Will ‘guilding’ the LSIS be an improvement or disaster?

Stop tinkering with FE before another doomed organisation is set up (you only have to look back a few years),
says Anne Nicholls

And so, the Learning and Skills Improvement Service (LSIS) is to close this August after barely four years, as plans for an FE Guild are put together. David Hughes, chair of the guild’s steering group, has enthusiastically argued the need for a new organisation to unite the learning and skills sector.  But many people with long memories are rolling their eyes and saying: “Not another one.”

Let’s look at the development of some of these sector organisations. The saga reads like a Restoration farce, full of divorces and remarriages, plus a few births.

LSIS was formed from a “marriage” between the Quality Improvement Agency for Lifelong Learning (QIA) and the Centre for Excellence in Leadership, which had been created by the Learning and Skills Development Agency, which was split into two in 2006 – one part becoming the QIA (which then morphed into LSIS) and the other the Learning and Skills Network (LSN) … if you follow my drift.

The story started in 1995 when the Further Education Development Agency (FEDA) was set up as a merger between the Further Education Unit and the Staff College –  a seemingly perfect marriage.

But the relationship went pear shaped in 1997 when FEDA got into financial difficulties. In stepped Chris Hughes as the new chief executive and in 2000 FEDA acquired a new name, the Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA). Hughes got the organisation back into solvency with a strategy of winning big government-led contracts.

I joined the LSDA in 2001 as communications manager. It was an organisation that  combined policy and practice, and had people who really understood how to make policies work and how to engage with practitioners such as teachers, trainers and lecturers.

But in 2005 the Department for Education and Skills decided that the “quality landscape” needed rationalising with a new organisation. They wanted the LSDA to carry this forward … the only problem was they wanted a divorce. In other words, they wanted to separate commissioning from delivery.

So in 2006 the LSDA was split in two. One part – the QIA –  became a quango and was, literally, sent to Coventry with a new chief executive.  It lasted just over two years amid murmurings that it was too removed from what was happening on the ground and had failed to win the confidence of people working in the sector.

The rest became the LSN, an independent charity focusing on delivering services to the sector and beyond. That organisation went into administration in November 2011, a consequence of losing large government contracts in the wake of public sector cuts.

Now we have yet another organisation, the brainchild of former Skills Minister John Hayes. Cynics are talking about “a camel looking for a desert”. Others see it as a cost-cutting exercise. The more positive voices see an opportunity for the sector to take charge of its own destiny.

The new guild’s functions are likely to include setting professional standards and codes of behaviour, developing qualifications for those working in the sector, supporting training and strategic planning – tasks that are already being done by other organisations, including the LSIS.

How will it be funded? Will the £48 million from the LSIS budget be transferred, or will it go back into the government’s coffers? Will there be a levy from colleges and training providers? Why is it being called a guild?

A round of consultations is planned this year. If the feedback is positive, the aim is to get things up and running by the summer. Many feel that it is a fait accompli.

Further education has had a poor marital record with organisations lasting, on average, about four years. What’s proposed could be a disastrous ménage a trois (or quatre) between existing bodies. Maybe the movers and shakers should stop tinkering before yet another doomed “marriage” takes place.

Anne Nicholls is a PR/communications consultant and journalist specialising in post-16 education and training. She was communications manager at the LSDA from 2001-2006

Why it’s time for a vocational pedagogy

A new report highlights the complex task of the vocational teacher and offers important evidence for why FE needs a vocational pedagogy, says Charlynne Pullen

This is a critical time for the UK economy. As it begins to recover, there will be a greater need for skilled individuals, and vocational education has a clear role to play.  But for years, vocational education has been derided or ignored, quality has been questioned, and funding cut.

We believe vocational education needs to be high-status and valued, and for that, we need high quality teaching. Matthew Hancock, Minister for Skills, agrees. In his speech to the Association of Colleges’ conference on November 20 last year, he said: “There is no reason set in stone why technical education should not be seen as on a par with or even more virtuous than university… It will come only when teaching in FE is uniformly high quality… Outstanding education is the route to outstanding acclaim.”

Industries such as care and retail will grow this century; we must better value both as at present low skills, low pay and low status are endemic in both.

People working in these and other vocational sectors need the routine expertise to deal with everyday problems; the resourcefulness to solve trickier problems; the functional literacies to explain their solutions to customers; the business-like attitudes to do so in a way that values the customer; the craftsman’s desire to do a job well; and the wider skills for growth to innovate for future solutions.

These six outcomes of vocational education are set out in ‘How to teach vocational education: A theory of vocational pedagogy’, a newly published research report (written by Professors Bill Lucas, Guy Claxton and Dr Ellen Spencer at the Centre for Real World Learning at the University of Winchester) from the City & Guilds Centre for Skills Development.

We argue that these outcomes are what employers and customers value. If employers value these outcomes, and demand better skilled individuals who have acquired them, then it is on this basis that an economy can grow. So how do we get there?

Clearly, high quality teaching is key.  However, we believe that the role of vocational pedagogy in attaining that quality has been underestimated. The report highlights the complex task of the vocational teacher and offers important evidence for why we need a vocational pedagogy.

Low skills, low pay and low status are endemic in both the care and retail industries”

It also offers a model for vocational teaching that we believe practitioners will find useful, but there are elements which need to be discussed.

For example, if a vocational teacher needs to think carefully about the kind of teaching he or she can use in a workshop versus a classroom, what happens in a workplace?

How can vocational teachers, or indeed those without training in teaching, provide support to learners in a workplace, and what training is needed to support that? What about the role of the assessor?

Previously, the learning and skills sector has talked about the need for a vocational pedagogy but struggled to develop one that everyone agrees to. We believe our outcomes clearly set out what vocational education is for, and offers a framework. Now it’s time to discuss how we can develop a vocational pedagogy that is owned by the sector, rather than one that’s borrowed from general education.

To find out more about the project or to download a copy of the report, visit www.skillsdevelopment.org

Charlynne Pullen is a senior researcher at the City & Guilds Centre for Skills Development

The real case for chartered colleges

Chartered status must not simply be another quality mark: it should reflect the capacity of an institution to work with all its partners to help to shape what is on offer to its community, says Mick Fletcher

The proposal to develop chartered colleges offers the prospect of underpinning the freedoms and flexibilities that government seems to want for FE, and of signalling a distinct and valued status for FE institutions comparable with HE. But the consultation on the proposal risks vitiating the whole agenda.

The core confusion is that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) seems to see chartered status as another quality mark. Chartered status would be awarded to institutions that score well on a range of indicators, some already in existence and others yet to be invented. The consultation seeks views on which ones. It is doubtful, though, whether the sector itself or those it seeks to serve would benefit from yet another quality indicator; it could become another logo to gather dust in the lobby.

Chartered status should be about something else; about trusting an institution to do the right things, not just to do what it does well. In specific terms it should reflect the fact that an institution can demonstrate genuine accountability to a range of internal and external stakeholders so that it can be trusted to determine what programmes it should offer, where and to whom.

It should reflect the fact that the institution’s internal processes demonstrate integrity in designing its offer, in recruiting its students and reporting their achievement.

In this context the idea that local education partnerships (LEPs) should ‘sign off’ applications for chartered status is profoundly misconceived. LEPs are important partners, but only one of a range of stakeholders whose interests need to be reflected in college plans. Real local accountability is not achieved privileging the views of one actor amongst many.

Chartered status should be about trusting an institution to do the right things”

It is probable that well-run colleges will deliver high quality and demonstrate genuine accountability, but the two are not the same and the one does not follow from the other. Outstanding success rates are no guarantee that an institution is highly responsive to the communities it ought to serve, nor indeed that it plans provision and recruits with integrity. A deep and genuine understanding of local need should not be discounted because of a weakness in some areas of delivery.

The confusion in BIS builds on a more widespread confusion in Whitehall that allowing a degree of local autonomy is a reward for good behaviour, not an outcome in itself with benefits for communities. We need institutions that are committed to researching local needs, and to explaining themselves and their performance to their full range of stakeholders.

The beneficiaries are local employers and communities, not college staff. This is why the Colleges in the Community report called for much greater scope for colleges to determine what they offer; it was why the Lingfield Review argued for colleges to have greater control over the qualifications they deliver.

Chartered status should reflect the capacity of an institution to work with the full range of partners to help to shape the local offer. It could provide the rationale for funding via grant-in-aid rather than by contract; and it should be accompanied by substantial freedom for a college to develop and deliver its own programme rather than choose from a central menu.  Most colleges should achieve the status despite differences in quality, much like HE.

But chartered status will not be appropriate for many training providers, despite their excellent work. A for-profit training company, for example, has to be accountable to its shareholders, not its community.

There may be good grounds for recognising the excellence of its training if it is felt that the Ofsted grading is inadequate, but a different word should be chosen – ‘licensed’ or ‘accredited’ training provider for example; and it should continue to be funded by contract.  If training providers were to become chartered, which should not be ruled out, they would have to look a lot more like FE colleges.

Mick Fletcher is an FE Consultant

Trust me: shared services can work

It’s early days – and flexibility is essential – but a unique partnership of six FE colleges is determined to bring down costs and improve the service to students, says Alex Richards 

Some people worry about the potential pitfalls of shared services. Others see it as an opportunity to push innovative thinking to its limits. But collaborative working demands exploration, especially when cost reduction remains vital to the financial survival of many FE providers.

After a year of talks, Totton College joined five other sixth-form colleges to become The Solent Colleges Innovation Partnership. Supported by funding from the Association of Colleges (AoC), it is the first (and only) partnership in the country to be made up solely of sixth-form colleges.

Initially created by the six principals, the partnership has the support of each college’s governing body. Geographically the six are close – three (Portsmouth College, St Vincent and Havant) are around the Portsmouth area and three (Richard Taunton Sixth-Form College, Itchen and Totton) around Southampton. This makes meetings easy and yet the distance is enough to ensure competition for students is at a fairly low level.

It is inevitable that there will be some overlap in competing areas of provision, but we all believe that by working together we can cut costs and improve the service to students.

The starting point in a project such as this is to learn to trust one another. To this end, we have established clear protocols to work through any issues that might arise.

From the start, we found that we often shared the same challenges; we now hope that we will all benefit from a common approach where we can. Instead of six colleges spending 10 hours each working on the same business process, two colleges might spend 15 hours developing a procedure that everyone can use. At the moment, for example, we’re exploring attendance tracking, value added and the introduction of new reporting technologies.

Despite having the same systems, we use them differently”

We learnt early on that it’s difficult to expect any college to give up an existing process or system that works well for them.  Instead we are focusing on ‘green field’ activities – developing new systems and processes where all or most of the colleges in the group identify a shared gap. Conversely, there are some areas of current practice that we all are unhappy with and so we’ll collaborate on developing improved common systems.

A ‘development day’ at the start of the project brought senior teams together to build a good understanding of shared goals. The result was the formation of a number of sub-groups, including curriculum, finance, support for learning and HR. Five of the colleges use the same UNIT-e management information system and so an MIS sub-group was also formed, which I currently chair.

As we began looking at how we could use our MIS to work together, we realised that despite having the same systems, we use them differently. For example, one college may call a group of students a class and another a course, with different structures describing them on their database. That means that a report sent from one college’s system to another will have different coding assumptions, and won’t translate properly.

We are now identifying these differences to see if we can find ways to bring things together while still giving each of us the freedom to meet our local needs; this will allow us to continue to work with different data but on equivalent systems.

One important aspect has been to allow each of us to decide our own systems and processes. It is inevitable that some projects will be shared with all of the group, while others might pull in one or two. This flexibility is crucial. Collaborative working must achieve the best possible solutions, as well as save time and money.

Despite being in the early stages, we have high expectations of what we will be able to achieve by working jointly. There is a lot riding on this partnership – for us and the many other colleges who may follow our example.

For more information, please visit www.totton.ac.uk or www.capitafhe.co.uk

Alex Richards is assistant principal, college services, at Totton College

Peter Roberts, principal, Leeds City College

Peter Roberts was happily following in his father’s footsteps as a professional footballer when a nasty tackle threw him off course. His dad, Harold, made history at Chesterfield FC when he was signed by Birmingham City for a then record £10,600.

Peter also joined Chesterfield in his teens. But his time on the pitch came to an abrupt halt in his early twenties when he broke his leg twice and was told that he needed to think of a new career.

“I’d never seen my life as anything other than playing football. I’d always been reasonably good and once I’d joined Chesterfield as a schoolboy I didn’t entertain doing anything else,” the former midfielder says.

“It was hard when I broke my leg. But there’s no point moping, you’ve got to get on. And because I was waiting and waiting for my leg to heal, it was a slow realisation that I wouldn’t be able to play professionally again, rather than a moment when it all came tumbling down. When life deals you certain cards you have to cope, you can’t feel sorry for yourself.”

Becoming a PE teacher seemed a good next step and he applied to do a PGCE at the University of Liverpool, where he had completed a degree in economics while he had been at Chesterfield. But it wasn’t the most practical of decisions.

“I did my whole teaching practice with my leg in plaster,” he says. “It was meant to heal by the end of the first term, but never did, so I spent my time refereeing and hobbling about in the gym. You wouldn’t get away with it now.”

When he graduated in 1978, he taught  PE and economics at West Derby comprehensive in Liverpool. He was also back in his football boots playing part-time for Southport, a non-league side.

“Life changed a lot in a few years, from having my future clearly mapped out to suddenly everything becoming uncertain. But I ended up in a place where I could play football to a reasonable standard and teach — I got the best of both worlds,” he says.

“I still harboured some thoughts about playing professionally, but I enjoyed teaching. Hindsight is a wonderful thing; if it had happened a few years later then it would have been a lot harder, but I was still young and open to new things.”

Roberts, who in December was elected chair of the 157 Group, which represents the top colleges in the country, grew up in Chesterfield with his older brother Alan. Dorothy, his mother, was a clerk in the finance department at a local newspaper; after his retirement from football, Harold, who died in 2007, coached young players at Chesterfield..

“I saw two quite different sides of life growing up,” Roberts says. “I went to a grammar school where higher education was the main route people took, but in the football team it was another story. I hate hierarchy, the idea that some people are better than others. Some of the players in the team weren’t academic, but put them on a football pitch and they’ll see things no one else ever will. Everyone brings different skills to the playing field. I hate snobbery and, as I get older, I get more intolerant of people trying to impose hierarchy.”

I hate hierarchy, the idea that some people are better than others”

Roberts, now 57 and the father of two (he has been married for 31 years),  decided to go into further education when he was at West Derby and was asked to run a business course with a local college. He left the school in 1983 to become a lecturer in leisure and recreation at Stannington College in Sheffield.

“My decision wasn’t based on very good reasons,” he says, laughing. “I was attracted by having my own desk, dedicated non-teaching time to plan lessons and paid overtime. You never got any of that in schools. It seemed a much more grown-up and sensible world.”

When he began teaching at the college he found he enjoyed being in a more job-focused environment.

“I could really see the impact we were having,” he says. “In the area a lot of steel workers were losing their jobs and the government paid for them to do courses at the college. Being able to help them get back into work was very rewarding.”

After four years at Stannington, he moved to Selby College as part of the senior management team. In 1992 he became vice-principal of Rotherham Sixth Form College and later York College.

In 1997 he moved as principal to Stockport College — and in six years helped to turn it around from being judged by Ofsted as inadequate to being awarded outstanding.

“It even makes me emotional now,” he says. “Once Ofsted had gone, we got all the staff together to tell them the grade and I asked how many of them had been at the college when it was judged inadequate — loads of hands went up. You’ve got to believe in people and make sure they know it’s OK to ask for help.

“It was a fantastic feeling. After all the usual celebratory stuff I went back to my office . . . the relief was palpable. You just think ‘wow’. We had all worked so incredibly hard.”

Roberts joined Leeds City College in 2009, just after its merger with two other institutions to form one of the biggest colleges in the country — it has an annual turnover of more than £90 million, 1,700 staff and 40,000 students. In May this year Ofsted gave it a “good”, with its report calling the principal “inspirational”.

“Everybody has good and bad days, but it’s a nice confirmation of all the hard work we’ve been doing,” he says. “These two inspection results are my proudest achievements.”

He now admits that every morning before Ofsted arrived he would play the anthem for Liverpool Football Club.

“All the staff were laughing at me, but I just needed to get my fix,” he says smiling. “My dad was a Scouser, he brought me up as a Liverpool supporter and the words are something I hold very dear. It sums up my outlook on life and how you cope when stuff gets chucked at you — when you walk through a storm hold your head up high…walk on, walk on, with hope in your heart.”

It’s a personal thing

What’s your favourite book? 

The Partner by John Grisham

What did you want to be when you were younger?

A footballer

What do you do to switch off from work?

A variety of interests, including sport, reading and travel

If you could invite anyone to a dinner party, living or dead, who would it be?

Bill Shankly

What would your super power be? 

The ability to add a few more hours
to the day

Limited marketing ‘potentially disastrous’

A shadow minister has said that the lack of a “proper” national marketing budget to inform mature students of a new loans system is “potentially disastrous”.

Gordon Marsden,  the FE  shadow minister,  was talking to FE Week after the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) announced a £6.5m local communications and marketing budget to publicise 24-plus advanced learning loans.

While many FE courses for the over-24s are currently subsidised by up to 50 per cent, from next autumn the government plans to scrap this financial support and introduce loans to cover the cost of level 3 (A-level equivalent) and level 4 (foundation degree or HND equivalent) courses.

“It is simply unacceptable that there will be no proper marketing budget for loans,” Mr Marsden told FE Week.

“This is the biggest change to FE funding in a generation.  The fact that the government will not be communicating these major changes effectively to learners is deeply worrying, potentially disastrous.”

He pointed to BIS’s own market research that showed only 11 per cent of learners surveyed would have taken their course if FE loans had been in operation.

“This could have serious implications for participation numbers, threatening course viability across countless colleges. Matthew Hancock and his BIS officials need to fight this corner with their Cabinet Office colleagues urgently.”

But a BIS spokesperson told FE Week that “in light” of the “relatively small numbers” of students involved for the first year of the change, the department didn’t feel a national marketing budget was needed.

“We feel it is best to concentrate on local channels, and make information and materials available nationally that can be tailored to meet local need,” said the spokesperson.

“Funding is to help colleges and training organisations prepare for the introduction of loans, including making sure learners have the information they need to make applications from April. This could include a range of local marketing building on the national materials already available.”

VAT is added to the fees of independent providers, which the loans have to cover, adding a 20 per cent mark-up that many believe will negatively impact the numbers  taking up apprenticeships. Under current proposals, learners will only start making repayments when they earn at least £21,000 a year.

The new marketing budget was announced in the Skills Funding Agency’s recent online update: “The agency has received an additional £6.5m to help providers prepare for the delivery of loans for 2013/14. Further information on this will be emailed separately to those providers in scope to receive the fund.”

BIS said the funds would come from money held by the department for the set-up of the loans system.

SFA crackdown finds no subcontractors to list

A promised list of banned subcontractors, due out last November, has no one to go on it.

In August, the Skills Funding Agency said it would produce the list “alongside the register of training organisations” to include subcontractors that the agency refused permission for lead providers to use.

“We will refresh this list each time the register of training organisations is published. Providers will remain on this list until they are listed on the register,” it said.

“If we revoke permission for a lead provider to use a subcontractor, we will add the subcontractor to the list. If we stop funding a lead provider because it is not listed on the register, we will also add it to the list.”

An agency spokesperson said: “We have not published a list as we don’t currently have any subcontractors that we have refused permission for lead providers to use.”

Peter Cobrin, founder and director of Apprenticeships England, said this week that he was surprised the list was empty.

“A quick glance of the register of training organisations suggests the agency has unresolved issues,” he said.

“There is no promised list of ‘organisations (that primes) won’t be permitted to use as a subcontractor’, despite earlier indications that this would happen. The list of names on the register also certainly made me raise an eyebrow.

“If the lack of entries on this list of banned subcontractors was intended to provide reassurance that all is well with every subcontractor, they need to think again.”

However, an agency spokesperson said it was “in dialogue” with lead providers whose subcontractors would be affected. “The list will be published to the sector in due course.”

In summer 2011, the agency promised to crack down on fraud and the misuse of public money in the FE and skills sector.

The extent of concern was revealed in communications at that time, leaked to FE Week, between Geoff Russell, then chief executive of the agency, and John Hayes, former FE Minister.

They revealed that £11m was lost to fraud or misuse in 2010-11, of which only £3m had been accounted for.

Police were involved in nine investigations, Mr Russell said in a letter to the minister that revealed the agency was pursuing 88 new allegations — “a record high” — with a further 17 being investigated by other agencies, including the police.

Meanwhile, the Association of Colleges (AoC) and Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) have been working together on a “more robust approach to the subcontracting process”.

Joy Mercer, AoC director of policy, said: “We have also been working on a common accord that we hope supply chain partnerships will agree to sign.

“AoC and AELP advocate self-regulation and mediation rather than mandatory structures, so it is important to have a solid framework for a code of conduct that enables providers and sub-contractors to ensure value for money while maintaining high standards of delivery to the benefit of students.”

Youngsters stranded by company administration

A London-based social enterprise company that worked with young adults to help them to find jobs has gone into administration.

The Walwyn Trust is believed to have left scores of youngsters unsure of their futures.

Miranda Cook, from Cambridgeshire, contacted FE Week claiming that her 17-year-old daughter, Charlotte, a Walwyn apprentice, was not paid last month.

“None of the young people have had a penny in wages or any idea what will happen to their diplomas, written work, references and, in some cases — although fortunately not my daughter’s — provision of their ongoing training,” she said.

Ms Cook said she also had concerns about the Walwyn’s sister company, Mymar Training, which has a current Skills Funding Agency (SFA) allocation of £4,579,466.

An automated response from the email address of Walwyn, which lists its contact details in Penzance, Cornwall, reads: “Please be advised that Walwyn is in administration.”

However, a Mymar worker who answered the phone at its Plymouth HQ said it was continuing to trade.

She declined to put FE Week through to management and said no statement would be issued on the situation of the two companies.

A joint statement from the SFA and the National Apprenticeship Service (NAS) said: “Walwyn Trust is the sister company and employment arm of Mymar Training Limited (who the agency holds a contractual relationship with).

“The agency and NAS have been advised by Mymar that due to new investment they are able to continue to trade.

“The agency and the NAS are working with Mymar to make sure that learners are continuing their learning at Mymar Training. Mymar has reassured the agency that all learners’ wages have been paid.

“The agency and NAS are committed to ensuring that learners receive their full learning and training and to ensure that all apprenticeships meet statutory quality standards and offer a good experience for apprentices and their employers.”

It added: “Any concerned parents or learners can contact Mymar Training in the first instance or the agency’s email address: mymar@skillsfundingagency.bis.gov.uk.”

Last summer, Walwyn launched a partnership with the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC), providing young people with access to paid, one-year workplace apprenticeships.

An REC spokesperson said: “We have contacted Walwyn and are waiting for a further explanation of their current status and whether they are still delivering their workplace apprenticeships scheme.

“If any of our members have encountered any problems working with Walwyn, we would encourage them to get in touch with us through our inquiry line.”

The REC inquiry line is on 020-7009 2100.

Birmingham principal honoured

A college principal “hasn’t quite come to terms with the news”  that she is now a dame.

Dr Christine Braddock, principal and chief executive of Birmingham Metropolitan College, was  recognised in the 2013 New Year Honours list  for services to further education.

She is one of 12 dames on this year’s list and joins the ranks of a rare group of college leaders, including Dame Ruth Silver, chair of the Learning and Skills Improvement Service, who was honoured in 2006, and  Geoff Hall, the  former principal of New College Nottingham,  who was knighted last year.

“It’s amazing — absolutely fantastic and incredible for FE to be recognised at this level,” said Dr Braddock, 58.

“When I got the letter I thought just how amazing it was, not just for me but for everyone — the leader gets all the accolades but it’s the team that should get the credit.”

The Lancashire-born principal, who lives in Worcester, has 30 years’ experience in senior leadership of  FE colleges. Before that she worked as a senior education adviser for the Home Office, managing education policy in 43 prisons across the Midlands.

She said she believed she was recognised because her college was “an absolutely integral part of the community”.

“All the work we do is about serving the needs of the community. We are outward facing.”

She was the first president of Birmingham’s Chamber of Commerce from the public sector for 200 years and this year will become the first FE figure to become a High Sheriff when she takes on the role for the West Midlands.

“That shows you how the city of Birmingham sees us,” she said. “We are a facilitator and a sister to the needs of the city — I have seen all aspects of community life and I’m so proud of the individuals I see changing their lives year after year. Some come with nothing and then leave with first-class qualifications, a great achievement for everyone involved.

“That’s why I stay in FE — I still get the same buzz as when I started.”

Dr Braddock, who has three children with husband Tony,  is a member of the 157 Group and a council member of  Aston University.

FE figures awarded CBEs this year include Angela O’Donoghue, principal of South Essex College, John Reilly, principal Mid Cheshire College, and Les Walton, the former principal of Tyne Metropolitan College, which he created after a merger.

Ms O’Donoghue started a sixth-form college from scratch, BSix, in Hackney and worked with the 157 Group raising the profile of international work in colleges.