Latest news from FE Week

All eyes on the prize

Rather than pressing for funding powers, LEPs and local authorities could have greater impact by focusing on the quality and relevance of what is offered by colleges and other providers in their areas, says Andy Gannon

Local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) and local authorities have their eyes on adult skills funding, arguing that taking decisions locally would be more effective than the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) regime. But how might this work?

There are two forms to the argument. One is the Heseltine case for a single funding pot in which adult skills is pooled with other budgets and then redistributed locally. The other is that the funding powers of the SFA should be delegated to LEPs, so that different choices are made in different areas.

It is not at all clear how a single pot, managed locally, could benefit adult skills. To increase investment in skills simply requires LEPs to control other budgets from which resources might be vired. Putting adult skills into a single pot would simply let local decision-makers reduce skills spending — and boost other budgets.

It isn’t the case that adult skills funding has less potential to generate growth than schools or higher education funding — indeed, it is more directly focused on that than other areas of education. Is is because the SFA has less political clout than other education funding bodies?

What, though, of the other argument — the bid to exercise some or all of the SFA funding powers at a local level. The implications become clear if we consider the different elements of funding separately.

There is a case for giving greater scope for LEPs to indicate that certain qualifications are important locally and should be funded in their area”

Is it suggested that each LEP should introduce its own funding formula and set its own rates? This would be bad news for large employers and any provider that works across LEP boundaries. Moreover, since SFA funding seeks to underpin an effective market by reflecting necessary differences in the cost of provision, there would need to be lots of local duplication of effort to develop a similar evidence base on costs or, more likely, sets of rates, giving rise to all manner of perverse incentives.

Is it the SFA role in setting allocations that is sought locally? It’s hard to imagine that the government would want to abandon the rule that funding should follow the learner. The alternative — funding places whether or not there is real demand for them — risks wasting resources.

Or is it the eligibility rules that those in favour of localism have in their sights? It would be difficult to vary the rules on individual eligibility; rules on residence, for example, are the province of the Home Office. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills couldn’t fund under-18s whatever locals thought, but, by the same token, couldn’t see whole cohorts of adults ruled ineligible in one county while welcomed next door.

So is it programme eligibility that might be varied? It would be odd if, after years of trying to bring order into the convoluted world of vocational qualifications, the government should stand back and allow local bodies to remove such coherence as exists. There is perhaps a case for giving greater scope for LEPs to indicate that certain qualifications are important locally and should be funded in their area, but that could readily be done by signalling to the SFA. It doesn’t need the creation of 102 new funding bodies.

LEPs and local authorities have a chance to influence provision by providing information about the labour market. They could get involved in assessment, helping to give robust evidence of competence to local employers and providing valuable feedback to trainers and trainees. They could develop a vision for the development of skills. Any of these would surely make more difference than replicating the current funding mechanism over the country.

Andy Gannon, 157 Group director of policy, PR and research

A culture of respect

Prompted by last week’s FE Week front-page report of bullying at the National Farrier Training Agency, Suze Clarke tells how students led the development of Middlesbrough College’s zero tolerance policy

It’s a sad reality that bullying can permeate just about any human scenario — and FE is no exception.

As the largest provider of post-16 education and training in the Tees Valley, with 12,000 students and almost 900 staff, Middlesbrough College has a responsibility to both its students and the community it serves to provide a safe and supportive learning environment.

We are proud to uphold a zero tolerance policy on all forms of bullying and harassment, and to have become the first FE college nationally to achieve the Bullying Intervention Group (BIG) award in 2012.

But how easy is it to maintain effective anti-bullying practice in a constantly evolving, diversifying and inclusive environment?

FE, by its very nature, is a melting pot of diversity, with different ages, cultures, needs, abilities, beliefs and attitudes converging in one learning environment. Our anti-bullying policy and practice must therefore reflect and be sensitive to this. The volume and diversity of our student body means that safeguarding measures must protect them in other settings or workplaces too.

When it comes to something as inherent to human nature as bullying, a focus on prevention rather than cure is often the most effective approach”

The challenges of tackling bullying in FE come from not only the physical and logistical differences, but also the complexities that stem from managing it in an adult environment, where bullying can often stretch beyond the college campus.

Middlesbrough College achieved the BIG award on the basis of our whole organisation approach to tackling bullying — clear communication between students and staff, policy and procedures that realistically reflect an FE setting, and an emphasis on embedding a culture of mutual respect and tolerance.

The student voice has been key. The students’ union (led by an elected, paid sabbatical officer) and student-led initiatives such as the bullying prevention group, awareness campaigns, and a peer mentor scheme, mean that students take ownership of targeting bullying and have a say in how we should deal with it.

Our decision to apply for the award was not motivated by a particular problem with bullying, but by our pride in stating that we take a proactive, institutional and fair approach to dealing with it. This positive message resonates with students, parents, staff and visitors.

Less reliance on public funding has resulted in the evolution of FE into an educational ‘marketplace’ in which students have become the consumers.

While we are forced to acknowledge this shifting climate, corporate necessity perhaps at times distracts from our raison d’être; students and lifelong learning are and should remain at the heart of FE.

Mike Hopkins, Middlesbrough’s principal, mirrors Ofsted when he says that a safe and supportive learning environment is fundamental to achievement. “It’s so important to us that our students know that they are in a ‘safe’ environment,” he says. “Too many have experienced difficult lives with poverty being the defining feature. If students feel secure, including from bullying, they have every chance of achieving way beyond even what they expect of themselves. ‘Work hard, be nice’ summarises very well what Middlesbrough College works hard to achieve.”

Further education is about equipping students with the core life skills to improve employability and prospects. But it’s also about instilling social values. Middlesbrough’s Skills 21 programme has given our anti-bullying practice the platform to really embed this culture of respect throughout the college.

When it comes to something as inherent to human nature as bullying, a focus on prevention rather than cure is often the most effective approach.

Suze Clarke, student liaison coordinator, Middlesbrough College

Who’s on your leadership bench?

Leadership development is standard practice in most blue chip companies, and yet is uncommon within FE. MidKent has decided to change that, as Adriana Temali-Smith explains

Many of us battle daily with raising the aspirations of our students, but what about the aspirations of our staff? Do we actively encourage them to fully consider the options and opportunities within FE? Do we inspire them to want to lead within our sector?

At MidKent College we are growing our own leaders; nurturing the creativity and drive of people on the ‘shop floor’. We are readying them for the next step up the ladder by diversifying their skills and giving them opportunities outside their current roles.

Our talent development scheme aims to give staff both the appetite and ability for leadership. Skills are fostered and mentored within their current role, but for many it provides the preparation and confidence for a lateral or upwards step within the organisation. We aim to select our best talent, so we have an open application process, with individuals putting themselves forward rather than having a sponsor or nomination.

It’s tough to get into the scheme. Applicants must complete an assessment centre day, including a business presentation to the executive committee and participation in a group task. As Steve Grix, our outgoing principal, puts it: “We want to know that we are taking people who can step up to a challenge and excel. For many this will be the hardest interview process they will ever have to face.”

Formally accredited by the Institute of Leadership and Management, each scheme of work is tailored to the specific learning needs of the participant. It works on a combination of coaching and mentoring, workshops, project work, and direct input from senior leaders, including the governing body. But while each scheme may differ, the main theme always centres around confident leadership.

We are growing our own leaders; nurturing the creativity and drive of people on the ‘shop floor’. We
are readying them for the next step up the ladder”

We have seen a lot of recent media coverage about the lack of suitable leadership and the reluctance of professionals to move to the top jobs. There could be a significant skills shortage over the next decade in our sector, both as a result of an ageing workforce and significant talent shortages.

This is where the talent development scheme was born; a recognised need to nurture a network of promising staff from all levels of the organisation – what some might call a talent pool, though I prefer the term leadership bench.

MidKent College’s leadership bench is now in its third year with visible results: 40 per cent of the graduates have been promoted into management posts, and nearly two-thirds have taken on the leadership of special project groups.

However, not everything has gone smoothly and we have learned along the way. Three of the 12 participants in the first year subsequently left the organisation. We quickly recognised that having a great programme wasn’t enough if we didn’t do more to integrate the participants at the end of the experience. It was important that we continued to provide an appropriate level of intellectual stretch in their core roles.

Sue McLeod, formerly the deputy principal and now the newly appointed principal of MidKent, says: “One of the outcomes I feel most proud of is when graduates of the scheme feel confident to state their aspirations out loud, even if that means saying to someone ‘I want your job one day’. Sometimes I feel we are all very British when it comes to ambition, politely letting others jump the career queue or keeping our aspirations to ourselves.’’

MidKent is creating a network and culture of people who not only aspire to top jobs, but who have the skills to be successful in those jobs. We are confident that we have contributed to the leadership bench that we hope will change the future landscape of FE.

Adriana Temali-Smith, programme
manager for MidKent College’s Talent Development Scheme

Why FE needs trained teachers

Every learner in the English FE and skills sector deserves to be taught by qualified teachers and trainers — and that the right should remain in law, says Toni Fazaeli

The issue of teaching qualifications has been in the news again, following Stephen Twigg’s announcement that if Labour wins the next election, all teachers will need formal teaching qualifications or will need to gain them within two years.

In his speech, the shadow education secretary said that high-quality teaching was the most important factor in improving education.

The 2007 regulations requiring teachers and trainers in FE and skills to have teaching qualifications have been retained, for the time being, following a government consultation last year. The Institute for Learning’s response to the consultation drew on the views of more than 5,300 members, and their overwhelming support for initial teacher training and qualifications was echoed in the responses from other individuals and organisations throughout the sector.

It is possible that the government will choose to deregulate, so that employers can decide on whether they require teaching qualifications. I have, however, heard of no other profession where the government is thinking of removing a national requirement for initial training and qualifications. In fact, the coalition recently dropped proposals to remove the current requirement for street works operatives and supervisors to hold specific qualifications, following a consultation in which a number of concerns were raised, especially about the potential for a drop in standards of workmanship.

I hope that the government will listen to the case for requiring teachers and trainers in FE and skills to be qualified too. Does the quality of teaching matter less than the quality of roads?

More than four million 14 to 19-year-olds and adults are educated and trained through the English FE and skills system each year. They include those studying for A-levels on the way to higher education; young and adult apprentices; adults receiving specialised training in the workplace; and some of the most vulnerable people in society — those with learning difficulties; adult and young offenders; and those for whom education has been a closed book.

Every one of them deserves to be taught by professional teachers and trainers, and that right to be taught by qualified teachers should remain in law.

If we are to attract the brightest and the best industry experts, we must be able to demonstrate that teaching and training in FE is a respected step up professionally”

The law is in the public interest; is not unduly restrictive; and is tailored for our sector: new teachers or trainers have up to a year to gain a short preparatory teaching qualification and up to five years to gain a teaching qualification. This gives time and flexibility for industry experts entering teaching to become dual professionals — and, if a person teaches fewer than 28 hours a year, there is no requirement in law to become a qualified teacher.

It is in the public interest that tomorrow’s engineers, accountants, technicians, mechanics, plumbers, chefs and healthcare workers are taught by teachers who know their specialist subject well and have good teaching skills too.

It may be tempting to employ unqualified teachers to drive costs down, but it is a false economy. Who thinks the decision about doctors, nurses, surgeons and paramedics being qualified should be left to individual hospitals? The FE and skills sector’s ability to make its important contribution to the well-being of our nation’s economy and society relies on the quality and professionalism of its teachers and trainers.

And if we are to attract the brightest and the best industry experts, we must be able to demonstrate that teaching and training in FE is a respected step up professionally, with good initial teacher training to support this second professionalism.

A national requirement for teachers and trainers to complete initial teacher training and be qualified is in the national interest and the interests of a highly regarded FE and skills sector — in my view just as much, and some may even argue more so, than road operatives.

Toni Fazaeli, chief executive,
Institute for Learning

Ross Maloney, chief executive, the Skills Show

Ross Maloney does not give much away about his personal life.

But the chief executive of the Skills Show does admit that he’s a perfectionist with a critical eye — one that he casts mainly on himself.

What is clear is that this conscientious 32-year-old has a lot on his shoulders. He’s responsible for carrying on the legacy of the 2011 WorldSkills Show held in London.

The event — the largest ever international skills competition and careers show — was such a success that it led to an annual national skills show. And Maloney’s team is in charge of it, and its aim to promote vocational pathways.

“We now have the national public platform for skills competitions to take place,” says the information management graduate who grew up in Monifieth, a small seaside town just outside Dundee.

“I’m quite hard on myself and the team to always be striving for excellence. The local stuff is continuous, but the show comes only once a year — you have a window of opportunity to get that right.

“The biggest challenge is that none of us is 14, so we spend a lot of time talking to young people.”

The Scot, who now lives in Borough, London, says he first “earned his stripes” working for the Scouts. Did seven years working with this institution teach him what young people want?

“When I started, membership was in decline with fewer adults willing to volunteer,” says Maloney who was involved with the organisation throughout his teens.

“We’d gone through a review — a big bit of research that led to a programme of change including a new brand and uniform — which was a huge deal for an organisation of that size [Scouts has half a million members in the UK alone].

“All sorts of questions were raised: How do you really embed the change? Create impact and reduce waiting lists? We swapped lots of stuff over from manuals to online, moving away from printed resources. We could deliver stuff almost within the hour to adults; in some ways I earned my stripes doing that,” he admits.

He ended up as head of the Scouts international division, the “Foreign Office of the movement”, he jokes.

But the charity with a turnover of £25m is not to be sniffed at. These days there are groups in every country, except five communist states: China, Laos, North Korea, Cuba and Myanmar (formerly Burma).

“As we are the founding nation, we are quite important within the international division,” admits Maloney. “It meant I got to travel.”

It was also his responsibility to take on huge events such as weekends bringing leaders together at Windsor Castle, gifted to the organisation by the Queen once a year — and a European Scout jamboree for 10,000 people.

He moved on to manage flagship projects, such as developing online tools to help adults to plan programmes.

By the time he’d finished, he’d covered seven different roles. It was, he says, “the best possible graduate scheme”.

“Lots of my friends have done more corporate training programmes and it’s been good for them. Mine was different because people believed in what I could do.

“The Scouts is now growing and is recognised as an organisation that has a real value for society. It’s interesting to have been part of that: a huge body with just 250 people working for it in UK — that’s actually a very small secretariat for that size and meant you really felt you were part of it.”

Maloney, whose father James looks after global planning for an American oil company while his mother Anne is a social worker, next took his passion to showcasing vocational education.

“In 2006 the UK bid to host WorldSkills was successful. We started ramping up more with the appointment of a chief executive who pulled together a senior team,” he says.

A 28-year-old Maloney was appointed as operations director in 2009, on a three-year contract.

“I had responsibility for venues such as City Hall, Westminster and the O2 and had to arrange thousands of beds across London, catering, customer services, transport — a fleet of buses — to make it all work,” says Maloney.

He also had to sort out education programmes for the young competitors and the show’s young volunteers.

“We had a small team, just the chief executive and six of us, so it was like starting with a blank sheet of paper. It was strange going from a really established organisation to one where you couldn’t even work out where to get paperclips from,” Maloney says.

“It was like an embryo but Chris Humphries [founding chief executive of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills], the chair of the board at the time, said we’d done the hard work to get to that point . . . that we could all do it.”

He says while the event was a competition, the bigger picture was how to change people’s attitudes towards vocational education.

“It wasn’t just about creating a workforce, it was about inspiring volunteers. What were they going to get out of it? We needed this to be more than just a day out of school. It had to be engaging, with big ceremonies. We wanted to tell the story about skills. It was great to be a part of something you could be so free with.”

Held at ExCeL London, young people came from 51 countries to compete to be the “best of the best” in their chosen skill. It was the first time the UK had hosted the competition and more than 200,000 visitors were able to ‘have a go’ at hundreds of new skills, meet employers and get specialist careers advice.

The University of Dundee graduate says it was the “right time” as the financial crisis had exacerbated a “significant decline” in the number of skilled young people.

“The London event was such a success after the team did exceptionally well, and I was asked to take on the legacy,” he says.

The first national Skills Show event was born and held in Birmingham’s NEC last year, continuing the theme of skills competitions and ‘have a go’ activities.

How has this keen cyclist, single but with friends forming a big part of his life, keep up the energy to drive the concept forward?

“The organisation moved on from WorldSkills but we’re still moving on . . . it’s a journey. I’ve got a very pragmatic approach to things,” he says.

“Some might say I’m risk adverse. I think I keep the day-to-day going, but also take the opportunities to look forward.

“Sometimes my team probably wish I’d just get off their backs but it’s about getting things right. My friends would say I’m a perfectionist but it’s important that doesn’t reflect on the team. They do an immense job.”

He adds: “I think there are tremendous opportunities out there for young people. We all have a responsibility to inspire young people and expose them to opportunities and make sure vocational routes are not seen as a second-class route to academic paths.”

It’s a personal thing

What’s your favourite book?

To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

What did you want to be when you were younger?

A doctor

What do you do to switch off from work?

I go out on my bike

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

Steve Jobs

What would your super power be?

To be able to shapeshift

Agency losses top £6m mark

More than £6m of Skills Funding Agency cash was written off last year, an increase of nearly 50 per cent on the previous year.

The agency’s annual report and accounts show a 43 per cent increase, £1.871m, in its losses for the 2012/13 academic year.

The overall loss of £6.192m was largely accounted for by dealings with just four providers, who either went into liquidation or administration. They were responsible for £5.989m of taxpayers’ money being lost.

They were named in the report, because they were over the identification threshold of £250,000, as Leicestershire-based UK E-Learning Limited (two cases totalling £2.253m), which went into liquidation in June last year; and Rotherham-based Mymar Training Limited (one case at £1.585m), which went into liquidation in February.

London-based Apprenticeship Training Limited (one case at £1.289m), which went into liquidation in October, was also listed, along with Bury-based Real Time Training Limited (two cases totalling £862,000), which went into administration in June last year.

A spokesperson for the agency, which was recognised last year by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy for outstanding financial management, said: “It is important to note that although the gross value has increased, the overall number of cases has reduced by 55 per cent from 51 in the 2011/12 academic year to 23 last year.”

The report shows that £5.877m of the losses related to funding for workplace training and apprenticeships, including Train to Gain. The rest applied to European Social Fund provision (£313,000) and administration expenditure (£2,000)

The agency spokesperson added: “The agency has done everything it can to ensure the recovery of funds is maximised and only writes off debts . . . where necessary and as a last resort.

“While £6m is a significant amount in absolute terms, in relative terms to the actual budget it represents approximately 0.15 per cent of the total funds — £4.1bn — allocated to more than 1,000 colleges and training providers during the year.”

According to the report, the agency can write off individual losses of less than £10,000. Above that figure, and up to £2m, they can only be signed off by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). Losses above £2m need to be run by the Treasury.

The report says BIS allowed 10 cases to be written off (totalling £6.174m — so financially almost all of the losses). There were 13, totalling £18,000, written off by the agency. The Treasury’s permission was not required in any of the cases.

A BIS spokesperson said: “The department only considers writing-off losses after careful appraisal of the facts and is satisfied that there is no feasible alternative.”

Success rates are ‘palpable nonsense’

Ofsted chief Sir Michael Wilshaw has launched a scathing attack on the FE and skills sector, branding success rates among colleges as “palpable nonsense”.

Speaking at Westminster’s Church House on Thursday, he reissued his call — originally made at the time of the education watchdog’s annual report in November — for the government to “shine a spotlight” on the sector.

“Vocational and skills-based training has not been good for many years because successive governments have not shone a bright enough spotlight on it,” he said.

“Once again, these young people have remained in the shadows.

“I was critical of the FE and skills sector in my annual report and questioned whether the ‘system was fit for purpose’. We face an apparent paradox.

“Too few young people reach 19 with the qualifications they need for employment. Yet so-called ‘success rates’ in colleges have been very high.

“This is palpable nonsense. It has arisen because providers have focused on the volume of qualifications and not on the real needs of individual learners and employers.

“This unacceptable situation has been reinforced by the perverse incentives of post-16 funding streams.”

Sir Michael went on to say he was “encouraged” by the government’s response to his annual report. He welcomed the government’s Rigour and Responsiveness paper as setting a “new welcome tone of high expectations and rapid intervention to support all FE and skills providers to be good”.

“It also promised to take more rapid action where failure or inadequacy is identified,” he said.

In a speech entitled Unseen Children, Sir Michael described the creation of the FE Commissioner’s post as an “important position in an increasingly complex post-16 landscape”.

Sir Michael went on to outline three recommendations for the sector within a package of eight across the wider education system.

He said: “The government should be more prepared to dismantle inadequate colleges that have grown too large to assure quality across their different activities.

“Smaller specialist units, including University Technology Colleges, should be created with stronger links to business, commerce and industry.”

He added: “The number of apprentices is increasing, but mainly for the over-25 age group. The focus now needs to be on the younger age group — 16 to 19-year-olds — who would benefit from a rigorous level three apprenticeship over at least a two or three-year period.

“My seventh recommendation, therefore, is that the Richard Review should be fully implemented. It provides a sound basis on which to reform and grow this system.”

His final recommendation was for all post-16 providers to report on the rate of progress and outcomes for all young people who had previously been eligible for free school meals.

———————————————————————–

Editorial: New incentives needed

Sir Michael Wilshaw is dishing out dirt on the FE and skills sector.

But he needs to understand that a share of that dirt must also land on him.

He is right to point at funding incentives as being behind the growth in the number of qualifications and success rates.

But he should also acknowledge that his inspectors have themselves relied heavily on success rates in the process of coming to their conclusions.

Ofsted, under its new common inspection framework, appears to be getting better at using alternative performance measures, and interestingly provider grades appear on average to be improving.

But the FE sector still lacks a national performance regime, or related funding incentives, for positive destinations.

In fact, astonishingly, even the new traineeships scheme lacks a financial reward for progression into work.

The government needs to put a financial bonus on each and every positive learner destination.

Only then will the sector be set free from the qualification sweatshop.

Nick Linford, editor of FE Week

Clerks’ course safe with us, says ETF

Governors’ clerks have been assured that their training will continue after the Learning and Skills Improvement Service (LSIS) closes at the end of next month.

Sir Geoff Hall, interim chief executive of the Education Training Foundation, which will take over from LSIS, said there was “no basis for thinking the clerks’ course won’t continue”.

Clerking In The New Era: Implications For College Governance, which LSIS says is the first research into clerking for 10 years, found worries over the continuity of the clerks’ qualification programme, availability of governor training materials, annual conference and governance support.

Sir Geoff said the course was discussed at the clerks’ conference “and we are expecting a proposal from the national clerks’ network so they can take responsibility for the continuation of the courses, which is just the type of professionalism we want to encourage”.

A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) added: “There’s a commitment that those who are on the existing clerking programmes will be able to complete them.”

The report, based on consultation with 31 clerks, also highlighted increased demands they faced as a direct result of the new freedoms under the New Challenges, New Chances policy document, concerns over access to college budgets, geographical barriers to training and misconceptions over the work of clerks.

It said: “Barriers some clerks face include difficulties accessing college budgets, and limited budgets for training, not just for themselves but for their board members. For almost a fifth of clerks, the training budget for their own training and board members was under £1,000 per annum.”

Geographical barriers “added time and cost”, for clerks in more remote regions, preventing them travelling to national training events.

It said 93 per cent of clerks surveyed were educated to degree level, with 40 per cent having higher degrees, and many coming into clerking from local government, civil service or higher education backgrounds.

But it said there was a “misconception” of the role.

“It is viewed as administrative — rather than governance advisory. This misconception, many clerks feel, is not helped by the title ‘clerk’. The time may be right to consider a review of the title and the consideration of alternatives including; ‘governance adviser’ or ‘director of governance’,” it said. The priorities for the future, according to the publication, include working with the foundation to ensure continuity of the clerks’ qualification programme, support and training for new clerks, including clerk induction programmes and induction pack, and possibly introducing a formal mentoring scheme.

A spokesperson for LSIS said: “Over the past few months we have had discussions with BIS, the Education and Training Foundation and a range of partners regarding the many LSIS services, and we continue to work with them. In the few weeks that remain LSIS is, to the best of our remaining capacity, keen to support the transfer and continuation of services that have been valued by and of benefit to the sector.”

Pember is back for AoC review

The former head of FE and skills investment at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is to lead a review of college governance.

Dr Susan Pember, who retired from the civil service just over two months ago, has taken up the post of governance review adviser at the Association of Colleges.

Her first task is to draw up an action plan to support governors and clerks.

She said the review had been commissioned “not because the present system is broken, far from it, governance of FE colleges is working well, but to determine what is now needed for the future”.

The work is expected to take around three months and will involve finding good practice by looking at organisations relevant to college governance, and carrying out an appraisal of existing support.

Martin Doel, association chief executive, said: “With her background as a former principal, as a governor of a college (West Herts) and as a former senior civil servant working on this agenda in BIS, Dr Pember was eminently well qualified to lead this work.” It is due to be completed by September.

The review will also look at helping chairs to assess output from Ofsted, the type of helpline and web support that should be in place, and legal and advice services.

It comes five months after Ofsted boss Sir Michael Wilshaw told members of the education select committee that college governance was not as responsive as school governance when failure was identified.

Sir Michael had already expressed concerns about college governance in his first annual report as Ofsted boss in November last year.

Ofsted learning and skills director Matthew Coffey welcomed Dr Pember’s review.

He said: “Governance is such a fundamental aspect of leadership and management, something that was highlighted in last year’s annual report.

“Weak accountability, leadership and governance are common failings in poor provision.

“One of the most significant underpinning reasons why providers failed to improve was a lack of effective accountability.

“Following discussions with the association’s governors’ council, Ofsted is developing a governors’ dashboard that will support governors in their role.”

Mr Doel said: “With the freedoms extended to colleges under New Challenges New Chances it is clear that more will be asked of governors and governance in colleges.

“These enhanced expectations were reinforced in Rigour and Responsiveness and in the annual report by the chief inspector.

“In response to this, the governors’ council has initiated a review of governance support requirements and arrangements for colleges with funding from BIS.”

Dr Pember, who got an OBE in 2000 for services to FE, joined the then-Department for Education and Skills in 2000 as director of adult basic skills strategy, before taking up her BIS position in 2006.

She began her career as a lecturer and later became a senior education officer, before taking over as principal at Canterbury College.