FE can show the private sector a thing or two when it comes to the representation of women in top jobs, says Sally Dicketts

The media has been paying a lot of attention to the representation of women — or lack of it — in top roles in FTSE 100 and 250 companies. It’s not particularly good news.

Dame Marjorie Scardino, the former chief executive of Pearson, lamented the dearth of female chief executives in the FTSE 100, and when she and Kate Swann (WH Smith), resigned in 2012, it halved the number of women running such companies. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is taking the issue seriously, with Business Secretary Vince Cable recently acknowledging the “chronic shortage of women in top jobs”.

Not so in the FE and skills sector. At the Women’s Leadership Network’s (WLN) conference on May 22, Skills Minister Matthew Hancock paid tribute to the sector’s success in raising the number of female college principals and chief executives. Each year WLN collects data on all colleges — general FE, sixth-form colleges and specialist institutions — and with five years’ data, has enough evidence to talk about trends.

Since 2009, the proportion of women in the lead role has risen from 36 to 41 per cent, up from 130 to 139, despite a decline in the number of colleges.

It is hard to say exactly what is making a difference, but a possible factor is the small but important number of role models emerging of women working at senior levels in science and technology, for example, stimulates and inspires talent.

The government’s focus on women as leaders highlights the issue. While policy changes and targets are not necessarily the best ways to help crack the glass ceiling, demonstrating good practice and promoting women to influential roles in the corporate sector, on boards and in the government itself, would be inspiring and a powerful indicator of change.

Barriers are slowly disappearing and support for female leaders developing. We’re aware of more male principals — and females —  taking seriously the development of their talented female staff. Some, including Mike Hopkins at Middlesbrough College, Richard Atkins at Exeter College, Jat Sharma at Walsall College and Phil Davies at City College Plymouth, have pinned their colours firmly to the mast, and many others are overtly supporting women’s career development.

Sector institutions such as the Network for Black Professionals and the Learning and Skills Improvement Service have also had a significant influence on equality, clearing pathways for personal and career advancement.

I haven’t mentioned specific influential women, though they are legion, working in the background, spotting talent, finding development opportunities and encouraging women to take their futures into their own hands. WLN membership is up by a third since October 2011 and increasingly high attendances at network events, especially the annual conference, suggest that colleges are willing to invest in staff keen to benefit from these opportunities. There is a continuing demand for WLN’s  career and leadership development services, and the speed-coaching sessions at this year’s conference were, once again, oversubscribed.

There’s still a way to go to engage all elements of the sector and some work to do on the gender balance in governance. The BIS advisory group on governance has this issue in its sights and it would be good to see specific recommendations to improve the recruitment of female board members and chairs. There have always been huge numbers of talented women and at last they are pulling themselves through to the top jobs. FE can show the private sector a thing or two.

Sally Dicketts, chair of WLN and principal of Oxford and Cherwell Valley College

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

One of my most enjoyable meetings of the last fortnight was with a Labour MP — a major champion of FE — and his research assistant, currently on placement from university. We met to discuss an internship for young people interested in policy, research and public affairs careers.

I’ve been thinking about such a scheme for some time. There’s a general view that policy is an odd field consisting entirely of hard-nosed wannabe-MPs and geeky ‘wonks’ with umpteen doctoral degrees. The truth, however, is that careers in policy and research (and those pursuing them) can be fascinating and exciting, offering a chance to facilitate change in organisations and the policy-making process. But few people know where to start.

Couple this lack of understanding with the well-rehearsed problems of internships — lack of pay, poor management, menial tasks — and the concept of a new scheme emerged. The Policy Internship Programme (alternative names welcome…) will offer young people the chance to experience policy work from three different angles — Parliament, the front line, and a representative body — during a trio of fortnightly placements. The scheme will promise proper management, follow-up mentoring and guidance, and demanding work. We’ll be advertising the first few placements soon.

So far, so good. But the meeting came during the same week that I was finishing, with colleagues at Newham, our response to the latest document in the Richard Review sequence. As a college, we support much of the proposed reform, although — doubtless like many across the FE sector — we have some concerns, particularly around how new standards are developed, and ensuring that English and maths requirements are met.

The real solution is for apprenticeships to be championed as much as universities”

But the juxtaposition of these two events offered scope for further reflection around careers guidance, and the ways into work on offer to young people.

Too often internships are about who you know, while apprenticeships are still seen by many as a lesser alternative to university, despite recent evidence suggesting that those with higher apprenticeships go on to earn considerably more. Furthermore, we all know what the reason for this is — decades of bias. Consider the headlines when  10 Mossbourne Community Academy students from East London got into Oxbridge. Would the same story have had such high billing if 10 students had won apprenticeships with international companies? I doubt it.

In rejecting the Education Select Committee’s recommendation that face-to-face guidance be guaranteed for all, the government has demonstrated a lack of seriousness in ensuring all young people follow the path best for them. Too many young people continue to see university as the only real path to the best careers, while too many others are put off university for all sorts of reasons when it is the right answer for them. The same is, of course, true for apprenticeships.

New internship schemes alone will not solve the problems of young people finding suitable jobs, though they could offer a great opportunity for a few. The real solution, surely, is for apprenticeships, and other pathways, to be championed as much as universities — and for some successful people who began their careers without university to take the lead. The Richard Review heads in the right direction, but we all know how much more needs to be done.

Ofsted, funding cuts, policy changes . . . it’s no surprise that the number of prospective FE principals/chief executives is falling, says Mike Hopkins

A straw poll of principal and chief executive colleagues makes clear the reality of the decline in the number of prospective principals. Why has this happened?

Broadly speaking, issues include Ofsted and the price that has to be paid for failure; the resulting caution of vice-principals and other senior managers; the complexity of combining the senior academic role of principal and the business orientated one of chief executive.

Then there’s the loss of autonomy as a result of FE finding itself at the heart of education politics; caution about recruiting from outside the sector; and the pressures of dealing with reduced funding.

The respondents to my straw poll saw Ofsted as an ‘adversarial’ organisation. One described the principal as having the job security of a Premier League football manager without the rewards. Officially outstanding colleges could become officially failing ones at the change of a common inspection framework.

One respondent questioned why a person would apply to a college that ‘requires improvement’. Sustainable improvement could take two to three years with a reinspection in significantly less time than that.

Similarly, why would a person apply to an ‘outstanding’ college with the risk of an inferior grade  awarded at the next inspection (which could be triggered by his or her arrival) and the governors seeking an immediate scapegoat?

Many respondents referred to their perceived loss of autonomy as FE became one of the key battleground’s of education party politics.

Despite New Challenges, New Chances, many felt that the focus on data, year-on-year cuts in funding, and frequent and often contradictory shifts in policy had all impaired any autonomy to make decisions.

One respondent described the principal as having the job security of a Premier League football manager without the rewards”

Some lamented the absence of investment in a national training school and credible training for the principal/chief executive role. Others noted that most colleges still appointed from a field ‘limited’ to people who had risen to management via teaching.

The focus on ‘teaching’ could be overdone, they said, leading to a ‘bigotry’ around appointing from outside the sector.

Finally, it was also noted that senior leaders at vice-principal level were also focused on teaching and learning and therefore did not get the chance to develop the other skills required of the chief executive – for example, business acumen.

The role of principal had become far more complex since Incorporation. Having credibility in the teaching workforce combined with academic improvement, while also driving a multi-million business forward, required a broad set of skills.

When I began my career 32 years ago, my first principal would arrive into college at 8.45am precisely, with The Times folded neatly under his arm and sporting a yellow rose on his elegant Prince of Wales check suit. Generally, he wouldn’t be seen throughout the day until he left for home at 5pm.

A lot has changed since those long lost days and, despite all the pressures, much for the better.

It is tough, but it’s perhaps, in part, that toughness that makes the job such a delight and challenge.

But more than that, how many jobs can have such value-driven ethics at their heart?

Being an FE principal or chief executive is about being socially conscious, seeking economic and social equality and being at the heart of the skills chain.

It is at the heart of progressive politics, and I’d encourage anyone who is interested in that, to put themselves forward.

Mike Hopkins, chair of the Professional Principals’ Council and principal of Middlesbrough College