Job losses as Skillsfinder UK Training goes in to administration

A national training provider with nearly £2.5m of contracts last year has gone into administration with the loss of 40 jobs.

The move has affected the education of 450 learners handled by Birmingham-based Skillsfinder UK Training.

The firm, set up last year, had contracts with lead providers Total People and Remit. It also dealt with Tribal Education.

Craig Povey and Richard Toone, from national accountancy firm Chantrey Vellacott DFK, have been appointed joint administrators.

Mr Povey said: “Skillsfinder had a number of contracts to deliver training to young people between the ages of 16 and 24 that it subcontracted out to other providers.

“It appears the company’s business model failed which has, in turn, had a knock-on effect to other providers all over the country.”

He said the administrators were reviewing the company’s assets and were talking to providers to try to support the affected trainees.

According to the Skillsfinder website, the original company was created in 2007 as a “learner finder” organisation. It went on to subcontract apprenticeship training services to around 75 organisations across the UK.

It appears the company’s business model failed which has, in turn, had a knock-on effect to other providers all over the country.”

A spokesperson for Tribal Education said: “Tribal subcontracted tutor and assessor support for a cohort of learners to Skillsfinder in a number of qualification areas.
“We are now finding alternative support arrangements.

“We have contacted all our learners and their employers to explain the situation, and have reassured them we are working towards finding replacement support.

“We will be regularly updating our learners on our progress. We aim to ensure that the change won’t delay the completion of their apprenticeships.”

Remit chief operating officer Steve Yardley said: “As a national training provider we have worked with Skillsfinder to assist them in securing government funding to support their learners.

“Over the coming days and weeks we will be doing everything we can to transfer as many of their learners and appropriate staff to Remit. Our team is now making contact with all learners and is in the process of obtaining all relevant documentation to try to ensure there is minimal disruption to their apprenticeships and employment.”

Total People associate director Janice Woolley said: “We had a service level agreement with Skillsfinder for a small cohort of 16 learners linked to one employer.

“The learners still linked to Total People have achieved their level two apprenticeships and are just waiting for their full framework certificate.

“We were informed by Skillsfinder that learners had already progressed on to a level three programme through a different subcontract arrangement.”

A Skills Funding Agency spokesperson said: “We have a duty to ensure learner interests are being protected and are working with Remit and Tribal Education to ensure all learners affected by the closure are being supported in every way possible and are able continue their learning.

“Remit and Tribal have written to employers and learners to outline the support available and a dedicated helpline number and email address have been set up.

“Both Remit and Tribal are also working with learners that have been made redundant as a result of Skillsfinder going into administration to try to secure alternative employment opportunities, to ensure that apprenticeships can be completed.”

Skillsfinder’s former director, Neil Harrup, was not available for comment.

Chris Martin, Skillsfinder’s quality and development manager, was a director in Luis Michael Training, which delivered apprenticeships in sport. The provider is currently being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office, as previously reported in FE Week.

Review of FE teacher qualifications launched

Further education leaders have told of their concerns about new proposals for industry teacher training.

A review of teacher qualifications for the FE and skills sector by the Learning and Skills Improvement Service (LSIS) includes 19 proposals aimed at creating a simpler system. It is due in place in September next year.

Among the proposals are three generic and three specialist qualifications, along with qualifications at level seven, including one for continuing professional development.

The review has been welcomed by Jill Stokoe, education policy adviser at the Association of Teachers and Lecturers.

It is particularly helpful that LSIS has recognised the role of FE teachers as both subject specialists and teachers.”

“We are pleased LSIS has reviewed teacher training qualifications for the FE and skills sector, including evaluating and responding to stakeholders’ views,” she said.

“It is particularly helpful that LSIS has recognised the role of FE teachers as both subject specialists and teachers.

“But we are concerned LSIS’s work will be wasted if FE is deregulated and the government revokes the requirement for FE staff to have teaching qualifications.

“We firmly believe that they should have these qualifications so will vigorously argue the case for them to be retained.”

The University and College Union (UCU) is planning to canvass opinion on the proposals with its own three-hour consultation at its head office in London’s Carlow Street from 11.30am on October 31.

Its general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: “We agree there is a need to review the training qualifications . . . as our members have complained of unnecessary duplication of material within the three existing qualifications.

“We have some concerns about potential changes to the balance of the three elements of the course — content, teaching practice and observation of teaching.”

The proposals within the review, carried out on behalf of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), were drawn up between July and September when LSIS met with stakeholders and teacher educators.

LSIS chief executive Rob Wye said: “The importance of this review goes beyond the FE and skills sector.

“The teachers and trainers of tomorrow will help to shape the workforce of tomorrow, so it is vital we hear from everyone who is involved with these qualifications.”

The proposals will be the focus of a host of open events across the country, the first of which took place in Birmingham on October 18. London hosts the second event on  November 8, before another one in Taunton on November 13, then Leeds on November 15 and London again five days later.

The deadline for feedback is Friday, November 26.  Visit www.lsis.org.uk to give feedback on the proposals.

Toni Fazaeli, chief executive at the Institute for Learning, goes into detail on the
proposals in an expert piece here.

Our future depends on how we teach FE learners

New FE proposals on teacher training have been formulated by the Learning and Skills Improvement Service (LSIS) and are up for consultation. Toni Fazaeli, chief executive at the Institute for Learning (IFL), looks at what a newly-qualified teacher or trainer needs to know.

We welcome the LSIS consultation on qualifications for new teachers and trainers. We especially welcome the consultation period, as there is important work still to do.

We are passionate about high-quality teaching — our object is to promote this through individual professional body membership, and our members firmly believe in teaching and training being at least a level five profession, as evidenced in our recent survey, to which more than 5,000 practitioners responded.

Teaching in FE and skills, like other professions, has clear expectations of standards, and qualifications for entry and early years of practice.

It is a second or parallel career for most practitioners, and their young and adult learners deserve to be taught by dual professionals, proven experts who have recent work experience in their field.

The average age of entry to teaching in FE and skills is around 37 — that’s 10 years older than for entrants to school teaching.

Teaching is a profession. To continue attracting high-calibre new entrants it must be, and be seen to be, a step up professionally. Initial training must enjoy public confidence and recognition.

Learners expect and deserve expert teaching that makes the best use of their talents, and does not waste their time or commitment. Do the proposals put forwards by LSIS, in line with the Lingfield review, offer the right suite of qualifications? Is the central focus on what is right and best for young and adult learners?

On the plus side, the LSIS proposals convey that it is a given that initial qualifications matter. The new specialist qualification for teaching disabled learners is long overdue – recognition of this is a positive development. Retaining specialist qualifications for teachers of English, maths and ESOL (English for speakers of other languages) is right.

The average age of entry to teaching in FE and skills is around 37 — that’s 10 years older than for entrants to school teaching.

The big question for us all during the consultation period is what do good newly-qualified teachers or trainers need to understand, know and offer their learners? We will be exploring this – and whether the standards need reviewing – with our members, as well as the next level and more technical questions about qualification design.

It is good that the consultation spans late November when Sir Michael Wilshaw’s annual report will be published, as Ofsted’s views on the quality of teaching and learning across FE and skills need to inform teacher qualifications. Will the quality of teaching staying the same be acceptable, and might it be essential to consider ramping initial teacher qualifications up rather than down?

When considering developments in our sector, it often helps to look at parallel worlds. A proposal to halve the size and breadth of initial qualifications for doctors, engineers, nurses or schoolteachers would spark a public debate.

The proposal to halve the diploma qualification from 120 to 60 credits – this will include specialist teachers of English, maths, Esol and disabled learners – lacks rationale.

Presumably somebody thinks newly qualified teachers are over-skilled and so need half the amount of training? If so, where is the evidence?

FE routinely supports young and adult learners who did not fare well in their initial education, so newly qualified teachers need to be adept at enabling learners to overcome problems and make rapid progress.

There is a danger that reducing initial teacher education for FE and skills will prove a false economy.

Most individuals moving into teaching in FE will have earned more in their original field. While not a focus of the consultation, IfL believes that trainee teachers must be supported through bursaries and grants, as those entering the routes to school teaching are. We agree with LSIS that the economy and society depend on learners in FE being well taught and trained — they are our country’s future.

Sharp criticism of ‘limited flexibility’ in the Innovation Code

Government measures to help colleges respond to local employment and skills needs have lost the “spirit” of the report that called for their introduction, it has been claimed.

The Innovation Code, available for use from April this year, was a key element of recommendations that emerged from the Colleges in their Communities Inquiry last year.

It was chaired by Lady Sharp, the Liberal Democrats’ education spokesperson in the House of Lords.

She described the code as “a funding formula that, subject to proper audit procedures, would allow up to 25 per cent of the adult skills budget to be used to meet local priorities”.
However, Lady Sharp has spoken of her “disappointment” at the way the code has been interpreted by the Skills Funding Agency (SFA).

“We should have read the small print more carefully . . . what is being proposed, which has now been further developed in the guidance recently issued by the SFA, provides only limited flexibility,” she said in a Lords grand committee debate this month.

The SFA has said it plans to issue fresh guidance on the code.

But frustration over its use in practice is shared at the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE) and Association of Colleges (AoC), whose director of education policy, Joy Mercer said: “We endorse Lady Sharp’s comments.

“The purpose of her report was to support colleges in responding to the specific requirements of communities — for example, in meeting the needs of tenants’ associations.

We should have read the small print more carefully . . . what is being proposed, which has now been further developed in the guidance recently issued by the SFA, provides only limited flexibility,”

“Its implementation as an instrument to help colleges develop qualifications with employers runs against this grain. There is such a plethora of qualifications already available that it is rare not to find one that can be of use.
“That is why take-up has been slow. We would urge BIS and the SFA to return to the original spirit of the Sharp report.”

She added: “We have flagged this as an issue with SFA and are seeking to discuss how the code might be re-balanced in its promotion to ensure Lady Sharp’s vision can be better recognised — as much as is possible within SFA’s remit.”

NIACE director of policy and impact Mark Ravenhall, said: “The code as written in the final report was much more expansive and inclusive than what has been developed since.

“Our challenge to colleges and to government was to create a system where providers were more accountable to local communities than to government, and had the flexibility to meet community needs.

“The way the code has been developed doesn’t quite achieve that, but it’s still early days.”

The SFA and BIS issued a joint statement on the code. “The development of innovative provision is in the hands of the sector,” it said. “There is no process of approval; it is for FE professionals, working with employers to design and develop the provision that will become the qualifications of tomorrow.

“In the coming weeks, as planned, the agency will issue updated information on how the use of the code can be maximised, which will help share best practice across the sector.”

SFA U-turn on performance tables

Nearly three months after the Skills Funding Agency was challenged over “mysterious” changes to college performance tables, it has told FE Week they will be reversed.

In July, the Association of Colleges (AoC) alerted its members that “high grades” would no longer include a C at GCSE on the success rate data managed by the Information Authority. In the briefing, leaked to FE Week, the AoC said the impact on colleges was “significant,” in some cases “halving” their high grade profile.

Ofsted has not used the new grade definition when inspecting colleges, re-issuing success rate reports in line with the original classification — A* to C not A* to B.
The Skills Funding Agency (SFA), which published the data, said this month it would re-issue this year’s reports to include the original definition.

Although a grade C is not a high grade, in the context of further education, a learner who achieves a GCSE A* to C grade is considered to have achieved a positive outcome,”

A spokesperson said: “The agency, from this year, will align the publication of high grade definitions with Ofsted’s requirements so that colleges can produce self-assessment reports using the same definition that inspectors will use.

“The SFA is currently seeking clarification from Ofsted around the definitions to be used in current and future inspection rounds.”

Ofsted said inspectors were “required to interpret published data to inform inspection judgments” during college inspections.

“Although a grade C is not a high grade, in the context of further education, a learner who achieves a GCSE A* to C grade is considered to have achieved a positive outcome,” said a spokesperson. “Inspectors will also use a wide range of other sources of evidence, including the provider’s own in-year performance data, the provider’s self-assessment report, previous inspection findings, observations of teaching, training and assessment, and the views of staff, learners and employers.”

In the their internal briefing, the AoC said that the grade definitions of national diploma level three qualifications had also been changed, as they “now seem to need at least one distinction” to count as a high grade. “Three merits used to count as high grades but don’t seem to any more,” the briefing explained.

The AoC told members in July that the “mysterious” changes had been made “without consultation” and called on the Information Authority to investigate.

A two-month investigation by the SFA at the request of FE Week, found the changes were made on the “recommendation” of the Data Harmonisation Group.

The Information Authority report said the group was originally established to assist Ofsted and the Learning and Skills Council to have a similar basis for calculating success rates.

“Having proved its usefulness the group has continued to meet, but its remit and lines of accountability need to be clarified,” the report said. The report said the chair of the investigation was “concerned” the information authority was not fulfilling its “full remit”.

“Because of the need to focus on delivering the Individualised Learner Record specification at a time of substantial change from the Department of Business Innovation and Skills and the Department for Education, and their agencies, there is insufficient resource to offer authoritative guidance on the use of data.

“So much is collected and yet there are not ready to hand analyses of what is going on in the sector. It has to be acknowledged that in the absence of such analysis Ofsted has filled the vacuum and become an excellent repository of analytics.

The LSIS Observatory is another potential source of expertise and the secretariat has been exploring potential links with it.

“In the new era it also falls to the sector to take ownership of and accountability for its data,” said the report.

Ela Piotrowska, principal, Morley College

London in the aftermath of World War Two was a hard place for many, including the Piotrowska family.

It had promised so much with Ela Piotrowska’s father, Stasio, having reached safety after fleeing the Nazi occupation of his native Poland, having walked hundreds of miles across Europe to join the Polish Free Army, in Scotland.

And her mother, Marysia, arrived in Britain after American liberation from Oberlangen Concentration Camp, in Germany, where she had been sent for her part in the Polish Resistance.

For although they met and married here, the joy of a new life was not unbridled — the experience of being “aliens” in their new home troubled them, says Piotrowska, who was born less than a decade after Hitler’s forces had been defeated.

However, the threat posed by Soviet dictator Stalin and his growing Eastern Bloc territories ensured there would be no return to Poland.

Adult education had always been a sort of a Cinderella service”

“It was very difficult after the war — we were called aliens and I always felt an outsider,” says the principal of South London’s Morley College.

“I have very few memories of that period. I think I just blanked it all out. I didn’t like school very much, but you have to get on with it.”

Although there were struggles to fit in, Marysia managed to get work from the family home in Shepherds Bush, London, making clothes for a factory, while Stasio had a job making handbags in a factory and later worked as a plasterer.

Marysia and Stasio wanted their family, including younger daughter Krysia, to settle and they saw education as a means to achieving that goal.

“It was all about having a better life than they had, and not working manually and physically. They aspired to something that was outside the possibilities for them,” says mum-of-two Ela Piotrowska, 61.

“Education was the vehicle for mobility and managing really. My parents thought it was the only way I was going to be somebody that was accepted in this society.”

But when she started school she struggled as she spoke very little English. And she went on to fail the 11-plus.

However, Marysia remained adamant her daughter should go to a “good” school and was “so bolshy” she eventually persuaded a grammar school to accept Piotrowska.

It was the start of an upward educational trajectory that took in sociology at the University of Kent, before primary school teacher training.

In the 1970s, while working in schools in Brixton, she became involved in setting up community outreach programmes, including family classes.

I’m privileged because I have worked in a sector that is congruent with my values”

It was seeing first-hand the benefits of such schemes, that piqued Piotrowska’s interest in working with marginalised and adult groups.

And, following the birth of daughter Emily around 1978, she moved solely into adult education.

But, after almost 20 years of teaching adults, Piotrowska says she wanted to gain a wider understanding of the sector and moved to Ofsted, where she then spent 11 years working as an inspector.

While at Ofsted, she helped develop a framework for the inspection of adult teaching, that “considerably” raised the profile of adult learning.

“Adult education had always been a sort of a Cinderella service,” she suggests.

“There had been fantastic practices, but it was much neglected by local authorities and constantly reorganised.”

Her time as an inspector also took her into the work place to see people learning on the job.

“It was very powerful seeing all of that,” says Piotrowska, who shares a home in Balham, London, with partner Les.

“Seeing how what we do in colleges makes a contribution on the job. I learned a tremendous amount. It was inspiring.”

But the call of a principal title came for her the first time four years ago from Morley College.

The college in Lambeth, London, specialises in adult education courses and she was passionate about its diverse intake, pointing to the 130 languages spoken by students last year.

“One of the powerful things about adult education is that you can sit in a class and there could be somebody sitting with a different language, completely different background, maybe not very literate, alongside somebody who’s got two degrees. That is very special,” she says.

“I’ve been very lucky in my career. I’ve always liked what I’ve done and I’m privileged because I have worked in a sector that is congruent with my values.”

One of the things she loves most about working at Morley College is watching students confidence build when they perform or showcase their work.

“If I’m really overwhelmed with paperwork there’s often a student concert that I can listen to, I can visit an exhibition, or I go to the canteen and talk to some students, I plonk myself at the table and we have a chat. Those things are great pleasures,” she says.

“I go to a concert or an exhibition and I think ‘this is what it’s about’. It’s so wonderful to hear people who are not professionals, who are just learning, have the opportunity to show their work. They get such self-esteem from it. They think, ‘I never believed I could do something like that’. It is the most
powerful thing.”

Recruitment integrity call for functional skills regime

With functional skills now in place, providers should be taking the opportunity to make sure they are recruiting with integrity from the outset, says Runway Training’s Oliver Trailor.

So the time has finally arrived — Key Skills and Skills For Life have finally gone.

For many, the introduction of a qualification that will serve to improve learners’ maths, English and ICT skills with a robust final assessment is long overdue.

However, for some providers the impending introduction of functional skills has felt like the sword of Damocles hanging over them.

The functional skills system undoubtedly brings challenges for colleges and training providers alike.

While previous contributors to FE Week have written about the challenges with funding, timescales and delivery models, I feel little attention has been paid to an area in which so many providers fall down, that of initial and diagnostic assessment.

Assessment for assessment’s sake appears to be the view of many. I understand many FE colleges carry out initial assessments en masse in August or September induction day.

This involves several hours’ queuing and form-filling, with the poor learner being herded along a corridor, plonked in front of a computer screen or given paper to complete. The purpose of the assessment is often not explained and the result not discussed.

In some ways, they are the more fortunate learners, as colleagues generally use purpose-built initial and diagnostic products.

Having spent part of the summer working with training providers to upskill their staff for functional skills delivery, I was shocked to discover the endless number of initial assessment methods being used.

Past papers, outdated multiple choice questionnaires, direct questioning and basic skills assessments are all in use and in my view very inadequate methods. Given the importance of determining the learners’ level of skill and their development needs we should be looking for a comprehensive assessment.

Skills Funding Agency rules for 2012/13 state, providers must, “undertake a robust initial assessment to determine the level at which the individual is currently operating”. Furthermore they say that, “the tools must be administered by suitably qualified individuals”.

So why then, does there appear to be a blatant disregard for the need for an effective initial assessment — one that establishes a learner’s strengths and weaknesses, takes in to account previous achievements and builds an accurate spikey profile?

The time and cost of this important aspect of learners’ development appears to be the most common factor highlighted by providers. With so much to fit it in, initial assessment has become just another box-ticking exercise and if it can be completed in 10 minutes then all the better.

How can we expect to cater for our learners when we don’t know where they are starting from? Can we really afford not to?

Furthermore for many providers, particularly those working with apprentices, recruitment has become a numbers game, with sales teams faced with monthly targets. Given the importance of framework completion you would hope providers will recruit with more integrity, as the functional skills are seemingly more challenging.

Not getting learners to complete a proper initial assessment, thus establishing whether they were able to cope with the demands of the framework, is surely going to lead to many in learning not completing.

Undoubtedly, a robust initial assessment session that establishes at what level a learner is working has a financial and resource cost. However, there are numerous resources and many suitable off-the-shelf products available at a reasonable price.

Consider this — if learners aren’t suitable for the programme, is it not better to establish this at interview, rather than three or four months into an apprenticeship?

If you are not using an effective initial assessment, then now is the time to consider a strategy for the benefit of your completion rate and bottom line, but far more importantly for the sake of your learners.

Lies, damned lies, and UKBA statistics

Professor Daniel Khan OBE, chief executive of Open College Network (OCN) London, reacts to UKBorder Agency (UKBA) criticism of FE Colleges.

UKBA’s recent comments with regards to FE colleges are both unfair and misleading. It claimed colleges are guilty of selling ‘immigration rather than education’. It stated that its tightening of the requirements for providers to achieve Highly Trusted Status was aimed specifically at FE colleges.

Yet, their accusations entirely misrepresent the FE sector and imply all colleges are guilty of masquerading as genuine institutions, while really acting as a means for international students to gain a visa.

In truth, of the 40,000 FE learners who come to the UK to study, the vast majority attend one of the hundreds of state-supported reputable and well-respected institutions.
It is therefore unacceptable for FE colleges to be universally branded as ‘bogus’ by the UKBA. Such remarks follow Ofsted chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw’s caution against international students in his Deptford not Delhi speech. Each of these instances suggests a worrying future for FE colleges and their hopes of attracting international learners. This reluctance to value education as an export compares poorly against other countries.

In Australia, education is the third largest export industry, contributing £11bn a-year to an economy smaller than the UK’s. Yet, in the UK we seem reluctant to regard it as an export sector at all. Instead, FE colleges are labelled as a route for illegal immigration and a threat to the educational opportunities of domestic learners.

The UKBA’s comments are focused on the minority of small private colleges who have hit the headlines for their part in visa scams. The colleges that deserve publicity are those that are state-supported and committed to their role as student immigration sponsors. It is these providers who are at risk of losing their international intake, an integral part of their student body and vital to their reputation. The UK is in danger of forcing international students to look elsewhere, primarily to its chief competitors such as Australia and America.

Hence, while the UKBA seems intent on discouraging international students to pursue FE in the UK, there are thriving projects taking place in colleges across the country to do the reverse.

For example, The Grimsby Institute of Further and Higher Education has been incredibly successful in attracting overseas learners and investment.

Grimsby has built a reputation for international excellence in the seafood industry and relies heavily on foreign investment and expertise. In particular, the institute won United Nations Industrial Development Organisation contracts to advise on ports and logistics, as well as the seafood industry, in developing countries. Grimsby achieved the highest rating from the UKBA as a trusted sponsor.

Furthermore, as part of the Prime Minister’s initiative for international education, several London colleges have forged links with Chinese education providers. Phase two of this initiative, which was launched in 2006, focused on the importance of FE colleges in establishing international partnerships. As a result, London and Chinese vocational education providers have developed a scheme to support the increasing need for higher level specialist and technical skills in both countries.

The project is of mutual benefit for both nations and is, from the British perspective, intended to promote UK education and qualifications to the world’s fastest growing major economy.

The Association of Colleges has supported the initiative with its development of an International Charter. This charter seeks to promote colleges’ work to foreign stakeholders — ensuring opportunities to reach the international education and skills market are sought. It also acts as a charter mark for colleges who are conducting their international engagement work in an ethical and honest manner.

This charter is incredibly important in strengthening the international reputation of UK Colleges, especially in light of the recent criticisms. The border agency should get its act together in controlling illegal immigration into the UK, rather than divert attention on to FE colleges.

The whole concept of foreign students being included in immigration figures is a farce and the government’s talk of reducing immigration by reducing student numbers is reminiscent of Disraeli’s famous “lies, damned lies, and statistics” quote.

What’s to show for tech cash?

The benefits of new technology are not being fully felt at colleges across the country, prompting former Barnsley college principal and Toshiba education adviser Bob Harrison to question whether a government aim to bring all classrooms up to the digital age is achievable.

The annual Association of Colleges (AoC) technology survey last month paints an unsurprisingly gloomy picture and reinforces what Martin Bean, vice chancellor of the Open University, described at the 2009 Association of Learning Technology conference as the “growing crisis of relevance” in colleges.

This, two years after the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency closed, the Harnessing Technology strategy, and the dumping of ring-fenced funding by the incoming government.

Yet there has been plenty of money channelled through agencies that could have been used to address the issues of staff skills and strategic leadership.

Questions must be asked of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) , the Learning and Skills Improvement Service (LSIS) and the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) about the lack of progress given the level of investments. Who is accountable for setting and achieving targets? Or is this a fundamental vulnerability of a sector-led system?

The survey executive summary says: “The ability of colleges to implement the education policy agenda, and deliver the required policy outcomes, relies not simply on investment in technology infrastructure and systems, but also on the ability to manage the deployment of that technology in ways that best meets the specific requirements of the individual college.”

It goes on to identify points that have been common knowledge to those with experience and expertise in implementing technology strategies in other education sectors. Namely, “its not about the technology, it’s about new ways of thinking”.

More than a year ago, I attempted to raise the issue in my Wanted Pioneers piece, which seemed to fall upon deaf ears at BIS and LSIS.

It is no surprise therefore the survey exposes how colleges are failing to make effective use of technology, with a debilitating effect on their ability to achieve policy goals.

Specifically, it suggests colleges need to improve the relevance and structure of staff training in the use of technology across the curriculum. Further improvements are needed, it says, by way of a whole college approach to strategic planning in the use of technology, representation on senior management team for the development of technology strategy, efficient purchasing that takes into account collaborative initiatives such as shared services and migration of some services to cloud technologies.

Technology resourcing as a core function of college processes needs to be looked at, too, along with specific funding for e-learning development.

The survey goes on to suggest areas in which technology is perceived to be least effective are widening participation, reducing digital exclusion, engaging students with disabilities and learning difficulties, and improving retention and achievement.

Meanwhile, the aim of the government is to “ensure a clear sector-owned policy to support outstanding teaching and learning including making the full use of the potential of technology”.

If the AoC survey is any indication of the reality in colleges then it looks like the government’s aim is not being achieved despite the enormous resources given to JISC, regional support centres and LSIS to achieve just that. To their credit AoC joined forces with ALT earlier this year in organising the well-attended conference entitled Large Scale Curriculum Redesign Using Technology, which drew on the experience of colleges trying to meet this digital challenge.

I wonder what the FE minister Matthew Hancock makes of all this?

Will he be bothered? He should be.