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