Failing colleges should of course be the main concern of the new FE Commissioner, but the benefit of his experience should also be extended to high-performing colleges and Ofsted, says Denise Brown-Sackey.

It’s an inevitability of big, complex organisa­tions that sometimes the wrong person ends up doing an important, well-designed job. I doubt I’m the first to have come across the ‘square peg in a round hole’ problem at some point.

With the recent appointment of Dr David Col­lins as FE Commissioner, there’s a part of me that fears we might have the reverse problem — a great candidate filling a less than perfect job.

David’s appointment is great news for the sec­tor. He has huge experience, something which I know will matter to us all.

And there are aspects of the job, too, about which I’m excited.

I’m glad, for instance, that David will be based within government. FE still doesn’t get the policy-making attention it deserves. Expert advice at the highest level should help remedy that, especially if both the Department for Busi­ness, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Education engage with David’s work.

Looking forward, it would be exciting if the FE Commissioner post set a trend in education for bringing such advice inside government. After all, as a Parliamentary report pointed out a couple of years ago, the Departments of Health, Defence, International Development and others all have senior professional officers working with Ministers. Their absence in education is an odd one.

I also welcome the fact that David, himself an experienced college leader, will have a role in dealing with the poorest-performing. The sector can’t bury its head in the sand and pretend there is no room for improvement: there is plenty. And who better than an ex-principal to aid those institutions in need of support?

But there lies my biggest regret about the post. The language around its functions is highly negative, suggesting an entirely crum­bling sector.

The words “driving improvement” are given in the headline as a key part of David’s role (I can’t help remember Sir Humphrey’s proclama­tion, in ‘Yes, Minister’, that you should always “dispose of the difficult bit in the title”), but the remainder of the press notice talks only of failure, of closing colleges, of inadequacy and monitoring and minimum standards.

I’m not for a second saying that those things shouldn’t happen. Indeed, I’m happier than many colleagues to stick my head out and argue that poorer colleges (and, indeed, schools, hospitals, and anything else) should close if they persistently fail to improve.

My concern is that the language furthers the existing ‘us and them’ feel which exists between government and our sector. This isn’t the most helpful way to begin.

I hope very much that David, once in post, has access to Ofsted management

The relationship between the commis­sioner and Ofsted will also need defining. I have concerns about the Ofsted framework and feel strongly using a schools model to inspect col­leges is akin to inspecting nursing homes on an A&E department template.

I hope very much that David, once in post, has access to Ofsted management — having his knowledge taken on board when designing frameworks would be great for us all.

There’s a further regret for the wider sector, too, I think. The college I’m privileged to lead is a high-performing one, but there’s no question that I – as a comparatively new principal – and my senior team could learn hugely from David’s experience and expertise. As it stands, we won’t get to, because, as a good college, we won’t come into contact with him or his team of advisers.

I agree with Matthew Hancock that there is room for improvement across FE, but the com­missioner working with us all would support that.

It could also lead, in turn, to more partner­ship working between colleges. Evidence from the City Challenge programme, and academic studies, prove that such arrangements drive up standards and performance greatly, and they’d chime well with the localism being urged by government.

Denise Brown-Sackey, principal, Newham College

Many apprenticeship reviews over the last few years have called for change to the programme, but, asks Michael Woodgate, what about enforcing the rules that already exist?

Much has been made of the government’s recent announcement on “new” appren­ticeships, but just how radical are these reforms and, more importantly, will they make any significant difference?

When the Train to Gain (TtG) gravy train hit the buffers in 2010/11, providers needed an alternative source of revenue. As a college manager put it to me when I asked her how they would cope worth the loss of TtG funding: “That’s simple — we’ll just use apprenticeship funding instead.”

“But these learners aren’t apprentices,” I lamely replied. She looked at me implying she pitied my naivety.

But what she’d said was right. And so began the chronicle of well-reported abuses of the sys­tem which, after various inquiries and reports, brought us to the latest government proposals.

The October 2013 Implementation Plan articu­lates four principles. An apprenticeship is a job in a skilled occupation, it requires substantial and sustained training, it leads to full compe­tency to a standard defined by employers and, lastly, it develops transferable skills including English and maths.

But describing these as “principles of future apprenticeships” rather ignores the fact that all of these principles apply now. The problem is that no-one is enforcing them.

The current standards for apprenticeships are laid down in the Specifications for Appren­ticeship Standards in England (SASE) which set out the minimum standards for apprenticeship frameworks.

Then, in May 2012, in response to John Hayes’ and others’ widespread concern about sub standard apprenticeships, the National Appren­ticeship Service (NAS) published its statement on apprenticeship quality. All four of the “new” principles are covered by the standards in these two documents.

No amount of tinkering with the architecture of apprenticeships will make any difference unless there are rigorous standards, demonstrably enforced

But earlier this year I dealt with a large and well known provider who had enrolled more than 250 existing and capable employees on to apprenticeships six months after this statement was issued.

Nor do I for one moment think this is a rogue provider acting outside the mainstream — the fact that, over a year after the NAS statement was published, they barely recognised they were doing anything wrong indicates how lightly this standard is enforced.

Again, when it comes to the second “new” principle — “Substantial and sustained train­ing, lasting a minimum of twelve months and including off the job training” — the SASE and the NAS statement are unambiguous.

The SASE specifies minimum on-the-job and off-the-job Guided Learning Hours (GLHs) and the NAS statement specifies a twelve-month minimum duration.

But who is responsible for counting GLHs? The same people who check how well the Em­ployment Rights and Responsibilities element has been delivered — that’s nobody.

These new apprenticeships will have “an apprenticeship standard defined by employ­ers”. But isn’t this what National Occupational Standards (NOS), allegedly drawn up with the full involvement of employer representatives, and on which apprenticeship qualifications are based, supposed to do? Or are NOS and qualifications not fit for this purpose, in which case why have we been funding Sector Skills Councils for the past decade?

And with regard to English and maths, there is again a standard specified in the NAS state­ment which is, on the evidence I’ve seen, widely ignored.

No amount of tinkering with the architecture of apprenticeships will make any difference un­less there are rigorous standards, demonstrably enforced.

Currently, different organisations look at different bits of the apprenticeship — award­ing bodies look at consistency of assessment, Ofsted looks at provider quality while the Skills Funding Agency seems mainly concerned with financial aspects and the prevention of fraud.

What no one organisation has, is responsi­bility for making a judgement on the overall quality of apprenticeship delivery and its value to learners, employers and taxpayers. Until such a responsibility is established it is unlikely anything very much will change.

Michael Woodgate, Independent Skills Consultant