Labour leadership wowed by pioneering Southend college

Labour leader Ed Miliband and shadow chancellor Ed Balls jumped on a train to Southend to see an innovative example of traditional boundaries in education being broken down by new forms of partnership.

The day after it was announced that youth unemployment had nearly touched a million, the opposition’s leadership toured Futures Community College, a school for 11 to 19 year olds which offers a uniquely blended curriculum of academic and vocational learning.

Students can study academic or vocational subjects or a mixture of both, while apprenticeships in electrical engineering and construction are provided in a training centre incorporated into a new £20 million state-of-the-art upper college building.

Five years ago, the once failing secondary school was taken over by Prospects Learning Foundation, a south Essex charitable training provider.

The Foundation entered into a partnership with the US school improvement consultancy, EdisonLearning, and since then the new college has been transformed.

Following their tour, the Labour politicians held a question and answer session with the students, apprentices and the apprentices’ local employers.

Mr Miliband was careful not to give any promises about EMAs and disability benefits. Other questions covered help for young carers, expanding apprenticeships and rebalancing the economy more in favour of manufacturing.

Mr Miliband and Mr Balls were briefed on the Futures model by the college’s principal, Simon Carpenter, and Prospects chief executive, Neil Bates, a former vice chair of LSIS.

The college’s leadership emphasised four key messages for avoiding a ‘lost generation’ of young people:

  • blended academic and vocational curriculum offerings in schools should be encouraged.  It shouldn’t be an either/or offer depending on which type of school the student attends.
  • the positive role of local authorities in influencing the education and skills provision that actually meets the needs of local employers and communities should not be underestimated and their role in responding to the worsening NEET problem among young people requires strengthening.
  • increasing pre-apprenticeship provision is vital for young people who have left school with few or no qualifications.
  • further government investment, while encouraging so far, is needed to expand the number of high quality Group Training Associations (GTAs) that enable smaller businesses to offer technical apprenticeships and employment to young people.

Mr Bates told FE Week: “It is very encouraging that Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have come to see how the blended learning approach is transforming the lives of many young people in Southend.

“Our message is that we support diversity and choice, but free schools, UTCs and studio schools do not represent a panacea to solving the weaknesses in our educational system.

“Government should invest an equal amount of effort in improving existing schools and should encourage the type of partnership seen here.”

Mr Miliband voiced his agreement, adding: “The sad thing is that we do not have enough of these types of colleges. This is what we need to focus on.”

On this, there appears to be cross-party agreement. Last year, an education minister in the coalition government called Futures a pioneer and the beginning of something new.

Colleges fear more data demands

The government is failing to cut the burden of data collection and bureaucracy, a study has suggested.

Nearly 80 per cent of delegates surveyed at the Autumn College Data Conference last week thought that data demands would continue to increase in the next few years.

The survey, organised by Lsect, found that data demands would increase dramatically for around 41 per cent of respondents. A further 38 per cent said they thought their data demands would increase a small amount in the future.
In comparison only four per cent thought their data demands would decrease.

David Willetts, Minister of Universities and Science, said in 2009 that reducing the amount of resources spent on data collection was a priority.
He said: “Every college principal I meet tells me they have literally dozens of staff whose job is to collect data for a multiplicity of regulators and funding bodies which is not needed for the good management of the college. This is where the savings have to be made.”

The survey also showed that nearly 20 per cent of delegates hadn’t submitted their Individualised Learner Record (ILR) data return (RO2) on time.

Roughly half of respondents said they had completed their R02 without mistakes, while 23 per cent said they had sent their report with a small number of errors.

Rich Williams, Head of the Data Service, clarified at the conference that 687 out of 1,081 providers had submitted their R02 on time. This means that only 528,464 learners were accounted for in the R02 return.

Read the full report from the Lsect Autumn College Data Conference (click here)

Pearson continue shopping spree with purchase of another training provider

Pearson have announced they have bought TQ Holdings Ltd., a private training provider based in Derbyshire.

TQ provides vocational and technical education and training services to governments, institutions and corporations worldwide.

The company boasts particular expertise in skills related to the defence, engineering, oil and gas and construction sectors

FE Week spoke to Pearson about the acquisition. A spokesperson said: “This is part of a broader and on-going approach to expanding our technical education business.”

Pearson’s recent acquisitions include training providers Construction Learning World and Zenos bought under the holding company Melorio Plc, as well as awarding body, EDI.

 

Pearson Press Release: http://www.pearson.com/media-1/announcements/?i=1489

TQ Press Release: http://www.tq.com/news-events.asp?newsid=88

You outsource payroll and IT, Why not Marketing?

Bit controversial this, so controversial that most college marketing departments have had a little warning about us, and. at a certain marketing bash in November you can take part in a workshop to defend yourself against companies like ours. What we do isn’t evil, it isn’t against the law, and actually works quite well.

HEALTH WARNING: Before you read further, we are an education marketing and PR agency, and I make no apology for that. SHOCK HORROR: We have expanded into outsourced services. Now you have been warned, read on at your own peril.

A few colleges have taken the marketing outsource leap like Bournemouth & Poole College, Barnfield and Northampton. A few are going through the process like Yeovil, and a few are just sniffing the air to see what’s going on.

Lots of colleges outsource their IT and HR so, why not marketing? When a college outsources its marketing, a company like ours takes responsibility for the marketing function.

In our instance that includes everything from research, strategy and planning, to the delivery of marcoms (prospectuses, guides, brochures), PR, advertising, copywriting, social media, websites, event management, and media buying, placement and printing.

Budgets are being squeezed, and squeezed again, and the constant call of ‘more for less’ is a like a broken record that won’t stop spinning. Outsourcing is an option. So, what are the downsides?

Bedding in
An outsourced marketing team is not of the college’s culture, every college is different, and the transition period can be a little bumpy. We need to understand personal and political agendas, how things are, how things are usually done etc, and this takes a little time. One senior manager explained that it was rather like steering an iceberg, the top changes course much quicker that the bottom.

Managing expectations
The agreed scope is the agreed scope – additional work has to be charged for, if the college or a department suddenly needs ad hoc events, additional meetings, new branding or a swift poster, if these weren’t agreed at the beginning of the contract, they have to be paid for. So, what are the benefits?

Focus
Even if a college has its own marketing department (some don’t), a reliance on marketing outsourcing frees up in-house personnel for certain responsibilities, so they can play to their strengths. If a college does not have its own marketing department, outsourcing can provide it, lock stock and barrel!
Discipline
With marketing outsourcing, every discipline is on the table. That is important to consider, because no matter how hard a traditional agency tries to serve its customers, the fact is that it basically exists to sell public relations or production of marketing collateral etc.

An outsourced team has a different objective: Identify and deploy the resources needed, based not on what its in-house talent can produce, but on a strategic analysis of the college’s goals, market position and budget.
Reduced overheads.

By engaging a marketing outsourcing agency, colleges can significantly reduce overheads. Just ask any of the principals at the colleges who have taken the leap!

Access to specialist skills
In-house marketing staff may not always have specialist skills, it’s a demanding job and often they have to wear lots of different hats, often all at once!

Outsourcing to an experienced marketing team that understands FE not only brings in new ideas and added energy, but also the specialist talents, (like PR, research, digital expertise, copywriting and project
management) needed to execute the college’s marketing goals.

For these reasons and more, marketing outsourcing delivers real value, bringing in a new level of efficiency and effectiveness to the often daunting task of marketing a whole college offering to what is increasingly a demanding, diverse and often difficult-to-reach audience.

Of course, I’m in PR and run a marketing agency, so I would say that.

However, I’d like to say this too: some colleges really don’t need to outsource, in our experience there are some fine college marketers and PROs out there and they are doing a cracking job – you know who you are!

Alison Wolf, professor of public sector management, King’s College

Alison Wolf says she had “no intention of having anything to do with education.”

In fact, when she left university in the early 1970s, she was destined for a career in journalism, having secured a job on the Daily Mail’s money pages.

But she never made it to the newsroom; her husband was offered a job at the World Bank in Washington so she moved to the other side of the world, where she finished her postgraduate studies and taught research methods in two universities while moonlighting as a journalist.

A random encounter changed everything. She interviewed a man who was setting up a new federal agency, called the National Institute of Education and he offered her a job. “I’d love to say it was my brilliant interviewing technique,” she says modestly. “But actually I think he thought it would be good for them to have a member of staff who was not a product of the American system, that it would bring something they didn’t have.”

But going into policy work was “not quite as daft as it sounds,” she says. Having studied Politics, Philosophy and Economics (PPE) at Oxford, Wolf was, essentially, a social scientist with a background in statistics. “I ended up working for the US government on education policy reporting mostly to congressional committees. And actually I had a ball. It taught me how much different political systems can affect the policy-making.”

Wolf, now the Sir Roy Griffiths Professor of Public Sector Management at Kings College, the University of London went on to work for several political think tanks and local authorities on a freelance basis, combining part-time work with bringing up two small children, which she admits was tough but helped her “get very good at working late at night and early in the morning.”

When the family returned to the UK in the mid-1980s (she is married to the economics commentator Martin Wolf) she called a friend who was working at the Institute of Education to see if he knew of any jobs.

There were no vacancies, but he did offer a desk and a phone so she could try and raise herself some research funds, which she did successfully, initially for pedagogical research, some of which related to work-based learning, which she says sparked her interest in FE.

If anything that I said was going to be implemented I had to get it to them [Ministers] fast because otherwise by the time they’d got it they would have moved on and been reshuffled and it would be the eve of the next election and be utterly pointless.”

Securing funding from the Nuffield Foundation in the early 1990s for research into the evaluation of GNVQs moved her back into policy. “I’d begun to have some serious worries and questions and started to become that woman who was always criticising,” she says. “And personally I was getting very uneasy about the way vocational qualification policy was going…whether these qualifications were proving to be worthwhile to people in their adult lives.”

What concerned her most was the introduction of Level 1 and Level 2 qualifications (equivalent to GCSE) that were not fit for purpose, for example hairdressing qualifications that could be taken in school, but did not give young people the necessary skills to do the job. “It was at the point where they  [the government] had introduced all these levels and all these targets and it was becoming, you know, like ‘let’s shell them like peas.’ I’m sorry, but they are a scandal, they have no place in school curriculum, it’s a complete waste of time…” she says crossly.  “And what was even worse was that they [the students] were getting GCSE points for them.”

This is typical Wolf. Passionate and driven, she speaks incredibly fast, switching between girlish and excitable to fiery and indignant in seconds.

But her work with the Nuffield Foundation didn’t just get her back into policy. It also propelled her into the media spotlight. “That was definitely a baptism of fire stuff because it was the first time I had been on national radio and starting with Today is pretty big,” she recalls.

While now a radio pro (Wolf sometimes presents the Radio 4 show analysis, which looks at the idea and forces that shape public policy) she has never got used to TV. “I’ve done little bits of television and it’s terrifying,” she says, covering her face with her hands (something, like talking fast, she does a lot). “Radio is fine, but when I did the vocational review [the Wolf review], I did the sofa, BBC breakfast and it confirmed my views…I’ve been asked to do Newsnight and I’ve said no. I hate television.”

After living on what she calls “soft money” for many years, she was relieved to be offered a job as a “conventional academic” at the Institute of Education (IoE) in the mid-1990s. “So at this point you have this wonderful liberation that you actually have a regular job and you can say what you think without worrying where the next pay cheque is coming from…which is why I get cross about many academies who I think pull punches too much. I mean no one is going to do anything to us as long as we do the academic part of our job properly. I think we ought…” she tails off, as if she has spoken out of turn. “Yes, anyway, where had we got to?”

Later she talks about the “liberation” of being an academic, which allowed her to start writing for think tanks again. “I might as well be open about this…it’s a lot easier to write critical pamphlets when you have a full-time job and you do it full-time.”

But writing think pieces about further and higher education (in her case for “centre and centre right” organisations), was about “policy not politics,” she insists.  And with a change of government looking likely, it was a deliberate move on her part to position herself in a time of political flux. “I suppose I became more and more aware that if you want to influence government you don’t do it by publishing research papers,” she says. “You do it by journalism and by think tank pamphlets. And once a government has been in power for a long time you don’t get much purchase on them. If you want to actually get your ideas over to people, you do better with the group that might be going to come in fresh.”

It was a strategy that paid off, and last summer, she received a phone call from the office of the schools minister Nick Gibb inviting her to Westminster for a meeting. “Now I know you never have conversations with the minister, you always have conversations with the minister and 16 civil servants, but I didn’t know that then,” she recalls. “I thought I was going in to have an informal conversation with the minister. I turned up to the DfE and was shown up to the 7th floor – which is the ministerial floor – and I sat in a little waiting room and then they said ‘the minister’s ready for you know’ and I walked into this room full of people. “

 I don’t want to be a politician and I don’t want to be a civil servant, I want to be an academic.”

While she admits to being “a bit terrified” about what she was asked to do – a major piece of research on further education, now known as the ‘Wolf review’ – she insisted that it must be done fast.  “I said I wanted to do it fast because everything takes forever [in government].

“If anything that I said was going to be implemented I had to get it to them fast because otherwise by the time they’d got it they would have moved on and been reshuffled and it would be the eve of the next election and be utterly pointless.”

Between August last year and February, Wolf worked around the clock, balancing research around teaching and other commitments to deliver the report, which concluded that while there was some very good practice in the sector, some young people are wasting their time on colleges courses that do not lead to employment or further training.

The report also stressed the need for young people to study a core of academic subjects up until the age of 16.

“I made two important recommendations,” she says. “One was to actually have some truly respected vocational qualifications that people would recognise…and the other thing – which was almost the most important thing to me – was to change the funding system, because I think that it’s only when you can get per student funding that you can release the innovation and allow institutions to do interesting things. I think that post 18 funding still badly needs sorting out.”

Since last autumn, Wolf has had little spare time for the things she loves most, like cooking, making jam and relaxing in her flat in Tuscany. Having delivered a major government report in record time, she jokes that her next project is to “have a holiday.”

One of the most significant things she has taken away from the experience, she says, is a greater appreciation of politicians.

“It’s made me appreciate them…how unbelievably hard they work and how incredibly difficult it is to be a minister and it has also made me quite clear that actually I’m in the right occupation, I don’t want to be a politician and I don’t want to be a civil servant, I want to be an academic.”

 

WorldSkills 2011 Souvenir Supplement

Download our special WorldSkills 2011 souvenir supplement, produced in partnership with the Association of Employment and Learning Providers.

Click here to download (17 mb)

Watch some of our WorldSkills footage below:

AoC 16-18 recruitment survey ‘reveals major concerns among college leaders’

Half of colleges have seen a drop in enrolment figures, with the blame partly placed on the loss of the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA).

A survey by the Association of Colleges (AoC) of 182 colleges shows 49 per cent are reporting falling numbers of 16-19-year-olds, compared to last year.

It also shows a national drop of 0.1 per cent, the first time in 15 to 20 years the figure has fallen, with 46 colleges reporting a dip between five to 15 per cent.

Colleges believe unaffordable transport, combined with the abolition of the EMA and increased competition for student numbers among school and college sixth forms, have been the main causes for a decline.

The survey is further evidence supporting the findings from two surveys – conducted by Lsect – and published in FE Week. The first showed that 105 colleges forecast an initial total shortfall of 20,319 students for this academic year.

Key AoC survey findings:

  • Half of the 182 colleges that responded are seeing a drop in 16-19 students, with 46 colleges reporting a significant dip of between five per cent to 15 per cent
  • Of those reporting a decline, colleges say the end of EMAs for students in the first year of the course, competition from other providers, lack of affordable transport and cuts in funding per student were the main factors
  • A decline in Level 1 courses (pre-GSCE and basic skills) was reported by 41 per cent of respondents
  • 51 per cent of colleges said that their student numbers have increased or remained stable
  • 60 per cent of colleges reported a drop in transport spending by their local authority
  • Over half of all colleges are ‘topping up’ Government bursary funding with their own contributions and the same proportion are spending more on subsidising transport this year than last
  • 79 per cent of colleges agreeing that free meals in colleges for 16-18 year olds (currently not available, unlike in schools) would encourage participation.

Fiona McMillan, president of the AoC and principal of Bridgwater College in Somerset, said that at her own college EMA provided students with about £1,000 per year. Now, there is only £152 per year available for students.

She said: “We are all aware that funding is tight. But these young people are our future and we must consider our investment in them.

“We would all regret a situation where young people miss out and then become the so-called lost generation.”

Ms McMillan said the new 16-19 bursary, which replaced the EMA, is “better than nothing” but in terms of what it provides, “there is a big gap”. To cope, her college – like many others – has subsidised the cost.

She is also concerned colleges will miss out on vital funding, adding: “We are paid by our student numbers. So it’s an important issue for us.”

Martin Doel, chief executive of the AoC, said some of the changes could be due to demographics – with a drop of 40,000 in the 16-18 age group. He added: “It is a complex picture. The decline in college enrolment by students on Level 1 courses may be partially explained by improvements in school teaching.

“What is clear is a significant number of member colleges are concerned that financial constraints are preventing students from pursuing preferred courses at their institution of choice and there is a risk of vulnerable groups becoming disengaged from education.”

Andy Forbes, principal at Hertford Regional College, said they are “about five per cent down” on 16-18 enrolment from last year.

He said: “We’re now projecting a figure of just under 2,600 against our target of 2,719.

“We have experienced a particular decline in Level 2 enrolments and at the furthest reaches of our catchment area, which stretches quite a long way.”

Mr Forbes believes there are two factors to blame, adding: “The withdrawal of EMA and the cost of transport from the two ends of our catchment.

“We were not helped by late arrival of concrete information on what funding we had to compensate for loss of EMA and how we could use that funding, which made it difficult to put financial support in place for students and publicise them effectively.”

He also said colleges need to work harder to get the message across about the “exceptional quality of provision” they offer, in the face of “growing competition from schools” expanding sixth forms by offering vocational courses.

He added: “The decline of independent careers advice isn’t helping young people make good choices at 16 and we in FE are going to have to be a lot more active in ensuring school pupils and parents are made positively aware of the alternatives to staying on at school.”

However, the Department for Education spokesman (DfE) said there are “record numbers of 16 and 17-year-olds” in education or training.

He said: “There has been a massive increase in apprenticeships for anyone over 16 to learn a specific trade – 360,000 places in all available in more than 200 careers.

“And we are strengthening vocational education so young people will have high-quality courses open to them which are valued by employers.”

The spokesman also said: “We are targeting financial support at students who need it most to get through their studies – through the new £180m a year bursary fund, with further transitional support available for those students who were already drawing the EMA.”

Gordon Marsden, Shadow FE and Skills Minister, said the “alarming figures” show the impact of the government’s policy to scrap EMA. He said: “The government has left FE colleges facing a double whammy at a time of real economic uncertainty.

“Not only are college finances jeopardised by falling enrolment numbers, but they face the strain of having to try and address the post EMA funding gap, putting extra administrative burdens on them at a time where they claim to be setting them free.

“The government needs to get a grip urgently with a strategy that will help, rather than hinder, FE colleges in addressing young people’s employment and skills needs.”

AoC said they will repeat the enrolment survey in September 2012.

Click here to download the study and here to download the AoC press release.

Apprenticeship providers continue to ignore Functional Skills

Nine out of ten apprenticeship providers are still delivering Key Skills, rather than Functional Skills, according to a recent survey by the Association of Learning Providers (AELP).

The study, which had 173 responses over five working days, found that training providers had a remarkably low level of confidence in the delivery of Functional Skills in apprenticeships (click here to download).

The figures cast doubt on the effectiveness of Functional Skills, which are due to replace Key Skills completely in October 2012.

John Hayes, Minister of State for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, said in a letter to Graham Hoyle (click here to download), chief executive of AELP on September 28: “I am fully aware that there are issues implementing Functional Skills.

“The provision of maths and English in apprenticeships is being considered in the context of the government’s response to the Wolf review and our review of literacy and numeracy provision for adults.”

Jill Lanning, chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies, added: “Particularly within apprenticeships and work based settings, we need to continue to discuss what the issues are and how they can be resolved.”

Respondents to the AELP survey include national, regional and local organisations that deliver over 100,000 apprenticeships with financial support by the Skills Funding Agency.

Ron Champion, Director of Cornwall College Business, said: “If the choice were to remain between functional skills and key skills, we would use key skills for the majority of our learners and know that our employers would choose this option too.”

The survey found that only eight per cent of respondents were delivering Functional Skills exclusively to their apprentices.

Additional comments to the survey suggested some employers had started using Functional Skills earlier in the year, but were now choosing to revert back to Key Skills.

Mr Champion said: “We have trialled functional skills in two areas, in one the result was similar to the expectations we would have had for key skills, in the other there were extreme difficulties experienced by the learners.”

Functional skills were launched in 2010 and teach learners the practical aspects of English, mathematics and ICT which are relevant for work.

AELP says that learners and employers are increasingly disillusioned with the additional teaching requirements and failure rates associated with Functional Skills.

A spokesperson from the AELP said: “Time is running short for providers to be ready, so a decision from the government is needed soon.

“The challenge is to make Functional Skills testing fit for a work based learning environment.  Right now, it certainly isn’t.”