr McQuoid for what will be three years of valued service when he leaves us in July 2014.”
Business Secretary Vince Cable’s Cambridge Public Policy Lecture on the future of further and higher education last month brought the prospect of elite colleges to the fore, as Mick Fletcher explains.
The Business Secretary’s speech was an important one. He was clearly trying, retrospectively, to impose a logical policy framework on an area where development has derived from soundbite politics rather than coherent analysis.
It is a measure of how far we now sit from rational policy formulation that Dr Cable can announce that the Department or Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) will issue a National Colleges launch document ‘in the near future’, months after ill-formed ideas for an ‘HS2 College’ and a ‘nuclear college’ first emerged.
His objective — to raise the status of FE and by so doing help expand the numbers studying technical subjects at higher levels — is worthy.
Unfortunately his prescription is profoundly wrong. It fails to understand both FE and the nature of higher education delivered in FE colleges and ignores clear lessons from history.
Dr Cable is right, and not alone, in lamenting that increasingly FE colleges are focussed on lower level work. He ignores however the fact that this is a deliberate policy choice by his department.
It is BIS funding rules and priorities that direct funding towards basic skills and level two; his funding cuts that are making it harder for adults to access learning at level three and above.
If government wants to retain a ‘ladder of opportunity’ through FE it should stop chopping away at the rungs.
Dr Cable is right, and not alone, in lamenting that increasingly FE colleges are focussed on lower level work
Developing a new tier of ‘elite colleges’ can only make the problem worse; higher level skills will be focussed in a few institutions and progressively removed from the rest.
This has happened twice before as first the CATs (college of advanced technology) and then the polytechnics were wrenched out of the FE system.
We should reflect carefully on the fact that while Aston, Warwick, Loughborough and the rest remain high status institutions delivering world class technical skills their removal from the sector did nothing positive for the status of those left behind.
Moreover, the fact that these higher education institutions are now called universities has not altered the fact that they are primarily technical institutions.
If there is a demand for more technical training of the highest quality it is not clear why they should not be leading its delivery.
Dr Cable comes dangerously close to saying that what we need from the new ‘elite’ FE institutions is something of rather lower status or ‘sub-degree provision’. It is a very odd way to raise the status of the technical route.
FE colleges already play an important role in the delivery of higher education.
Its leaders emphasise that it is distinctive in being work focussed, part-time and concentrated on adults. In many cases it grows organically out of a specialism offered at lower levels providing a basis for progression outside the traditional academic route.
To the extent that this is true the creation of a network of elite colleges risks undermining provision already at risk from cuts in public and private funding — part time enrolments are in free fall particularly in sub degree provision.
A large part of higher education in FE is not part-time however; much and perhaps a majority serves young full-time undergraduates who can study more cost effectively by living at home.
An important potential role for colleges is to help make higher education more sustainable by offering locally-based provision, often at sub-degree level but with articulation agreements that allow top up to a full degree.
If, as in the USA, this local higher education is to play an increasingly important part in higher education provision it requires a growth in the capacity of all major FE colleges — not their decapitation in favour of an elite.
Furthermore, if national specialist colleges require students to live away from home on maintenance grants they constitute an initiative pointing in precisely the wrong direction: more high-cost full time provision for the mobile young at the expense of the local, part time and affordable.
It is good that Dr Cable is thinking about FE and higher education, but on this central point he needs to think again.
Our directors and senior managers have been in discussions with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, sector skills councils, employers and trade associations about implementing the Richard review.
What is emerging are the unforeseen consequences of handing employers direct financial and operational control of apprenticeships. Is the government only going to fund employers solely for training and testing, as the consultations suggest? This could remove the glue and wiring that training providers routinely use to make apprenticeships work if these ‘hidden’ activities are no longer funded.
For example, who will pick up an apprentice who leaves their employer for whatever reason during their apprenticeship?
Currently, 11 per cent of our apprentices change their employer during their apprenticeship. No funding or information will be available to the provider under the proposed funding systems to pick up these learners, so completion rates will decline by a further 11 per cent.
Who will check the eligibility of an employee for apprenticeship funding? This complex arena, especially with foreign nationals and overseas qualifications, is outside the expertise of most employers, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Will employers be expected to buy this service from a provider and will they pay if the employee is found to be ineligible for funding?
Who will provide the advocacy and pastoral care for young apprentices where sexual and racial harassment and initiation rites are still prevalent in certain sectors? Providers routinely mediate in these circumstances or in extreme circumstances remove the apprentice.
How will this be funded in future if government is only paying for actual training, or is the wellbeing and legal rights of the apprentice to be ignored? How will an employer react to being billed for exposing any failures in their equality procedures?
There is a continuing danger of some young apprentices being exploited and abused by unscrupulous or ignorant employers, especially SMEs without any HR resources. Providers often act as the unpaid HR specialists for SMEs, but without funding this will no longer happen.
More worrying are the health and safety issues whereby the provider will no longer have responsibility to check out the suitability of the premises or equipment for apprentices. Neither will they be in a position to ensure suitable induction to dangerous equipment or hazardous areas has taken place. Regrettably, the Health and Safety Executive and environmental inspectors usually arrive on the scene after tragedy has occurred and removing training providers from this role could increase the mortality rate of apprentices.
Again, who will check whether the employer has the necessary insurances and licences to operate in their sector, thus making the site ‘legal’ to operate apprenticeship programmes with government funding?
Who will ascertain the potential apprentice’s prior learning and experience, and how this affects the percentage of funding available, or monitor that the government is only paying for new skills and learning?
Who will decide whether the employer can offer the full apprenticeship programme to meet the criteria of the new standards or advise the employer and the potential apprentice which qualification is most suitable for them?
Where trailblazers have opted to use awarding bodies, are the awarding bodies geared up to deal with and approve more than 200,000 employer sites? Do employers, especially those without a training department, have the expertise and time to deal with awarding body approval, registration and certification?
Who will mentor the apprentice and their workplace supervisor throughout the programme, especially when the apprentice ‘wobbles’ as happens to the majority who are tempted to give up before completing?
The solution is to allow employers the choice of direct funding or through the training provider. Similarly, while the trailblazers are untested, the SASE (Specification of Apprenticeship Standards for England) route or a trailblazer route should be available to each employer until comparisons can be made of which route provides the learner, the employer the better training and the country the better economic investment.
The 157 Group and law firm SGH Martineau have teamed up to produce a guide for college on the legal issues surrounding learners. Smita Jamdar outlines some of the key issues.
Over the last few years, the government has introduced policies to encourage greater competition and learner choice in the FE sector.
More recently this has been accompanied by an obligation on a growing number of learners to pay for their college education through loans and fees, creating a quasi-customer/supplier relationship.
Given that there may be any number of providers offering a learner’s desired qualification or study route, what drives learner choice between different providers is increasingly likely to be the quality of the overall experience on offer.
Understanding the law that applies to that experience is important if colleges are to guard against the risk of complaint and challenge from disgruntled learners.
The learner experience comprises a package of services, facilities and benefits that learners expect to enjoy as a result of choosing one provider over another. These include the quality of teaching and learning opportunities and facilities, as well as ancillary services such as careers guidance, counselling sevices, leisure facilities and placement opportunities.
The legal framework that underpins the learner experience includes contract law, requiring colleges broadly to promise only what they can deliver and then deliver what they promise.
Learners may be able to claim damages for losses suffered as a result of a failure in either respect.
Given the complexity, it would be easy to view the legal framework as just another part of the burden of compliance for colleges
A particular risk area for providers is where aspects of the contract fall to be provided by third parties, so partnership delivery, placements and the use of recruitment agents require careful attention and control.
Allied to contract law is the full panoply of consumer protection legislation which is designed to prevent colleges exercising the perceived imbalance of power in their relationship with learners by, for example, unilaterally withdrawing courses, or subjecting learners to onerous terms such as hidden fees or obligations. This is an area which is currently attracting particular attention in higher education as colleges who deliver such courses will know.
Learners are also entitled to all the protections of the Equality Act, meaning that the learner experience must be delivered without unlawfully discriminating against learners on the grounds of a wide range of protected characteristics including race, gender, religion or belief, age, sexual orientation or disability.
Disability discrimination includes a positive duty to make reasonable adjustments to eradicate any substantial disadvantage students with disabilities may experience in accessing the learner experience and this can be a challenging area for colleges.
A final strand of law that applies to the learner experience is public law, particularly relevant where a college intends to take action that has the potential to be detrimental to learners, for example by disciplining them, or taking action against them on the grounds of their fitness to practise.
Colleges are required to act fairly and proportionately when managing these adverse events for learners, often while having to balance the competing rights of other learners, staff and other stakeholders.
Given the complexity, it would be easy to view the legal framework as just another part of the burden of compliance for colleges.
However, embedding good legal risk management can deliver positive organizational outcomes. Clearly drafted college policies and codes, for example, are not just necessary as a matter of contract law, but also facilitate a transparent and open college environment where everyone knows what is expected of them.
This is why our guide to the learner experience and the law produced with the 157 Group focuses not just on the legal principles, but also practical steps colleges can take to improve and simplify the position, thus enhancing the learner experience as a whole.
OCR said it would not be dealing with “any new candidates” for the Warwickshire-based provider and fellow awarding body Ascentis said it had “withdrawn recognition with immediate effect”.
The dual move is understood to have left Warwickshire-based Bright without an awarding organisation.
NCFE (formerly the Northern Council
for Further Education) announced in February it had stopped certificating Bright courses after its investigation into allegations of malpractice.
The findings have not been made public, but a Bright spokesperson said it “vigorously disputes both the findings and the sanction” and lodged an appeal, which is currently in a third review stage.
A spokesperson for OCR said: “OCR is not certificating any new candidates. We will do our best to help any candidates that are currently registered with OCR.”
However, Bright was still displaying OCR’s logo on its website and also advertising teaching, assessing, back-to-work, and business-related courses as FE Week went to press.
A spokesperson for Ascentis said: “Ascentis has withdrawn recognition with immediate effect. Students registered with us will have the opportunity to be placed elsewhere.”
Bright chief executive Krissy Charles-Jones declined to comment on whether any awarding organisations were still accrediting Bright’s courses. She said: “We have terminated our agreement with OCR for all future learners…. They have not informed us that we are under any investigation.
“We terminated our agreement with Ascentis more than six months ago and only put a few learners through them.”
She added: “We are currently working to ensure all learners will be supported by an awarding body and determining which it will be. We aim to do this by May 16. Our main priority is to the learners.”
Bright was advertising the Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance (HABC) on its website until earlier this year when, according to HABC, the provider was suspended from running any HABC qualifications.
But, Ms Charles-Jones said: “We were never approved or used by Highfields and I didn’t ever sign any application or agreement to do so. They approached us to work with us but we decided not to do so. We have never done any learning or registrations through them.”
Meanwhile, an NCFE spokesperson confirmed that Bright had lost the first two stages of the awarding organisation’s appeals process.
Bright has entered the third and final NCFE appeal stage, due to conclude by the end of the month, with an Ofqual investigation the next possible stage.
“We are only going through the NCFE appeal process so we can progress our complaint about them to Ofqual,” said Ms Charles Jones.
However, an Ofqual spokesperson told FE Week in February: “NCFE kept us informed throughout its investigations into allegations of malpractice at Bright. We consider the action it has taken to be appropriate to protect the integrity of its qualifications and the interests of those taking them.”
Bright was listed on the Skills Funding Agency’s website on March 27 this year as a subcontractor for Chesterfield College, through a contract worth £1,175,000, Avant Partnership, through a £136,194 contract, and the Derbyshire Network, through a £22,000 contract.
Chesterfield College and Avant Partnership confirmed their Bright contracts had concluded and the Derbyshire Network declined to comment.
Ofqual said it was “being kept up-to-date” on the NCFE appeals process and enquiries should be made to its helpline on 0300 3033346.
Learners should email vocational.qualifications@ocr.org.uk, qualityassurance@ascentis.co.uk, or service@ncfe.org.uk for advice.
—————————————————————————–
Learners paying price
With OCR and Ascentis both distancing themselves from troubled provider Bright Assessing, and NCFE having done the same earlier this year, it’s clear something’s not right.
To her credit, Bright chief executive Krissy Charles Jones answered our initial queries as to what was going on — but the reply was one that pointed blame elsewhere.
It was Bright that terminated contracts or turned them down, she says. It was also, she told us, the last response she would be giving.
It’s a situation that’s getting more and more desperate by the hour as FE Week continues to receive pleas from apparent learners seeking advice on their missing logbooks, portfolios, qualifications and payments.
To this end, FE Week has ensured learners have the contact details of the relevant awarding organisations, and Ofqual has also provided details of a helpline.
But it remains a terrible position for learners to find themselves in and one that will damage the good name of the sector.
The hospitality industry doesn’t seem like the most likely place to find a qualified chartered accountant who has sailed around the world and partied with Duran Duran, but it’s a sector which has always been close to Jill Whittaker’s heart.
The managing director and co-founder of Sussex-based HIT Training first joined HCTP in 1998, but says her career trajectory up until that point was more than a little unconventional.
It included a long period spent darting between high-octane jobs in the financial sector and “sharing costs on someone else’s round-the-world dream”.
As a non-graduate who went to work for her first accountancy firm after a foundation degree course at a local polytechnic, Whittaker’s different approach to life was clear at an early age.
“I wasn’t focused on university at all, it wasn’t my scene,” says the mother-of-one when we sit down at HIT’s compact offices next to the airport at Shoreham-by-Sea, West Sussex.
All we have got is ourselves, our skillsets and our ability to transform somebody’s life into something fantastic
“I was one of these kids that the minister is always talking about, which is work-focused. Because I was — that was my whole thing. I wanted to get out and earn some money, but I also wanted to get a profession, and that was the quickest and most straightforward route that I could see to getting a profession and having that behind me. I was qualified as a chartered accountant when I was 23.”
Jill with son Joe and husband Jonathan
But her success early on was by no way the product of good advice at school, where she took an aptitude test and wasn’t taken beyond the three As — architect, actuary or accountant — that the adviser came up with.
But Whittaker, now 50, says: “The advice I got that was really very helpful was from one of my maths teachers who used to teach us mechanics. He took me to one side one day and said ‘look, I can’t believe that you are not going to go to university, however — if this is what you are absolutely focused on, here are some accountancy firms who I think you should speak to and this is a really good one in Birmingham’.
“And that’s how I got [Birmingham-based firm] Farmiloes. So it was thanks to him, the maths teacher who was desperately upset with me that I wasn’t going to go to university. He saw that I was a bit of a character, I think I wasn’t a traditional [girl]. It was around the time of punk, so I had weird hair and funny clothes and lots of piercings, I was into that entire scene.
“As we got towards that sort of age, the New Romantic stuff was out and about as well. I had all sorts of funny haircuts — I used to model for a hairdressing salon in Birmingham, and we used to do lots of shows — and that’s how I got to know a girl who was the girlfriend of one of the members of Duran Duran at the time, so we used to go to their parties and get invited to all sorts of launches and that sort of thing — but it was a small scene, so everybody knew each other.”
Whittaker admits she went to her first interview with hair like Phil Oakey from the Human League, and was told she could have the job, “but the hair had to go”.
After moving on to Ernst and Whinney [now part of Ernst and Young] and working for an international auditing firm, wanderlust kicked in, and Whittaker escaped to Bermuda, working in insurance and indulging her love for sailing for two years. But home was not the first port of call once her time in the British overseas territory was up.
She says: “I delivered one of the Newport-Bermuda ocean yacht racing boats, back with the family that owned it and spent six months travelling around the States, backpacking, having a good old look around really. Delivering cars for people, doing all sorts of stuff.”
I wasn’t focused on university at all, it wasn’t my scene, I was one of these kids that the minister is always talking about, which is work-focused
Over the next few years, Whittaker continued to switch between finance jobs in the UK and hospitality jobs abroad.
She swapped a job she “hated” at TSB bank for a ski season. “Skiing every day, cooking every day — it was great,” she says. “I got quite into that.”
Returning briefly to cover for the RAC’s finance director in Birmingham, it wasn’t long before itchy feet took her back to Europe to run a bar in France and work in a Belgian hotel, along with another ski season.
Jill with son Joe
Another job at the RAC and some bar work later, she was back on the water for two years, on a journey which saw her meet her husband, Jonathan Chrisp. Their son, Joe, is now 12 years old.
“The boat went through the French canals and I spent my summer in the Med, and he was on the boat,” she says.
“I joined them in the Canaries, and we sailed across the Atlantic, through the Caribbean, through the Panama canal, across the Pacific and on to Australia. We got on another boat, a Tasmanian boat, sailed back and then delivered a racing yacht back to Melbourne and went fruit picking for a month.
“That wasn’t really work, it was sharing costs on somebody else’s round-the-world dream. I’m a yacht master, and my husband is as well, so Dave — who had the boat — basically had some good crew along. We all did nightwatch on our own, four hours on, four hours off at night — but with three of you, it means you get a decent night’s sleep as well, so it’s a really good way of doing it. And sharing costs, it’s dead cheap. We were living off, I don’t know, probably £30 a-week.”
Returning to the UK at the age of 32 in the mid-1990s, Whittaker worked for Parker Pens, Daewoo and ran a gay B&B in Brighton with her husband, before an unexpected call from a recruitment firm which had had her CV “forever” linked her with HCTP, where she became financial controller and then finance director.
HIT Training was founded in 2006 after a five-year competition clause related to the sale of HCTP to Hospitality Plus was out of the way.
Whittaker, who still owns 11 per cent of the business with her husband, speaks with great pride about what she helped to create — a profitable business which has so far supported more than 40,000 learners with more than 7,000 employers and received two grade two Ofsted ratings.
“It’s the best job in the world,” she says.
“I love the hospitality industry — as you know we do care as well — but the hospitality industry for me has always been a passion. I’ve always worked in it in some way, or shape, and so have most of my family.
“Catherine, my sister, is actually a qualified chef and Susan used to do pub work as well, and my mum used to do waitressing – so we have always done a little bit of that and I absolutely love it. And it’s a business where you’ve got people.
“We’re not producing widgets, we don’t build anything. All we have got is ourselves, our skillsets and our ability to transform somebody’s life into something fantastic — so why wouldn’t anyone love doing that?”
—————————————————————————————————
It’s a personal thing
What’s your favourite book?
The Electric Michelangelo by Sarah Hall — it’s a gutsy life story that goes from Morecambe Bay to Coney Island, written in beautifully prosaic language
What did you want to be when you grew up?
When I was a kid I always wanted to be a dentist. I can’t think why. I’m not sure what I want to do when I grow up now
If you could have anyone to a dinner party, living or dead, who would it be?
Elvis Presley, Emily Davison [women’s suffrage activist who stepped in front of a horse at Epsom Derby in 1913 and later died of her injuries], Dame Edna Everage, Ted Ligety [US alpine ski racer], Barbe-Nicole Cliquot (she can bring the drinks) and Albert Einstein
What’s your pet hate?
Bad grammar, particularly the misuse of the apostrophe
What do you do to switch off from work?
I ski when I can, but anything where I experience ‘flow’ helps me to switch off — being fully immersed and involved in any activity feels fabulous, whether it’s carving turns through powder snow or painting the bathroom
The Department for Education (DfE) could face a financial black hole of more than £4bn by 2018/19, the Association of Colleges (AoC) has warned.
In a report by the AoC on the DfE’s financial situation, the body has warned that it could face a budget deficit of £600m in 2015, rising to £4.6bn by 2018/19.
The DfE is responsible for funding the education of 16 to 18-year-olds in general FE and sixth form colleges, and the AoC has raised concerns about the financial viability of the department.
The deficit is associated with an anticipated increase in the number of people of school age, coupled with increased teacher pay and pension contributions as well as costs associated with new policies.
The report also takes into account a planned 17 per cent real terms spending cut across all departments between 2015 and 2019, and the AoC has said the government is yet to announce whether or not the school budget, which has been ringfenced since 2010, will continue to be protected.
Julian Gravatt
Julian Gravatt, AoC assistant chief executive, said: “The estimate we’ve reached is conservative because we’ve not included the fact that the extra pupils will be in more expensive secondary schools rather than primary schools, nor have we estimated the costs associated with closing schools, introducing a new national curriculum or ensuring everyone reaches the required GCSE standard in maths and English by 18.
“If DfE doesn’t tackle this issue early, or systematically, there’s a risk that ministers after the next General Election will make damaging short-term savings which will see further cuts to 16 to 18 funding, which has already borne the brunt of recent education spending cuts.
“We’re calling on the Treasury and DfE to make decisions on education spending on a rational basis, assessing relative need, rather than protecting the budget for 11 to 15-year-olds to the detriment of those aged over 16.”
FE Week is awaiting a response from the DfE.
The report is available to read here. For further analysis and comment, see edition 102 of FE Week, dated Monday, May 12.
