With allegations of shoddy practice, revelations of low pay and little training for apprentices, along with concerns about limited government cash being spent on ‘leisure’ courses, Ian Nash questions whether the FE and skills sector has moved on at all in the last 20 years.

he National Audit Office (NAO) review of the Education Funding Agency’s work in its first 18 months is unlikely to make happy reading for the government when published.

Concerns are understood to run far deeper than the alleged £20m overpaid to private training providers last year.

The issue is less about the agency’s approach than whether reforms required by ministers are fit for purpose. Indeed, sources suggest a benign view of the agency.

The question is whether this is symptomatic of a deeper malaise — are other things going wrong in FE and skills?

Without being unduly pessimistic, there is a horrible sense of déjà vu — a danger of repeating mistakes made by the Tories post-1992 Further and Higher Education Act, and Labour in its third term. And ministers need to take stock if not action to avoid this.

First, we have allegations of shoddy practice at training provider Elmfield, highlighted on BBC Newsnight.

Second, while ministers launched the Richard Review of Apprenticeships and promised immediate improvements, with only new starts counting as apprenticeships, what do we find? The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills [BIS] report Apprenticeship Pay Survey 2012: Research Findings shows 29 per cent of apprentices on less than the minimum wage.

It also shows 20 per cent receiving neither on or off-the-job training, 30 per cent having no off-the-job learning and 70 per cent having worked for their existing employer for a year before taking up the apprenticeship. The survey reports little or no improvement on the past.

Third, there is a rerun of the row over distinctions between funding recreational and work-skills training emerging.

Beyond what is defined as ‘skills’ or ‘leisure’ what happens when the money runs out and we still lack essential skills?”

An FE Week report suggested 24+ advanced learning loans were being taken out for courses outside limits of skills training envisaged by ministers.

While Bicton College insisted its horticulture course was about reskilling and was not just leisure-focused, others privately admit there are deep problems in defining courses either way.

Fourth, beyond the question of what is appropriately defined as being for ‘skills’ or ‘leisure’ what happens when the money runs out and we still lack essential skills?

Funding constraint after funding constraint (such as the demand-led element) has fallen foul here over two decades. What appears to be happening is that those least in need of loans are most likely to take them, while the least skilled remain least skilled.

Fifth, we now have much confusion over where funding is actually going and the suggestion that apprenticeship courses for 16 to 19-year-olds could carry fees while money appears to be being diverted to post-19 training.

Again, this emerged out of an FE Week webinar and story.

Last week Skills Minister Matthew Hancock said there was £20m more for traineeships and BIS confirmed, “it would not apply to 16 to 18-year-olds”. But, as FE Week editor Nick Linford, pointed out, “There is no separate pot for 19+ traineeships. So it disappears?”

Among quite a few college leaders I subsequently spoke to the confusion is leading to deep cynicism as they say ministers and the Skills Funding Agency “are taking it out with one hand and putting it back with the other” without any clear means of tracking apparent spending or being accountable for where the money does or doesn’t go.

Again, we have been here before with Tories and Labour massaging figures and double-accounting.

The alarm bells are not ringing as yet, but there is a need for a clear and measured response by ministers before they do, particularly as the deepest austerity cuts are yet to come.

Ian Nash is a partner in Nash & Jones Partnership and a member of
the Policy Consortium

 

 

With Skills Minister Matthew Hancock wanting the 24+ Advanced Learning Loan System used to fund courses with a “direct line of sight to work,” FE Week reported how loans were paying for apparently leisure-focussed courses. Among them was a level three certificate in horticulture that was for less than four hours a week. The report was wrong to say such a course might be leisure-focussed, according to David Henley.

I am sorry to say the FE Week piece (‘New Loans being used for Leisure’) is a classic illustration of the prejudice and lack of understanding that, unfortunately, is often directed at land-based qualifications.

At Bicton College we are proud of the real difference we make to people’s lives, providing new skills and work-related qualifications across a wide range of land-based industries.

Last year our work was inspected by Ofsted and we were graded as good in all fields [including headline and sub fields] and over 80 per cent of our students progress on to careers or additional training leading to their chosen profession. I would suggest this is a statistic that many colleges or training providers would be delighted with.

My main contention with the FE Week piece is that to suggest that the land-based courses cited are akin to leisure subjects is misinformed at best and, frankly, insulting at worst.

The horticulture industry is big business, contributing an estimated £9bn to the UK economy each year (Horticulture Matters, RHS report, 2013).

The industry needs an estimated 11,000 new entrants in the next decade to satisfy skills needs within the sector.

Well-trained horticulturalists can and do earn good money in landscape design, grounds and gardens maintenance, crop production, plant breeding and in the South West are in as much demand as a good plumber.

Our course supports people who are in the industry or want to get in to it and it provides the practical skills necessary to do the job — it is not designed for people to have fun, although, as with any good course, students do enjoy it.

Similarly, the slur directed at creative craft courses is also misdirected and obviously carelessly made.

Like all colleges, we don’t make the rules regarding fundable qualifications or loans.We just follow them to provide all our learners with the best opportunities that we can”

We support adult students, often women returners, whose creative talents are released and inspired by our passionate teachers.

Many go on to start their own businesses and make a worthwhile contribution to the rural economy.

The current students have multiple motivations, but the skills they are learning are valued by people living and working in the rural economy.

Like all colleges, we don’t make the rules regarding fundable qualifications or loans.

We just follow them to provide all our learners with the best opportunities that we can. Although early days, our initial small allocation for loans has been exceeded and we expect that demand for loans will continue to increase as learners assess the benefit of achieving a career change or increasing their employability versus the cost of the loan.

And we don’t discriminate. We cater for young and mature learners alike, men and women, and the vast majority of our learners across all subjects progress into useful careers.

As a final point, [FE Week editor] Nick Linford’s tweet seems to imply that the article was prompted by a throwaway remark made by a principal in a meeting of colleges. Without being rude, one would think that serious journalism would warrant a little more careful research.

David Henley, principal, Bicton College in Devon

 

 

Further education featured prominently among the policy proposals outlined by the three main political parties at the recent conferences. However, Lynne Sedgmore believes nothing was said on a number of key sector issues.

The annual conference season has come to an end and aspects of FE featured strongly on their agendas.

We heard about free school meals from the Liberal Democrats and “earn or learn” policies from the Tories.

But on other aspects, there was a worrying silence.

As the political world gears up for the next election, it is important to reflect on where the last few weeks really leave us.

The 157 Group has published its own manifesto for FE and skills, calling for a shared vision, more stability in policy and funding and greater equity across the provider spectrum.

It seems clear, from comparisons with other education and training systems, that these three are prerequisites for success, and we trust that others across the sector will feel able to back our call.

There are signs we might see a less turbulent environment.

As the political world gears up for the next election, it is important to reflect on where the last few weeks really leave us”

Conference discussions seem to reflect a growing consensus around some key policy themes — that traineeships and apprenticeships are the basis of successful vocational education and direct funding of employers will engage more of them in the system.

It is also agreed English and maths are essential for everyone.

There is some comfort to be taken in the implication that a bedding down of current reforms will be given space by all three main parties.

We would suggest, however, there is something missing.

We have long argued colleges play a pivotal role in the skills system, yet none of the emerging manifestos recognise that. We are clear that full-time vocational education is valuable for many, but it is largely ignored.

We think it is important for employers to be engaged on a strategic level, but they shouldn’t be bogged down in the detail of funding.

Colleges are responding to policy initiatives with gusto — for example by ensuring university technical colleges, studio schools and the like are successful, so they can serve as the engine rooms of employer ownership pilots and work hard to make a success of advanced learning loans.

However, this vital role — of the college as a valuable public asset — must be better acknowledged.

It is also revealing to look at what was not discussed during the season.

There was no challenge from any corner to the school reform agenda, nor any dissent from the push to give local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) more authority at local level.

There were no hints of a rethink on FE loans and no suspicion at all that structure of any of the government bodies for our sector (the split between the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, for instance) would be reviewed.

So, given all of that, I see an opportunity for colleges to be more vocal about how they are leading the way.

The 157 Group will continue to champion colleges for their strategic leadership within localities and their contribution to economic growth.

We will continue to press for true equity in the way all providers of post-14 education and training are held accountable, and, indeed, for that system to be increasingly sector-driven and owned.

With all the major parties agreed on some key policy elements, colleges will want to demonstrate their ability to lead the skills agenda by showing practically how to implement them.

Headline-grabbing announcements, whether on free meals or the possible loss of benefits or apprenticeships in exchange for foreign skilled workers, are not what is critical. Good working relationships with LEPs for example are.

Lynne Sedgmore,
executive director of the 157 Group