Using technology across key performance indicators can help colleges to achieve greater success, says Rob Elliott

Every college wants to be successful in the quality of its provision, positive outcomes for students and, of course, long-term financial stability. And with the government’s plan to appoint an FE commissioner with the power to control and close struggling institutions, all need to prove their performance is up to scratch.

The correct use of technology can boost the management of all five key performance indicators identified in last year’s Learning and Skills Improvement Service report, Improving efficiency and effectiveness: a guide for colleges and provider.

To check that you are heading in the right direction, here’s a brief checklist of how technology could help you to raise your game.

Academic staff utilisation: a clear picture is vital. Staff pay can represent around 70 per cent of costs within a college so you must look at the availability, skill sets and mix of teaching and support staff. Then cross-check with the structure of your curriculum, how timetables are blocked and even staff locations if you are multi-campus.

This is extraordinarily difficult to do accurately without a management information system, and yet typical staff utilisation has been known to be as low as 70 per cent.

Curriculum efficiency: the most successful colleges optimise not only the curriculum that they offer, but also the manner in which it is delivered — and that means getting to grips with two major funding methodology changes, a tidal wave of guidance and consultations, funding rates, retention factors, area cost uplifts… I could go on.

Two things can really help. First, become well-informed. Seek out those in the sector that understand the implications inside out — audit companies, independent advisers — and pick their brains. Second, funding will always be complex, so make good use of comprehensive planning software to gather all the factors that you need to make calculations – and to take account of ‘what ifs’.

The right technology in the right hands will assist with accurate and constant monitoring”

Group size: it pays to know whether there are 12 or 20 students in your class. One extra student in a group could bring in up to £3,500 of extra funding without any significant increase in cost or a reduction in the quality of education.

The right technology in the right hands will assist with accurate and constant monitoring, tracking the viability of courses and allowing senior management to promptly react to in-year changes. This could be spotting common units across qualifications and deciding to bring two small groups of students together, therefore reducing costs by 50 per cent, or quickly intervening if a course doesn’t attract enough enquiries to be feasible.

Success rates by course: switched-on colleges will model different qualifications within an overall programme, with various start and finish dates. This means that if a plumbing apprentice drops out in the second term, he or she may still be able to walk away with the health and safety qualification completed in term one — good news for your success rates.

However, be careful. By definition, a model is a simplified representation of reality, so check that your management information system can model at a detailed enough level to ensure that your college is rewarded for its successes.

Support costs as percentage of income: using technology to reduce support costs can be the key to maximising resources at the chalk face.

Adopt a policy of entering data once, then reusing it many times, and your staff will save valuable time.

The result will be a far better overall experience for students — which is arguably the most important key performance indicator of all.

Rob Elliott, UK products manager for Capita’s further and higher education business 

Former House of Commons Education Select Committee specialist Ben Nicholls is head of policy at London’s Newham College. He writes exclusively for FE Week, every month.

He leans forward and looks me in the eyes. “But is it something the government is actually serious about? Or is it just something they talk about to try and sound popular with young people?”

The scene is a student council meeting at our Stratford campus; the overwhelming smell is of pizza; the question is a good one. For a long time, the corridors of power have hummed with giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote. But when I seek out students’ views, I soon realise that many of them think that it’s all about political posturing and
popularity.

Things did move on a little when MPs supported Stephen Williams, Lib Dem MP for Bristol and a long-time champion of the cause, when he brought his Voting Age (Reduction to 16) Bill before the Commons in January. However, his Bill collapsed because it didn’t finish its passage by the end of the Parliamentary session. Meanwhile, in Scotland, 16 and 17-year-olds have been guaranteed a say in the independence referendum, scheduled for September next year.

The Stratford students’ ages offer little predictor of their views: several, mature and young, say that 16 is nowhere near mature enough to understand or participate in elections, while others, again from both camps, disagree. Concerns arise about undue influence from parents or friends; for others it is an issue of basic civil liberties: “I probably wouldn’t actually vote,” says one 16-year-old, “but I should be given the chance.”

But the strongest argument comes when we discuss what else 16 and 17-year-olds can do. The list is long and ranges from working and paying tax, to having sex and getting married, to riding a moped and possessing (though not purchasing) cigarettes. While there’s an acknowledgement that some 16-year-olds may not be mature enough to vote, there’s a consensus that it’s pretty bizarre to set it higher than the age at which you can, say, join the armed forces.

Would the Tories have been so quick to force through the abolition of the education maintenance allowance if they’d have needed the votes of those who received it?”

For my part, I think patronising young people is a pretty good way to irritate them and switch them off — and asking them to work and pay tax but not give them a stake in the governance of their country seems pretty patronising to me.

For the past ten years, it’s been a huge privilege to be the founding chair of RicNic, a youth theatre group that allows young people to put on shows in professional theatres with a  minimum of adult supervision (and without paying to participate). The basic ethos is that, if young people are trusted to marry and motorbike and march, they should probably be trusted to choreograph West Side Story too.

For this reason, and for the many excellent reasons put forth by the student councillors, the whole thing’s a no-brainer for me. What better way, if we really want to engage young people in politics (and, perhaps more importantly, in policy), than ask them what they think in a meaningful and tangible way at the ballot box?

Furthermore, giving young people a say in the issues that affect them might also result in some better policy-making. Would the Tories have been so quick to force through the abolition of the education maintenance allowance if they’d have needed the votes of those who received it? Would the Lib Dems have reneged on their promise to scrap tuition fees, and would Labour have been so eager to saddle the next generation with mountains of debt?

Perhaps, knowing as we do in the world of FE how impressive young people can be, this is a policy issue that lots of us — and our students — could really get behind. If, as Vernon Bogdanor has suggested, lowering the voting age could “reignite the interest of the young in politics”, it would surely be worth doing.

If we’re willing for our young people to be given benefits and bayonets, it seems fair to give them a cross in a box as well.

If local enterprise partnerships are to receive more funding, there has to be a way of measuring their impact locally. And they must demonstrate a working relationship with local education providers at all levels, including FE, says Adrian Bailey

The Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee has just completed its second report into local enterprise partnerships (LEPs).

Our first report, published in 2010, pointed to a lack of funding, understanding of their role and how they would impact on a variety of small organisations. Eighteen months on and these are still major obstacles inhibiting the partnerships’ ability to drive local growth.

While the government has provided some funding and helped with denominating local enterprise zones within some, too many LEPs are still dependent on local authorities for support, contradicting the rationale behind their creation. And as regional growth fund bids are often carried out independently of LEPs, their roles are often reduced to essentially that of advisers not drivers.

A positive development has been good working relationships between local authorities and some partnerships. They need each other, and the LEP structure — with representatives from BIS — can provide a valuable forum for mutual understanding and support.

The committee sees a valuable role for FE on LEPs. Skills are an essential part of any regional growth agenda. In theory, a local board comprising business representatives alongside public sector representatives, including those from the higher education and FE sectors, should be an ideal base for developing a skills agenda to match local skills needs.

To date, progress has been variable.

It is not always clear that LEP business members represent all businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises. Direct FE representation is also rare, something that concerns the Association of Colleges, which feels that the potential contribution from the sector is unrecognised.

There is an increasing awareness in government that economic success must be built on a close relationship between education and business”

Help is at hand. To the rescue of LEPs rides the champion of regional growth, Lord Heseltine. His report, No Stone Unturned, advocates that various funding pots from different departments be pooled to provide LEPs with a £58bn boost.

While different government departments are reported as digging their heels in, the Chancellor has committed himself to backing this recommendation.

The Treasury usually wins these battles, but how committed are his officials to fighting this battle over and above planned cuts? Only time will tell.

Potentially, LEPs have gone from minor players with a begging bowl to key regional drivers armed with transformational resources.

Lord Heseltine himself acknowledged that many LEPs are not currently in a position to handle this money. Logically they must prove themselves before being entrusted to this level of taxpayer funding.

This is where the recommendations of the select committee are relevant, particularly with regard to skills and the FE sector.

If LEPs are to receive more funding there has to be a way of measuring their impact locally. They must demonstrate a working relationship with appropriate local education providers at all levels, including FE.

The committee decided it did not want to be too prescriptive over representation at board level, conscious that representation alone does not guarantee delivery and that alternative models of engagement might work.

What is important is that whatever approach is used, LEPs should be able to demonstrate that skills levels are improving and that the needs of business are being met.

LEPs should also be the responsibility of one minister in one department empowered to demand best practice from LEPs and the capacity to demonstrate it to others.

There is an increasing awareness in government that economic success must be built on a close relationship between education and business.

FE has a vital role here as regional economic growth will come from developing regional educational and business eco-systems.

The Heseltine/LEP strategy has the vision to do this. The issue is whether the LEPs can grasp the opportunity. My committee report points the way. Will the government and LEPs follow?

Adrian Bailey MP, chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee

No one wants to be labelled inadequate by Ofsted, says Lynn Merilion, who describes the journey to improvement after it happened to her college earlier this year

The days when Ofsted gave colleges three weeks to prepare for an inspection are long gone.

This time round, we got a phone call on the Thursday of February half term — and the inspectors arrived the next Monday. This posed several challenges, including getting in touch with staff on leave.

When I joined the college (a few months before the inspection) I took time to talk to staff, learners, parents and other stakeholders, discussing with them the college’s strengths and areas for improvement.

The trends were not positive and, although there had been improvements, the major success data was below national rates. This was always going to make the college vulnerable, but as the inspectors say in their report, we were on our way to addressing issues arising from the data.

Before Ofsted, for instance, we were evaluating the management structure and its effectiveness in driving up the quality of teaching, learning and achievement. Now we are implementing a structure focused on student achievements.

While there are no quick fixes, some of the issues are straightforward, such as how we develop learners’ English and maths skills, an area found weak by the inspectors.

We have now set up a ‘buddy system’ for teachers with strong English skills to offer support to others who need it.

Of course, for teachers to become outstanding they need to know what outstanding looks like. That’s why our grade one teachers are now sharing best practice with colleagues, using new technology.

We have been very clear that we take ownership of the grade and about the further improvements that we need to make”

We found that we had overcomplicated the delivery of equality and diversity in the classroom, and that some teaching staff didn’t feel confident in this area, so we are offering training and development and, again, sharing best practice from areas where we get this right.

Notwithstanding the overall rating, there were areas where we achieved grade twos, including our work with students with learning difficulties that Ofsted said had outstanding features. It also praised our “calm and welcoming environment, culture of mutual respect and tolerance, and learners (who) behave in an appropriate fashion”.

Our students, staff and partners have been very supportive, some students have even written to Ofsted to tell them of the good experiences they have had at the college.

I was concerned about the inspection’s impact on staff morale and how we would communicate the result.

During inspection week I made sure that I was available to support the inspection team and to provide essential ongoing communication with the staff and governors. Staff were debriefed face-to-face at the end of the week and, shortly before the Ofsted result was publicly announced, we communicated with all our key partners including employers, sub-contractors and the media.

Our stakeholders have been overwhelmingly supportive and are keen to continue to work with us as we make improvements.

Of course the result was very disappointing — no one wants to be labelled inadequate.

But we have been very clear that we take ownership of the grade, that we had already begun to make changes before Ofsted visited and that we are very clear about the further improvements that we need to make.

We have another 10 to 13 months before the inspectors return. Our overriding commitment is to ensure that we achieve an outstanding experience for our learners. With our staff completely behind us, I know we can do this. We won’t rest until we’re the best college in the country.

Lynn Merilion, principal  of City of Bristol College

New national occupational standards for personal tutoring  will help to raise standards across the sector, writes Sally Wootton

The learning and skills sector has long supported the idea that personal tutoring contributes to improved retention and achievement, with a great deal of research suggesting that it lies at the heart of every learner’s experience and is central to his or her achievement and progression.

So why is the role of the personal tutor still often under-resourced and undervalued?

Many see tutors as an expensive luxury; they are often the first to go when savings need to be made. But reducing the level of tutoring is a false economy considering the role it plays in identifying learners at risk, implementing early interventions and supporting learners to keep on track.

And lost learners mean lost income. That aside, remember that when we recruit learners we are making a commitment to serve them well —  good tutoring is part of that service.

Being a tutor is a complex role but it is one that contributes to retention, achievement and progression. Tutors monitor progress; identify barriers to learning and enable learners to become motivated, autonomous self-starters; to develop essential wider skills so that they are well equipped to succeed.

The difficulty is finding evidence to show the impact of this complex role. It has been said that where learners succeed, it is down to good teaching; where they fail, it is down to poor tutoring.

Many case studies have found that poor tutoring can have a negative impact on  a learner’s mental wellbeing”

More work needs to explore and develop methods to assess the impact of tutoring, not simply to validate the contribution that it makes but also to provide a tool for self evaluation and quality improvement.

There’s the assumption too that ‘anyone can do it’. Tutoring is a learning relationship that requires specific skills and attributes. A negative tutoring relationship — that is, one that does not engage fully with the learner — hinders an individual’s potential.

Plus, many case studies have found that poor tutoring can have a negative impact on  a learner’s mental wellbeing. The right people must be in place to encourage, support and challenge learners.

Sadly, many organisations still allocate tutoring on the basis of timetables and availability, rather than an ability to do the job effectively.

Historically, little guidance has been available to support the effective recruitment and development of skilled personal tutors. This has led to a disparate quality of provision  across the sector and, in many cases, across individual organisations.

The Further Education Tutorial Network (FETN) is addressing these issues through research, training and resource development, and has recently worked with the Learning and Skills Improvement Service to develop national occupational standards for personal tutoring.

These standards identify the requisite skills, knowledge and understanding, and are applicable to FE and sixth-form colleges, higher education and work-based learning. The new standards clarify the tutoring role, bringing it in line with other professional occupations such as mentoring, coaching and counselling.

The standards can be used as a benchmark for effective tutoring practice and as a tool to review policy and procedures for recruiting, training and supporting personal tutors. They are available on the free resources page of the FETN website.

Dr Sally Wootton, founding director of the Further Education Tutorial Network

The government’s plans for vocational education move the debate forward but more detailed discussions with employers, and  FE and school sector representatives are vital, says Brian Lightman

After what has felt like an incredibly long wait, there is some sense of relief that the government has finally given an indication of its plans for vocational education with its announcement of a Technical Baccalaureate (Tech Bacc).

At a time when there has been so much emphasis on traditional academic study in policy circles and accountability measures, there is an urgent need for equal status to be given to high-quality vocational education. Employers are crying out for candidates with real potential to go into higher level apprenticeships or employment-based training that then lead into a range of careers in industry and commerce. In many cases the best preparation for these is highly valued and high status vocational courses.

However, the Tech Bacc does not address two major issues.

The first is the continuing misuse of the term ‘baccalaureate’. The simple fact is that Tech Bacc, like the Ebacc before it, is not a baccalaureate. It is a performance indicator based on courses that in large part have not yet been approved. And we all know too well what happens when the curriculum is driven by the accountability system as opposed to a coherent educational vision: it places the accountability cart before the educational horse.

Curriculum design focuses on ticking the box on the performance indicator as opposed to looking at the learning outcomes. We should be starting this process with a planned approach to the curriculum that integrates vocational and academic qualifications into a coherent educational vision.

The second issue is even more challenging, and at its heart is a cultural issue that our country has been deeply unsuccessful in addressing. The regrettable fact is that a separate performance indicator for vocational courses perpetuates the idea that these routes are in some way inferior to academic ones, that the ‘brightest’ students should opt for a traditional academic route and that this alternative will be for ‘the other 50 per cent’.

A planned approach to the curriculum should integrate vocational and academic qualifications ”

We have to break that mindset.

Recent research by the Education and Employers Task Force highlighted the immense mismatch between the career aspirations of young people and employment opportunities. There is no doubt that there are many highly skilled career routes in areas such as construction, technology and engineering that struggle to recruit appropriately skilled  and qualified employees.

Part of the solution therefore must be to turn this performance indicator, together with other level three routes such as A-level, into a proper baccalaureate — an overarching certificate that carries the credibility of UCAS points and can be achieved through a range of routes including ones that build on level two qualifications.

So, for example, a student could achieve this baccalaureate by studying three A-levels, with a core such as the one that has been proposed.

Another student could achieve it through high-quality vocational qualifications in place of the A-levels and others could achieve it through a combination. This way we would not be forcing young people down a route that continues to be separate.

But there is a further element to this. Employers continuously and quite understandably argue for young people to possess a more rounded range of employability skills. The CBI report, First Steps, defines these clearly. Whatever route young people are following, these skills need to be embedded into the curriculum and other learning experiences throughout their education.

My assessment of the Tech Bacc proposal is therefore to welcome that it has taken the debate a little way forward but to call urgently on the government to engage in much more detailed discussion with those of us who represent the FE and school sectors, along with employers. We must ensure that the approved, yet to be announced, qualifications have genuine currency and channel and motivate our best students towards high status careers.

Brian Lightman, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders