Extending free school meals to full-time 16-to-18 year old FE students is a popular move across the political spectrum. Mark Corney puts the case for this applying to part-time students too.

Everyone is claiming victory over the decision to extend “free meals” to poor 16-to-18 year olds studying at FE colleges.

Costing about £40m per year, this measure will create a level playing field with those staying on in school sixth forms or attending pupil referral units.

Labour MPs are saying they won it, even though Labour’s priority is to extend free childcare for working parents of three and four-year- olds at a cost of £800m, funded through a higher bank levy.

The Liberal Democrats are saying they won it, although the prize they were after is the extra £560m to fund free meals to all children of infant school age.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives agreed to both parts of the package as a quid pro quo for a tax allowance for married couples also likely to cost £600m.

It is a safe bet that DfE will limit free meals to full-time students”

No sooner had the announcement been made, however, FE experts were on social network sites asking how would the £600m free meals package be funded.

The details will have to wait until the Autumn Statement (usually made in early December) but presumably the Chancellor has concluded the country can afford it. The fiscal deficit between April to August this year is £3.8BN lower than a year ago, as higher tax receipts outweigh higher spending.

Furthermore, the deficit looks set to be less than the predicted £120bn for 2013/14.

If, therefore, free meals to poor 16 to 18-year- olds at colleges is funded from new money rather than cuts elsewhere, the measure will end a totally unjustifiable anomaly.

The facts speak for themselves.

Around 75,000 pupils in Year 11 are eligible and claim free school meals.

On leaving secondary education, however, only 20,000 continue to receive them because they stay on in school sixth forms or attend pupil referral units.

Neither the 30,000 at fe colleges nor the 7,500 at sixth form colleges receive free meals.

The remaining 18,000 do not receive them because they are either employed or not in education, employment ot training (Neet).

Extending free meals to 16 to 18-year-olds studying at college from households with income of less than £16,190 per year could mean 100,000 full-time college students receiving free lunches

Around 70,000 young people aged 16 to 17, however, study part-time. Nearly all of them study at college but only a small minority are employed.

From September 2015, the participation age will increase to the 18th birthday. Part-time study without a job of 20 hours or more does not count as participation under the legislation.

So it is a safe bet that Department for Education will limit free meals to full-time students.

Nonetheless, there are obvious problems with defining eligibility for free meals by type of institution or type of provision.

Surely, the Coalition wants colleges to offer non-employed traineeships to 16 and 17-year- olds?

If these young people come from poor households, they must have the right to a free lunch.

Otherwise, another injustice will creep into the system.

No doubt, the Coalition also wants independent providers to deliver traineeships.

Disenfranchising poor 16 to 17-year-olds on traineeships delivered by private providers from free meals would be scandalous.

Traineeships, we know, are not intended for the most disaffected 16 to 17-year-olds, but they are aimed at reducing the Neet category and those who cannot find a job with an apprenticeship.

They will certainly assist 16 to 17-year-olds from some of the poorest households in the country to access training.

More than 5 per cent of all young people eligible for free meals at the end of Year 11 have been Neet for at three months and a further 10 per cent have been so for two months. And past youth cohort studies have shown unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds are more likely to have parents who are unemployed or in low paid jobs than those young people in full-time education.

Free meals should follow the learner rather than the institution or course and disadvantaged 16 and 17-year-olds on traineeships should be eligible for free meals irrespective of the provider.

Mark Corney is an independent policy consultant

 

The 157 Group has spread its wings beyond England to take on colleges from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Lynne Sedgmore explains why.

I am very pleased that we have announced in recent months the arrival of Belfast Metropolitan College, Coleg Cambria and Aberdeen College as the newest members of the 157 Group.

These large, successful and prestigious colleges are our first members outside England, and you may ask why we have chosen to expand in this way at this time.

When 157 was first set up, it was to enable leading principals, and their colleges, to raise the profile and reputation of all colleges and influence policy.

We took the decision that membership should never expand beyond the 30 mark, to make sure we could continue to hold meaningful discussions with everyone around one table.

Anyone who has ever been to a 157 Group meeting would, I think, agree the discussions we have are meaningful, expansive, challenging, inspiring and, increasingly influential.

So much so, it seems, that I am regularly approached by colleges wanting to join us.

Over recent months and years, these approaches began coming not just from colleges in England.

Principals across the UK were interested in the work we have done, for example, on vocational teaching and learning, and saw the way we have included colleges beyond our own membership in many of our projects and initiatives, for the benefit of the whole college sector.

The 157 Group exists to serve its members and be at the leading edge of the sector.

We have always been, and remain, committed to doing this on three levels.

Firstly, through thought leadership — setting out visionary, challenging and radical agendas for how things might be done differently, and better, in the future.

Secondly, through practice improvement — enabling colleges to work together to derive experience and knowledge, and spread good practice for the benefit of all learners and employers;

Thirdly, through policy influence — using the experience of our members to directly inform the views of government and policy makers, government bodies and agencies, academics and other influencers of opinion.

It is true the devolved governments have taken somewhat different approaches to policy and FE in the recent past.

At 157, we believe FE is not homogeneous, and so we have always been open to learning from other ways of doing things.

Two years ago, we held a joint seminar with the international RC-2020 organisation of urban community colleges from eight different countries, and the thinking that emerged from our relationship with RC-2020 has influenced our own approach ever since.

So it seems timely we should learn far more intimately from the experiences of our colleagues in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.

As these nations take a different approach, for example, to the formation of larger colleges through mergers, we want to understand the impact of different approaches to policy.

And in the crucial area of promoting outstanding vocational teaching and learning, we believe our new members will bring different perspectives that will enrich our thinking further.

The vast majority of our members, and consequently our main policy focus, remains in England.

We will assist our new members to use the English experience to influence developments elsewhere, but our key relationships with policymakers remain in Westminster.

We are, though, a sector and an organisation which is all about learning, and the best learning always comes from gaining diverse perspectives on similar issues.

We are very excited about welcoming our new members, and are sure we will see their influence on our work in the months ahead.

Lynne Sedgmore, executive director,
157 Group

 

Having overcome a troubled recent past, including the loss of a £6m site, the National Extension College celebrates half a century of learning — and is looking forward to a bright future, explains Anne Nicholls.

This year the National Extension College (NEC) — the distance learning organisation that was the forerunner of the Open University — celebrates its 50th anniversary.

But it nearly didn’t make it to the half century mark.

Following a merger with the former Learning and Skills Network (LSN) in 2010 amid promises to invest and double student numbers over three years, LSN went into liquidation in November the following year.

That left NEC teetering having lost its assets, notably its three-and-a-half-acre site in Cambridge valued then at around £6m.

Fast forward nearly two years and the NEC is still here, largely due to the committed staff, along with the goodwill of many loyal tutors and former staff who volunteered to get the business back on its feet.

The recovery was led by former chief executive Ros Morpeth who, despite having retired from the post in 2003, stepped in like a white knight to take the helm again.

The NEC is still here, largely due to the committed staff, along with the goodwill of many loyal tutors and former staff”

Over its half century, NEC has helped nearly three quarters of a million people of all ages — particularly second chance learners — to get a foot on the education ladder, gain qualifications and change their lives.

Highlights include 30-hour basic (a joint venture with the BBC in the 1980s on its computer literacy programme), a pioneering work-based degree in the 1990s for Coca Cola employees and FlexiStudy — an innovative partnership which, at its peak, involved more than 140 FE colleges to enable them to enrol learners who couldn’t attend college on a regular basis.

Despite nail-biting periods when finances seemed to wobble, it has always been self-funding and remained independent.

“We have always operated in the uncomfortable territory between an ethos of public service, but without government funding,” said Dr Morpeth.

“I cannot pretend that this is easy, but fortunately we are used to surviving and there is still a strong demand for the open access and flexibility we can offer.”

With higher education becoming unaffordable to many and a perceptible growth in the need for flexible learning there is a clear market.

A priority has been to build a new fit-for-purpose IT system.

But the NEC is resisting a move in the direction of MOOCs (massive online open learning courses).

“What we offer is different,” says Dr Morpeth.

“Our strength has always been on personalised learning and providing routes to national qualifications. We have always focussed on quality and successful outcomes for our students. That approach may have jeopardised our financial stability at times, but it’s what we are.”

The 50th anniversary, hopefully, will mark a change in fortunes for an organisation that has remained true to its founding principles.

It is running an ambitious publicity campaign based around students and tutors both past and current.

It is also offering 50 hours of selected free online course materials from 12 of its courses until November 3 — the final day of the National Family Learning Festival co-ordinated by the Campaign for Learning.

The topics on offer — law, economics, accounting, childcare, climate change, short story writing and more — have been picked to appeal to a wide range of people, from career changers to would-be creative writers.

NEC has also retained its relationship with some Flexistudy colleges, including Shrewsbury College. Roger Merritt, who developed the original FlexiStudy network, is now back at NEC and is interested in hearing from FE colleges that want to extend their learning provision in partnership with NEC.

Student numbers are around 7,000 and growing although not quite at the level they were 10 to 15 years ago.

But the NEC has deliberately gone back to basics — doing what it has always excelled at which is providing flexible learning for people in a mode that fits their lifestyle.

Anne Nicholls, communications and PR consultant, AN Communications

 

Rob Wye warns Labour’s plans for more employer-involvement in apprenticeship schemes could actually put many businesses off taking on trainees.

The Husbands Review of Vocational Education and Training aims to “address historic weaknesses in skills development and training to improve the country’s competitiveness”.

It identifies issues that have hindered the quality and quantity of apprenticeships in the UK and proposes a series of changes to narrow the gap between the supply of, and demand for, high quality apprenticeships.

The review also aims to ensure the outputs of apprenticeships are firmly focused on ensuring “young people leaving school are better prepared for the world of work through high quality vocational education”.

Given the level of youth unemployment in the UK, the proposal to “demote” level two apprenticeships is puzzling.

If apprenticeships are to be seen as equivalent to university education, it stands to reason entry requirements should be the same – therefore level three, or A-level.

Meeting the needs of everyone involved is nigh on impossible”

However, whereas universities require a high level of attainment from the outset, learners often enter the workplace at a lower level and progress throughout their lifetime.

A significant percentage of job roles in the UK are at level two.

These roles need skilled workers to fill them. If employers can only accept level three learners on apprenticeships, this may lead to a rise in overseas learners filling skills gaps, which would defeat the object of up-skilling Britain’s workforce.

As is too often the case, a broad-brush approach has been applied, not taking into account sectors such as health and social care where level two roles are not only plentiful, but vital.

Justifying the proposal by saying “that’s what they do in Germany” holds little weight, given the differences in early years, with primary and secondary education.

Also, more German learners are attaining a higher secondary qualification than in the UK (based on research from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) and are eligible to enter apprenticeships at level three.

The review suggests a “something for something” deal that gives employers more control over funding and standards, in return for creating more high quality apprenticeships.

While it is universally agreed that employers need to be more actively involved in the design of apprenticeships to ensure their continued buy-in, caution is required if the “something for something” philosophy doesn’t translate as “you do more and then pay more”.

It must be remembered there is a high level of satisfaction among employers with current apprenticeship arrangements.

Government research highlights that 60 per cent of employers rate their experience of apprenticeships at least eight out of 10, so a tweak to the current system may be more beneficial than wholesale change.

The issue the review fails to address is how much involvement employers actually want.

The harsh reality in tough economic times is businesses want the highest possible output for the least investment.

Employers already invest a significant amount of time, effort and money into apprenticeships.

Asking them to design their own frameworks, procure and pay for their programme (as the Richard Review proposes), then offer even more support over the mooted minimum two or three year duration will only serve to make apprenticeships a less viable option.

Saddling employers with additional administration and cost will inevitably lead to a fall in the number of apprenticeships offered.

Also, giving employers the ability to negotiate apprenticeship contracts will see some training providers cutting corners to deliver training within a significantly reduced budget, thereby damaging the quality of apprenticeships.

Meeting the needs of everyone involved is nigh on impossible.

Rather than the government issuing consultation after consultation on reforming different aspects of the programme, now is the time for a broad range of employers, sector representatives, funding agencies, awarding organisations and government departments to work together.

They can build a world class apprenticeship programme that provides a wide range of learners with the opportunity to develop skills and knowledge, and employers with the skilled workforce that enables British industry to compete with the very best.

Rob Wye, chief executive, Council for Awards in Care, Health and Education