College’s shameful disregard for the rules

The findings in the Tenon report feel a little unsubstantiated in places. However, what the FE sector should be worried about is the underlying message and detailed data manipulation methods.

Changing the ends dates of courses retrospectively, removing overseas or work-based learners from their ILR return and using transfer codes to remove students from specific lines of data are not ‘mistakes’. They’re a blatant disregard for the rules.

In all of this Tenon Education Training and Skills Limited has been awfully quiet. The report has a lot to say, and yet the organisation has refused to comment on it publicly.

Similarly the report, described as being “strictly confidential”, is yet to be published or made available on the internet. It all feels rather hush-hush.

So why are Tenon not willing to back the report? Do they know their evidence is insufficient? Or is it because they don’t want to cause too much of a furore, thereby jeopardising their relationship with potential clients? We may never know.

The Tenon Education Training and Skills College Forum is a peculiar beast as well. The report suggests the group, designed to give “a voice” to member colleges in responese to government announcements, was created directly from the issues concerning success rates.

“Many college Principals feel cheated on how a number of other colleges had achieved their continuous improvement in success rates and the results published by the LSC and Ofsted confirmed what many had suspected for a long time, that there were others within the Sector who did not honestly represent success rates,” the report reads.

Shrouded in mystery, the purpose of the forum seems to sit somewhere between the Freemasons and an outspoken think tank.

This is exemplified by the ‘entry criteria’ needed to register. What on earth are they judging these colleges on? Is there some kind of initiation process for each principal? It’s like something out of a Dan Brown novel.

What’s more frightening is how blase the government appears to be about the issue. Presumably because it deals with data, they’re assured parents and the wider public won’t find out or care about it. Or, which would be far worse, the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) are just blissfully unaware that it’s even happening.

“The Skills Funding Agency is assured that data manipulation is not widespread in the sector,” an SFA spokesperson said.
“Since 2009 we have only uncovered one case of data manipulation. This was uncovered through audit and appropriate steps were taken.”

The survey by Lsect seems to corroborate the findings in the Tenon report. Whatever your thoughts are on how ‘widespread’ data manipulation is, multiple sources have confirmed that it’s happening. That’s significant, and it’s about time the FE sector did something about it.

Auditors need to up their game. If colleges are found to bending the rules, they should be named and shamed. No exceptions. If needs be, data returns should be published online with all known tricks highlighted and condemned. Over the top? Perhaps.

But if it makes senior management and MIS teams embarrassed enough to change their ways, it’ll be worth it.

For those who are playing by the rules, my thanks. FE Week Agitator is pleased to hear that some colleges are prepared to be credible and face the consequences of changing success rates – both good and bad. It’s the only way we’ll start reversing this shameful trend.

Ofsted risk-assessment under spotlight

Declining Ofsted grades were at the forefront of the ‘FE & Skills Inspections’ Westminster Briefing conference, with recent statistics showing a drop of one or more grades at 65 per cent of colleges since January this year.

Matthew Coffey, the director of development, learning and skills at Ofsted, said the fall in grades is because of a more risk-based approach to selecting colleges for inspection, due to limited resources.

The director strongly emphasised that the downfall is not reflective of “the state of the nation”.

“If we’re targeting our inspectors at those providers that we’ve got the most concern about, we’re going to see a picture like this,” he said.

“But the state of the nation is that around 70 per cent of providers are ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’.”

He added that it is “unfortunate” that this point has been “lost” in the dialogue about grades. “Without the bigger picture [people are seeing] a declining sector. And I really want to reinforce that it’s not the state of the nation you’re seeing at the moment.”

Mr Coffey believes that the landscape will begin to “balance a little”. He said that resources mean Ofsted will do “a little bit less” of the risk based approach and “much more” work looking at providers that ‘require improvement’. He hopes this will mean there will be an “upward trajectory” and a “much more pleasant picture in the shift of the graph”.

All we ask for is fairness, openness and transparency”

The event was chaired by Nick Linford, the managing editor of FE Week. He led audience voting on a number of issues, from the grades slump to success rates. Despite reassurances from Mr Coffey, when asked why they thought there had been a decline in grades 42 per cent of the audience cited ‘Ofsted have moved the benchmarks’ as the reason. (You can find further details about what the audience thought on the graphs to the right.)

The new Common Inspection Framework (CIS) was also discussed by Mr Coffey. Ofsted had said it was due to be published by last Friday, but the director announced that it is now likely to be released this Tuesday. “It’s important it’s published at the same time as the schools framework,” he said.

The framework will give details of three headline grades – outcomes for learners, quality for teaching, learning and assessment, and the effectiveness of leadership and management – which will lead to an overall effectiveness grade.

The ‘satisfactory’ grade will be replaced by ‘requires improvement’. “I accept [that this is] an uncomfortable use of terminology”, Mr Coffey said, “but I think that Sir Michael is very clear that satisfactory just isn’t satisfactory anymore.”

He said that it will be made clear in inspection reports that colleges are on a trajectory and that Ofsted will “invest in coming back even sooner so that [they] can celebrate that [colleges have] become good”.

The importance of self-assessment reports (SAR) were highlighted by the director, who said they are partly needed to assess risk, which can not only be determined using data. He explained that they “help to mitigate the story that might be invisible on raw date”. The director also asserted the significance of inspection nominees, which have an “even more important role” to play with the introduction of two day notice inspections.

During the conference Mr Coffey made it clear to the audience that Ofsted has a complaints process and that people “must complain” if they think there is a problem with how their inspection was handled.

Tim Eyton-Jones, the principal of John Ruskin College, said that it took “confidence” to have this robust conversation, particularly when newly appointed to a role. Mr Coffey agreed, stating that the confidence of newly appointed principals and senior leadership teams is “a really important issue”.

Nick Linford, managing editor of FE Week, Matthew Coffey, national director at Ofsted, Tim Eyton-Jones, principal of John Ruskin College

Mr Jones also said that he has “serious concerns” with the current inspection framework and is “yet to be convinced” that these worries will be addressed in the new framework.

The principal, who has been working in the sector for 25 years, was particularly critical of the disparity he sees in how Ofsted treat different education providers.

He spoke about how John Ruskin College was once given ‘good’ in a number of areas by Ofsted, but was awarded an overall ‘satisfactory’ grade, because there was only evidence of improvement in the last year. Later on he saw that an academy had been awarded ‘outstanding’ when it had been open less than a year.

“All we ask for is fairness, openness and transparency,” Mr Eyton-Jones said. “We can’t have an inspectorate regime where it’s one rule for one sector and one rule for another.Let’s be honest, the external environment that we’re operating in at the moment is incredible complex, it’s incredibly competitive and there’s every indication that it’s going to get harder in the future.

“That’s not an excuse, but it’s got to be acknowledged.”

The principal added: “If we’re going to take a risk based approach to inspection, let’s have a true clear set of criteria, so that we as a sector know if we’re dipping down… because if we all know, then we might be able to change our approach.”

Click here to download our detailed round up of the delegate voting participation

A diverse HE landscape

The government’s white paper Students at the heart of the system envisages a broader, more responsive higher education landscape in which further education colleges play a full part, alongside higher education institutions and alternative providers, in meeting the needs of an increasingly diverse body of students. The White Paper notes the distinctive contribution of college-based higher education: “colleges have displayed particular strengths in reaching out to non-traditional higher education learners, including mature and part-time students”.

The government has asked the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) to implement reforms to diversify the higher education system, among them the redistribution of student places through the core and margin policy. The aim is to increase student choice and ensure access to higher education providers offering a high-quality education and value for money. For 2012-13, just over half of the 20,000 ‘margin’ places have been awarded to 155 further education colleges, of which 65 are not currently directly funded by HEFCE.

HEFCE has been working closely with these colleges, and with the Association of Colleges and other stakeholder groups, to ensure that they are properly supported in the coming academic year. We welcome the opportunities that this brings, for students and for the sector. We also recognise that these changes are not without their challenges, for us and for those working to provide excellent higher education.

The core and margin process is not simply about redistributing a number of full-time higher education places. We need also to think about how we engage effectively with both a larger number and broader range of providers, and to reflect on what we need to do to maintain appropriate levels of assurance in the use of public funds, while keeping the regulatory burden on institutions to a minimum.

Previously, it was perhaps too easy for us to compartmentalise ‘HE in FE’. We are working to ensure that our thinking about college-based higher education is an integral part of our policy development and implementation. This includes, for example, the evolution of the quality assurance system and the provision of information for prospective students.
We have already made important changes to the way we operate, targeting our funding to secure the greatest public benefit. For example, those FE colleges awarded places through the core and margin exercise will receive HEFCE funding to support their widening participation and retention activity in 2012-13. Our recent consultation on teaching funding sought views on how to support students with Level 5 qualifications (often gained in FE colleges) to progress to honours degrees.

We understand that for many FE colleges, higher education provision is an important, but small, part of the overall mix of their activities. We are keen to work with colleges delivering higher education to share experience and also, potentially, to seek collective solutions to the particular challenges of providing higher education in colleges.

The more diverse provider base imagined in the White Paper is not easily segmented, and may become increasingly varied as providers respond to the reform of the higher education system. This diversity is, and will remain, a key strength, but whatever business models are developed, the quality of the student experience must remain the priority.

HEFCE is aware that a number of universities and colleges are developing innovative new partnership models, but that in some places, the rhetoric of competition has led to tensions. This is perhaps to be expected, and the most effective universities and colleges will undoubtedly adapt to the challenges posed by these competitive forces.

The government has asked us to report in December on the impact of the reforms on students and the sector, and this will include a preliminary assessment of the impact of core and margin on HE-FE partnership arrangements. We want to retain the benefits of strong partnerships at the same time as delivering reforms to provide greater flexibility. Our emergent proposals for core and margin in 2013-14 take account of this. We will also be looking closely at how the redistributed places are filled – it is not in the student interest to have under-recruitment when there are limits on the number of places available.

The government has this week published its response to the White Paper consultation and the technical consultation on a new regulatory framework for higher education. In considering how we can best implement the next steps in the government’s reform programme, HEFCE’s efforts will be concentrated on working in partnership with students, universities and colleges, and other national agencies to ensure the effective stewardship of public funds, to reduce administrative burden wherever possible, and to maximise the potential of an increasingly diverse sector to provide opportunity, choice and excellence for all those who wish to participate in higher education.

Ed Hughes, Regional Consultant
Higher Education Funding Council for England

An ‘outrageous’ mace-use of funds

Bradford College has stood by its decision to spend £24,000 on a decorative mace for its graduation ceremonies.

The purchase has been described as a “crass bit of judgement” by the lecturers’ union and “offensive” by a member of College staff.

Designed by the upmarket jewellers Fattorini, the mace was approved after the cost was reduced from the initial quotation of £35,000. Minutes from a governing body meeting to discuss whether to buy the medieval club noted concern at the expense, which “would be a sensitive issue in times of budget cuts”.

In response to criticism, the College said the mace was financed by corporate sponsorship and would be “symbolic of the achievements, success and aspirations of the College and its higher education students.”

Maces play a decorative role in graduation ceremonies, providing a symbolic representation of an institution’s authority. There is no legislation stating that they need to be used.

It is ridiculous to spend so much money on such decorations at a time when cuts are hitting students so hard.”

Julie Kelley, regional official for the UCU, which represents 500 lecturers at the College, said: “It’s appalling that the College is spending £24,000 of its income on a bit of bling.”

At a time when jobs are being axed, staff pay is being driven down and lecturers hit with attacks on their pensions, Sally Hunt, the general secretary of the UCU, said this is “an outrageous misuse of funds”.

A lecturer at the College, who would like to remain anonymous, said: “It really is quite an offensive message to send out. When you think that [money] could have been spent on employing a support worker to assist a student through the year.”

The lecturer highlighted that Bradford is one of the poorest cities in the country. “If I was a student coming from one of the inner city wards here, having to scratch around for bus fare, I think I would be quite offended by the College spending money like that.

“We don’t have paper to give out to students, we don’t have pens to give out to students, there are a whole host of other things that could be paid for.”

The lecturer added that there is a “top dressing attitude” at the College, which is focused on making things “look good”.

The College holds graduation ceremonies once a year and Ms Kelley pointed out that it could have commissioned students in its welding department to design and make a mace as a project. Wooden maces can also be bought at a much cheaper cost – from a couple of hundred pounds.

Pete Mercer, vice president the National Union of Students, said: “It is ridiculous to spend so much money on such decorations at a time when cuts are hitting students so hard.”

The union said the money could have been used to provide full £30 per week EMA payments for at least 18 students a year, buy hundreds of text books, or save a teacher’s job.

Functional Skills funded for 38 per cent less

Providers delivering in the workplace will receive almost 40 per cent less funding when they are forced to switch from Adult Basic Skills (ABS) Certificates to Functional Skills qualifications in August.

The current version of the Learning Aim Reference Application (LARA) shows that while providers receive £505 for each ABS qualification they deliver, under Functional Skills they will receive only £314 (see table).

Trudi Stevens, owner of Green Lantern Training Company said: “Take 20 per cent off for the prime’s cut (and it) leaves me £240 to deliver it.

“Remove £50 for registration and certification, £10 for training materials and 20 per cent for overheads – I’m left (with) £132 to deliver what will be at least 20 hours teaching, which works out at £6.60 an hour.

“I could get more stacking shelves in my local Aldi.”

NIACE is particularly concerned because of the challenging nature of the assessment of Functional Skills and the increased costs of supporting learners to successful achievement.”

Further concerns have been voiced on the “Apprenticeships England” LinkedIn group.

Rachel Squires, a work-based learning co-ordinator at Bicton College said: “With the pressures on training providers to complete, achieve and fund I can unfortunately see the focus being removed from the young person and their career opportunities.

“Functional Skills is becoming the final barrier that is proving just too much for many to get over. So many work-based learners who have a real and positive role to play in the workplace, have drive, enthusiasm and practical skills, yet can’t get through level 1 Functional Skills will be dropped as the resources are not there to get them through.”

The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE) say they are also worried about the decision.

Carol Taylor, director of development and research at NIACE said: “If, according to these figures that the funding available for the delivery of functional skills in the workplace (especially for level 1 and 2) is no greater than that which is currently available for literacy and numeracy that would be a cause for concern.  NIACE is particularly concerned because of the challenging nature of the assessment of Functional Skills and the increased costs of supporting learners to successful achievement.”

A spokesman for the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) said: “We are heavily engaged in discussions about trying to ensure that Functional Skills funding more properly reflects costs of delivery.”

The funding rate for functional skills was added to the LARA on March 24 as part of the Employer Responsive (ER) Other provision.

“The funding rate for Functional Skills has been set at 0.12 Standard SLNs,” the SFA website reads.

“The funding value has been set based on the recommendation of the Funding

External Technical Advisory Group that advises the Agency on funding rates and is based on the average time taken to deliver Functional Skills in ALR.”

ABS qualifications in numeracy and literacy at level 1 and 2 will cease to be funded by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) from August.

However, it is understood that entry level ABS Certificates will continue to be funded into 2013.

SFA £2.3m website hardly used

The FE Choices website has been viewed by 6,230 people since it launched in January, figures obtained by FE Week reveal.

The  response from the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) to a Freedom of Information request shows that the website, which allows the public to compare the performance of providers with one another, has been visited by 1,246 ‘unique’ visitors on average each month.

The request, submitted by FE Week, also reveals that the FE Choices website has cost more the taxpayer more than £2.3 million to date.

The website itself cost £630,000 to build, with the remaining £1,704,000 spent on the gathering and production of data.

it doesn’t take a web expert to see it could have been done for a lot less.”

The value of the website has been questioned by campaign group the Taxpayers’ Alliance.

“At £375 per visitor, this website doesn’t look like great value for money,” Emma Boon, campaign director for the Taypayers’ Alliance said.

“It’s important that young people are informed about the choices they have for further education, but creating a website that is hardly being used is pointless. It is incredible that the SFA has spent such a huge sum of taxpayers’ money on one website – it doesn’t take a web expert to see it could have been done for a lot less.”

The FE Choices website holds a summary of the success rates data for each provider, as well two scores based on whether learners found work or progressed onto another course.

It also holds data, based on two surveys, which shows how satisfied learners and employers were with the provider.

A statement issued by the SFA and Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) said: “FE Choices is a new product…and it is too early to judge its impact.

“Work is still in progress to improve the information, accessibility and reduce the costs.

“We have already linked FE Choices to the Course Directory on the National Careers Service (NCS) website and we are aiming for full integration with NCS by 2013.

“BIS and the Agency will be working together to develop a communication strategy over the summer for implementation from autumn 2012.”

The National Union of Students (NUS) said the “shockingly low” number of visitors show that learners prefer face-to-face information, advice and guidance (IAG).

Pete Mercer, vice-president of the NUS said: “Investment in IAG is incredibly important but it needs to be more than just a few statistics in the corner of a government website.

“Those trying to make important choices about further education and their futures deserve better, face-to-face support, and the government should change direction immediately.”

The University and College Union (UCU) suggested the low numbers could be due to a lack of marketing.

“When you consider the number of people involved in further education, and the number of people who potentially could be, it is clear that the number of people visiting the site is incredibly disappointing,” Sally Hunt, general secretary of the UCU said.

“It is likely that a failure to publicise the site has contributed to the low numbers, but there’s clearly been a lot of money thrown at it.”

However, the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) have supported the website and told FE Week they expect the number of visitors to improve.

“AELP believes that FE Choices is a useful aid to the type of transparency needed for the quality agenda, which AELP has always championed,” an AELP spokesperson said.

“We would expect the hit rate to pick up once FE Loans start and once a decision has been made on employer contributions when one can expect learners and employers to be searching more for best value.”

Subcontractor hits out at “rip off” management fee

The head of a subcontractor has called the high management fees used by some FE colleges a “rip off”.

“The colleges get away with it because they can,” the source, who wished to remain anonymous told FE Week.

“Subcontractors simply don’t have the clout to turn around to their local college and say up yours, I’m not going to pay that, I’m going to go somewhere else.”

City of Bristol College is charging subcontractors a 30 per cent management fee for the delivery of adult apprenticeships at level two and three.

“I downloaded all the documents and after some digging around (found) the management fee was 30 per cent – then I just put the document away because it’s not worth it,” the source said.

City of Bristol College told FE Week the 30 per cent management fee reflected “the high quality support” which they offer to subcontractors.

these outfits that take big management fees won’t allow the subcontractors sufficient funding to be able to deliver a quality service”

“City of Bristol College provides a member of the executive team as the key point of contact to all our subcontractors, in addition we provide a specialist support team headed by  a senior manager who has day to day responsibility for assisting the subcontractor in all matters that relate to  our students,” a spokesperson for the college said.

“Business services, curriculum development and support is provided by this dedicated partnership team along with quality assurance systems.

“Partners have access to common frameworks for online data tools developed and supported by the college and subcontractors who work with the College have access to our specialist team to maximise joint bidding opportunities.”

However, the subcontractor told FE Week that taking on the contract would have affected the quality of the training they delivery.

“Prime contractors want us to deliver a high quality service, which we pride ourselves on doing, but these outfits that take big management fees won’t allow the subcontractors sufficient funding to be able to deliver a quality service.”

The Skills Funding Agency (SFA) told FE Week they are working with prime contractors “to understand the reasons” why they take higher management fees.

A spokesperson for the SFA said: “The amount of funding retained by a prime contractor for programmes and provision delivered in whole, or part, by a subcontractor must represent good value for money and reflect the actual costs incurred by each party in the delivery of that provision.

“Where it is identified that the percentage of Agency funds from the lead provider’s allocation passed to the subcontractors is significantly low, the Agency works with the prime contractor to understand the reasons for this.”

The SFA spokesperson said the amount retained by FE colleges is often “not a management fee at all” and instead used to retain responsibility in areas such as assessor support, collection and procession of data, quality assurance and registration.

“We are working with our External Advisory Group and Stakeholders, including AELP and AoC, to develop criteria around this area so we are confident that the fee charged is representative of the service provided,” the SFA spokesperson told FE Week.

However, the subcontractor said the increase in management fees would only cause the SFA to further reduce funding in the sector.

“If they’re aware it’s widespread practice for the prime contractors to ‘top slice’ 30 per cent or more, then all that will happen is they will just reduce the funding that’s available,” the source said.

“If the SFA say ‘look, our guideline is a 15 per cent management charge but there are a lot of primes subcontracting at 30 per cent or higher, maybe we’ve got our sums wrong’.

“They’ll say ‘maybe we don’t need to be giving them so much money to be delivering these qualifications, so actually let’s knock 10 per cent off the top’.

“That’s what will happen, and then everybody will suffer.”

RTT Group has £3.3m contract terminated

Real-Time Training Ltd, which trades under the name RTT Group, has had its £3.3m contract with the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) terminated.

A spokesperson for the SFA told FE Week: “The Agency has taken the decision not to re-contract with RTT for the 2012/13 academic year and has issued notice to terminate the current contract in accordance with our agreed terms and conditions.

“The Agency continues discussions with RTT over the concluding position on its contract including any financial out turn.”

The spokesperson added that the Agency is working with the National Apprenticeship Service (NAS) and RTT to protect public funds and ensure “minimal disruption to learners” while they are placed with local providers and employers.

The Agency has not revealed however why the contract with RTT was terminated.

At the time of publication Mike Barton, executive group chairman at RTT Group, told FE Week he was “99 per cent” sure the company, based in Leicestershire, would be put into administration later that day.

“Since we opened the learners have been – and will be until we’re no longer connected in any way – our main priority,” he said.

“That’s always been our philosophy, and will continue to be so.”

Mr Barton said he had written to all of the FE colleges which RTT works with to inform them of the situation.

The family company, which includes managing director Emma Barton and director James Barton, is understood to have also worked for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

A spokesman for the DWP said: “We have received a call from RTT to say that the offices have closed temporarily. The DWP has not been told anything formally at this stage.”

Christian Gibbs was enrolled on a Security Industry Authority (SIA) course with RTT when it closed last week.

“I received a phone call on Friday and was told not to come in on the following Monday as it was a training day, but to attend on Tuesday as sessions would commence as normal,” he told FE Week.

“I must have waited just over an hour with a group of other students for one of the RTT employees to open the shutters so that we could begin, but that didn’t happen.

“None of the students were notified in any way by the RTT Group and had to find out for ourselves what had happened.”

A former employee told FE Week he was “extremely saddened” to hear that the company might close.

“Most of all I feel sorry for the staff,” he said.

“I know many of them have been so loyal to the family, working long hours and giving their all.”