The government has clarified its position on local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) after FE leaders were left scratching their heads after what one sector leader called “bizarre” official advice.

The confusion revolves around the extent to which LEPs had sign-off on 16 to 18 provision.

On Monday, March 18, the government said that “all FE learning providers must consult and agree their provision with LEPs to ensure the courses they offer to 16 to 18-year-olds reflect local labour requirements”.

However, the Department for Education (DfE) later told FE Week: “Ultimately, schools and colleges remain autonomous and are free to decide how to meet the needs of their students.”

The issue surfaced after the government’s response to Lord Heseltine’s No Stone Unturned report, which, among other things, called for power to be devolved to LEPs.

In last week’s Budget, Chancellor George Osborne further indicated the government’s acceptance of the former deputy prime minister’s ideas, by making reference to a “Single Local Growth Fund…operational by April 2015”.

However, James Kewin, deputy chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges’ Association, questioned the wisdom of giving LEPs sign-off on its largely academic 16 to 18 provision.

He said: “Given that around three-quarters of what we deliver is either AS or A-level, it would be bizarre to insist that we must agree our provision with LEPs.

“It is interesting that there is not a corresponding requirement for schools or academies to agree their provision in this way, even though many have a sixth form and are in direct competition with our members.”

But a government spokesperson has now clarified the apparently conflicting guidance.

He said the DfE was right, and added: “We are encouraging colleges to have a strong focus on work and meeting skills shortages.

“As part of this we want LEPs to have an influence over skills policy and to set local skills strategies against which colleges can respond, with chartered status for FE colleges being dependent on taking account of partnership priorities.”

Programmes offered by colleges for learners of all ages are already designed in line with labour market intelligence.”

The issue of LEPs remains a concern among FE leaders, though, with the government having accepted 81 of Lord Heseltine’s 89 recommendations, including FE providers having to consult with LEPs.

And the Chancellor said more decisions on LEPs — including the possible inclusion of the adult skills budget in a single funding pot — would be made in the annual spending review, in June.

Lynne Sedgmore, 157 Group executive director, said: “Programmes offered by colleges for learners of all ages are already designed in line with labour market intelligence and in partnerships with employers.

“Formal scrutiny by LEPs and employers must add value to what is already a rigorous quality assurance and partnership process.

“How can colleges be assured and convinced that LEPs have the capacity and skills to
carry out this role effectively, and not just add an additional layer of bureaucracy and cost
to a skills system that works very effectively and is fit for purpose?”

Julian Gravatt, assistant chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said: “Colleges are keen to correspond with, and be influenced by, LEPs in how the skills funding colleges currently receive is deployed to best effect. But this does not mean that we need to re-create the bureaucracy of training and enterprise councils or similar.”

The proposed FE Guild could have a different name by the time it is launched in August.

Peter Davies, who heads a project helping to shape the guild, said a survey was set up after consultation revealed that more than 60 per cent of respondents did not like the original title.

He said that many of the 200 or so replies to the survey suggested that FE did not “reflect the whole sector” while the word guild was “a bit traditional”.

Other suggestions have included the words skills, institute or alliance, said Mr Davies, former principal of London-based adult education provider City Lit.

He said it was important that the organisation — designed to set professional standards in FE as funding ends for the Learning and Skills Improvement Service (LSIS) — should not alienate any part of the sector.

“There was a view that we needed to look at the name,” he said.

It’s important to get the name right to give it some stability”

“People felt strongly that the further education — FE — aspect did not cover the whole sector. Some felt that the title referred just to colleges and private providers, and many felt guild was more linked to individuals rather than an organisation.

“We’ve all seen organisations come and go and I think it’s important to get the name right to give it some stability.”

He said he preferred “something around learning and skills” as it was “more all-embracing”.

But he admitted that some respondents liked the word guild because it “gave a feeling of stability and longevity, which would be quite unique for this sector”.

David Hughes, chief executive of the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education who is independent chair of the guild’s steering group, revealed on Twitter that he preferred the title Guild for Learning and Skills.

And Christine Doubleday, deputy executive director of the 157 Group, said she backed the FE moniker but preferred institute.

“While we fully appreciate the power of the word guild for a craft-based focus, FE is much broader and varied,” she said.

 “Therefore the word institute has broader appeal as in Institute for FE Professionalism, or Professional Institute for FE, or FE Professional Institute, which puts us on a par with other professional bodies.”

During a recent Association of Colleges conference that focused on the guild, Mr Hughes said its steering group, involving representatives from 28 groups, was still considering the priorities of the organisation, due to launch in August.

He estimated the guild would have around £10m to spend in its first year compared with the £100m LSIS had in its first year.

The survey on potential names can be found at www.feguild.info.

It will be discussed at the FE Guild steering group’s meeting on Monday.

The Skills Funding Agency has announced more detail on a measure to protect providers from potentially huge drops in funding under a new payments regime.

The agency revealed that it would be acting to stop providers’ funding dropping by more than 3 per cent in the next academic year.

Agency payments for delivering qualifications under the new system would also be protected to within 6 per cent the following year.

The measure – termed transitional protection — will also limit the amount the agency pays out, with FE Week research having shown the value of some qualifications could rocket under the agency’s new system.

One such qualification looks set to soar 271 per cent as the agency moves from the ‘demand-led funding formula’ to the ‘streamlined funding system for adults’ from August.

Last month the agency exclusively told FE Week that the protective measure would come into play after research showed the value of many qualifications would fall more than 20 per cent.

These arrangements will ensure the impact on providers from the new funding system will be limited.”

And a recent agency webinar also told of late changes to credit bandings for awards (one to 12 credits) in the agency’s ‘simplified funding rates matrix’.

An agency spokesperson said: “Over the past few months, we have been consulting the sector on the most effective mechanism to underpin the transition to the simplified funding system.

“We are setting out the arrangements for this in the briefings we are now undertaking with providers.

“These arrangements will ensure the impact on providers from the new funding system will be limited to 3 per cent in 2013/14 and 6 per cent in 2014/15.”

She said there would be “specific measures” to protect some areas of provision changing due to wider and longer-term qualification reform, such as at English for Speakers of Other Languages.

The spokesperson was unavailable to further comment on changes to credit bandings.

The change in the value assigned to qualifications in shifting to the new system is called turbulence.

“We accept that the simplified funding system will shift rates of individual qualifications, but our initial assessments suggest that turbulence at provider level will be low in most cases,” the agency has said previously.

“Transitional protection will be put in place to limit this turbulence even further.”

When the current funding system was introduced in 2008/09, transitional protection was also put in place for the same reason and on that occasion funding variations in both directions were limited to a maximum of 2.1 per cent.

City of Liverpool College could have its funding withdrawn after falling from outstanding to the lowest Ofsted grade of inadequate.

The Skills Funding Agency and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) said they were “considering action” in response to the 17,000-learner college’s inspection result.

Options listed in the agency’s Provider Risk Assessment and Management guidance include issuing  a notice of concern, suspending recruitment of learners and, ultimately, withdrawing funding. Its 2012/13 academic year the college’s agency allocation was £18.5m.

A joint statement from the agency and BIS said: “Following the publication of the Ofsted report, we are considering the action we will take in line with our published processes for provider risk assessment and management.”

The Liverpool college, which achieved the highest grade almost across the board at its last inspection in early 2009, was revisited in early February. It was graded inadequate in every headline Ofsted field.

It has withdrawn from the 157 Group as a result of the report that said the college, formerly Liverpool Community College, had too many students turning up late for lessons — if at all — and leaving without qualifications.

It said there were improvements in leadership, but governors had “not monitored the significant deterioration in student performance”.

The college must address this major challenge and show how improvements can be made rapidly.”

Principal Elaine Bowker, who took up post mid-2011, said she accepted the result, but declined to add to her statement issued on March 15 – the day the Ofsted report was published.

She said: “We accept the report and are working hard to ensure that the areas highlighted as inadequate are improved.

“We have met with all of our internal teams, from governors to teaching staff, and we are certain that there is a strong commitment to tackle any weaknesses.”

Lynne Sedgemore, 157 Group executive director, said: “We fully understand the college’s top priority will be to focus on improving performance and regaining good or outstanding grades.”

The college remains a member of the Gazelle Group, whose chief executive, Fintan Donohue, said: “Gazelle totally recognises the value of the Ofsted process and every Gazelle college is wholly committed to achieving the highest possible grades.

“However, this is not a deciding factor in the membership, therefore City of Liverpool College’s membership remains unaffected, and Gazelle remains fully supportive of the college.”

Meanwhile, Liverpool City Council’s cabinet member for employment, enterprise and skills, Nick Small, said he was “confident the issues raised by Ofsted have already started to be addressed”.

And Shadow Education Secretary Stephen Twigg, Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby, said he would be having regular discussions with Mrs Bowker about the situation at the college.

Louise Ellman, Labour MP for Liverpool Riverside, added: “The college must address this major challenge and show how improvements can be made rapidly. I am confident this can be achieved.”

Steve Rotheram, Labour MP for Liverpool Walton, said: “The leadership team of the college is working hard to ensure that areas highlighted in the Ofsted report are addressed and will continue to do so with our support.”

And Luciana Berger, Labour MP for Liverpool Wavertree, said: “While the Ofsted report was disappointing and the weaknesses must be addressed… I am confident the college will work hard to ensure this happens.”