Foul play? Football club sues college

A London college is being sued amid allegations that it ignored a six-figure debt owed to a football club for use of its pitches and coaches, FE Week can reveal.

As part of its football apprenticeship programme, Stanmore College students were able to use training pitches belonging to Barnet FC’s academy, while the academy provided coaching staff to deliver football skills and fitness sessions to students.

The academy also provided learners with analysis and medical services, and managed their matches within an affiliated league.

But High Court documents seen by FE Week show that Barnet’s academy and Amber Football Centre, a community football venue owned by Barnet FC’s chairman, alleged that Stanmore College breached an agreement to pay more than £110,000 for those services.

The club has now attempted to sue Stanmore College for £168,180. This comprises three unpaid invoices, interest on the late payment and additional compensation. 

After nearly a year of negotiation, the case has been suspended in the hope that it can be resolved out of court – with mediation scheduled for next month.

In email exchanges dating back to 2015, the college’s former principal Jacqui Mace and representatives of the football academy agreed that the college would pay the academy to use its facilities via “block pitch bookings”.

Barnet FC’s academy then sent Stanmore College three invoices worth a combined £112,900 the following year, to cover the training costs.

Despite the repeated invoices, Stanmore College both “failed and refuses” to pay any of them, the court documents reveal.

Mace left the college in December 2015 amid accusations from the then-FE Commissioner that there was a “lack of confidence in [her] ability to lead the college going forward”. The commissioner also put Stanmore College into administered status at the time due to significant financial concerns.

The college argued that the emails from Mace “do not establish any valid and enforceable agreement relating to the claimants” – insisting the former principal did not make that agreement on behalf of the college. Instead, the college argued Mace sent those emails on behalf of Stanmore Training Company Limited, a college-run firm which provided bespoke training and apprenticeship services for the college.

That firm was then dissolved in December 2016.

Stanmore College also alleged that the emails do not show “offer and acceptance” of the deal, as the final email just “provided for further discussion” between Mace and Barnet FC’s then academy manager, Henry Newman.

Master Iain Pester, the judge in charge, suspended the court case in February so that it could be settled by “alternative dispute resolution” (ADR). Representatives of the college and football club have agreed to a mediation day on July 27, 2023, according to a spokesperson for Stanmore College.

By settling the dispute in this way, both the college and football club will be able to avoid the high costs associated with a drawn-out legal case.

In a joint statement, Barnet FC Academy and Amber Football Centre said they were “not in a position to comment further” as the ADR process is ongoing. “However, we hope that the matter will soon be resolved,” they added.

Lawyers urge caution as colleges face £100,000 holiday pay ruling

Colleges are bracing themselves for six-figure bills following a landmark ruling that gives all staff equal holiday pay.

But an expert law firm is advising colleges to be cautious as the government moves forward with proposed legislation which could bypass the legal case.

Colleges across England have consulted lawyers since the Supreme Court judgment in Harpur Trust v Brazel last July, which ruled that all workers should get a minimum of 5.6 weeks of paid holiday time, regardless of how many hours they work.

The case focused on music teacher Lesley Brazel, who argued that it was unfair she got less annual paid holiday because she worked variable hours each week during term-time.

The decision to rule in favour of Brazel is significant because it means that thousands of term-time workers have been underpaid and could now bring claims going back up to two years.

Large colleges have warned that the ruling will have a “significant adverse impact”, with at least two setting aside more than £100,000 to resolve any claims.

‘Significant adverse impact’

Since the ruling, workers who feel they are owed holiday pay have been able to approach their employers to claim that money back. Colleges have been preparing for the impact.

At DN Colleges Group, legal firm Eversheds Sutherlands advised the college to “implement compliance” with the working-time directive, but said that it would be “unlikely” to need to engage in collective bargaining with trade unions.

The impact, some warn, will be severe, with East Kent College saying the ruling had a “significant adverse impact” on the group.

Following the ruling, it undertook a “full review” of staff affected and “recalculated staff pay”, letting all staff know the impact it would have on them. The college does not specify how much it paid out to staff.

Meanwhile, Brockenhurst College declared a “potential historical liability” of £150,000, while one of the biggest colleges in the country, Chichester College Group, set aside £140,000, which it says would cover two years of relevant backpay. “It is expected that a payment will be made in the year to 31 July 2023,” it said in its annual report.

FE Week understands that the Association of Colleges took legal advice from Irwin Mitchell on the impact the changes could have, but it does not have an estimate of how much the college sector could have to pay back in total.

University and College Union general secretary Jo Grady said: “For far too long employers have used underhand tactics to deny casualised workers their full holiday pay. This case is one of many brought by the union movement which confirms that, when employers play fast and loose with the law, they will be held to account.”

‘Be pragmatic’

But things have changed. In January, just months after the ruling, the government launched a consultation looking at pro-rata holiday entitlement for part-year workers.

The proposals, if accepted, would “ensure that holiday pay and entitlement is directly proportionate to the time they spend working”. The consultation closed in March and is set to report back this year.

Irwin Mitchell’s lead practice development lawyer Joanne Moseley told FE Week that the move by the government had been unexpected.

Before the consultation, the advice was for colleges to prepare backdated payments. That advice has now changed.

The law firm expects the government to respond to the consultation in the autumn – which could mean any changes come into effect next year.

“Our advice is to be pragmatic,” Moseley told FE Week. If a college has already changed its contracts to implement the changes after the legal case, it should stay with that course.

If, however, colleges are in the process of changing the contracts, a different approach could make more sense.

“You might be able to build in flexibility in the contracts of employment, so that you can then reduce the amount of holiday they receive if the law changes.” If a college has done nothing to implement the changes, a “wait and see approach” could be more fruitful, Moseley said.

“What we are saying is that, yes, that’s the law: you are breaching the law. But, if people are not bringing claims, do you want to alert them to this?”

A Department for Business and Trade spokesperson said: “We want to address disparities in holiday pay and annual leave entitlement to ensure any entitlement is directly proportional to the time spent working.

“This is why we launched a consultation on holiday entitlement which ended in March, and we will issue a response in due course.”

Always check the engine before you blame the passengers 

Back in 2001, I was waiting for Estelle Morris, the then education and skills secretary. Despite the conference venue, Church House, being literally just across the road from her department’s Whitehall HQ, she was running late. 

Her skills minister, John Healey, was about to go on stage but was anxious to catch a word with his political boss. We were launching the new sector skills councils (SSCs) initiative to an invited audience of industry leaders. 

“What’s our core message?”, he asked me. 

As a post-16 advisor at the time, I told him: “Well minister, we need to put employers at the heart of the skills system. Sector skills councils will achieve this aim by handing ownership of the skills and productivity challenge over to them.” 

“Great”, he said, “make sure Estelle gets the same message when she arrives.” 

Ever since that point, we have seen a succession of government ministers and senior officials parrot the same line: “Employers at the heart of the skills system.”

The trouble is, the whole thing has turned out to be one massive illusion. 

Employers today are no more engaged in government skills policies than they were two decades ago. In fact, there is strong evidence by volume of firms engaged, not to mention employer investment in workers, that they are even less engaged. 

The Labour Force Survey shows a 28 per cent decline in company training since 2005 (11 per cent since 2010). 

Some people reading this will remember the employer ownership of skills pilots (EOP). It turned out that firms are great at taking “free money” from taxpayers to boost skills. But they are rather less forthcoming in stepping up and putting in their own cash, as reported by FE Week at the time. 

In fact, independent researchers commissioned to evaluate the pilots found huge deadweight in the £350 million programme. Only 40 per cent of the original planned starts were met.

It is hard not to be cynical when you rock up at another one of these taxpayer-funded “terrace events” in Parliament, as I did this week.

The core message of the event on Tuesday, marking the launch of a new report by IfATE on “a simpler skills system”, was as predictable as it was tiresome. 

Perhaps we should not blame hard-working officials who put together this guff. They are made to “drink the Kool-Aid”. 

I liken it to blaming the passengers on a bus that has broken down. You would always look at the mechanical faults in the engine compartment first. 

The truth is that civil servants have become prisoners of an ideology that is total nonsense.

Let’s start by examining the bold claim that the institute is the “voice of employers in the skills system”. For a public body established under the political direction of ministers, this is constitutionally impossible. 

IfATE can only ever be the voice of the government of the day. It is the duty of officials to serve ministers in what they want to achieve in terms of apprenticeships and technical education. 

The institute is chaired by a Conservative peer. It has a career civil servant at the helm, as opposed to a celebrated captain of industry. 

IfATE is neither a representative structure nor is it an independent voice in the skills system. It exists to do the bidding of the governing party. And, in a democracy, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. 

If the government was really serious about employers being placed in the driving seat – or taking more responsibility for skills development, public and private – we would see some kind of renaissance of the employer-led sectoral approach to training. 

I find it amusing, given my Labour background, that I successfully argued back in 2001 that the last people you would put in charge of a skills system are a bunch of civil servants, however well-meaning. 

When Estelle Morris finally arrived at Church House, I dutifully relayed the “employers at the heart of the skills system” message. In retrospect, I wish I had just told her Ronald Reagan’s famous line about the nine most terrifying words in the English language: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.

College group becomes first FE institution with permanent degree powers

NCG has become the first further education college group to be granted permanent awarding powers for taught degrees up to masters level.

The Office for Students (OfS) has confirmed that, with effect from June 1, it removed the time limit on NCG’s degree awarding powers, making it the first FE institution with indefinite taught degree-awarding powers.

Jon Ridley, NCG’s deputy principal for higher education, described the milestone as a “gamechanger” for the organisation, giving it the ability to plan longer term and expand its “full tertiary” offer in Newcastle and beyond.

NCG, formerly known as Newcastle College Group, is one of England’s largest groups with seven colleges across the country under its belt. Its degree-awarding powers apply across all its college sites, though most of its HE provision is currently delivered at its Newcastle College University Centre.

Higher education providers are initially awarded taught degree-awarding powers with a time limit. NCG was first awarded the powers by the Privy Council in 2016 until July 2022. This time limit was extended by two years by the OfS in July 2022, and removed altogether this month.  

“NCG has a long, proud history as a provider of higher technical education stretching back decades, and we have been an awarding institution for over 10 years,” Ridley said.

“Having taught degree-awarding powers without time limit recognises the quality of our higher education. This is a first for a college-based HE provider and supports our ambition to be the country’s leading provider of higher technical education.”

This is the latest in a run of firsts for the group’s higher education portfolio. The then-Newcastle College Group was among the first FE colleges to be granted foundation degree-awarding powers in 2011. It was then the first FE institution to receive time-limited taught bachelors and masters degree-awarding powers in 2016.

There are other colleges, such as WCG and TEC Partnership, with bachelors degree-awarding powers, though these are, for now, still time limited. And private provider Multiverse received the power to award its own degrees in certain subjects in September, though they too are time limited. 

NCG’s offer currently boasts a BA(Hons) in fine art, BSc(Hons) in aircraft engineering and an MBA.

“This is a full tertiary solution,” Ridley said. “You can arrive here with no qualifications and leave with a masters, on your doorstep.”

The final approval for NCG came after a “rigorous” assessment process with the OfS, Ridley said.

“Do you have the right academic structures, are you self-critical as an organisation, can you uphold the standards of higher education? We’ve had to prove that we’ve sustained that level and also grown as an institution.

“It is gamechanger because now we can plan with confidence.”

Jon Ridley at the Newcastle Aviation Academy

The college’s higher education prospectus boasts smaller class sizes and dedicated HE student services as part of its offer, which must be important with two large universities – Newcastle University and Northumbria University ­– on its doorstep.

Higher education accounted for around £19 million of the group’s £136 million total income in 21/22, with learner numbers hovering between 2,300 and 2,400 over the past four years.

For Ridley, being the only FE institution with indefinite awarding powers could catalyse new partnerships with other colleges and providers.

He said: “Our ambition is to grow our partnership work with other colleges and providers, but that has got to align with our values and principles.

“We are going to do degree apprenticeships, we are going to do modular. We are already doing those things. Our focus is on degrees and higher-level study that leads into employment or to better somebody’s opportunities.”

Back in business: Employers renew case for level 2 business admin

Employers are making another attempt to get a level 2 business administration apprenticeship over the line, with plans to launch a government petition if officials continue to reject the proposal.

A trailblazer group held a meeting with around 100 employers last week to sound out support for the bid ahead of a formal submission in September.

A survey has also been launched to ask more businesses to back the proposal, working with the provisional title of level 2 “administration assistant”, to “demonstrate current business need” to the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE).

The institute has batted away proposals for such a course since the popular level 2 business admin apprenticeship under the old-style frameworks was officially switched off on July 31, 2020. Officials claimed that a proposed replacement did not meet the required duration or quality of the new-style apprenticeship standards.

An alternative “public sector organisation administrative assistant” standard at level 2 was put forward months later but was dropped last year after Rob Nitsch, IfATE’s delivery director, said it was “some distance off” the quality threshold.

The survey for the latest proposal, which will be for both public and private sector employers, states that, if the institute “continues to deny the need for a level 2 administration standard, it has been suggested that our next step could be to launch a petition to get a formal response from government.

“We would create a petition that asks for a change to government policy. After 10,000 signatures, petitions get a response from the government and, after 100,000 signatures, petitions are considered for debate in Parliament.”

A spokesperson for IfATE said: “‘Where employers have come forward, we have continued to work with them, and this includes with regard to business administration. We continue to remain open to new standards and the adjustment of all where they satisfy the necessary criteria.”

There is a level 3 business administrator standard available, which has attracted over 55,000 starts since its launch in 2017. The standard is currently being revised, including its content, end-point assessment plan and £5,000 funding band.

But employers such as the NHS, councils, supermarkets and police have warned that level 3 is not the right entry point for many business admin apprentices, and the absence of a level 2 equivalent is the “missing rung” of skills minister Robert Halfon’s supposed “ladder of opportunity”.

The Education and Skills Funding Agency previously highlighted the level 2 customer service practitioner standard as a potential replacement for the level 2 business admin framework, but admitted this would not fit all apprentices’ needs.

The level 2 business admin apprenticeship trailblazer group was not able to comment.

‘Astonishing’: Ofqual publishes VTQ entries for first time

Ofqual has published entry data for vocational and technical qualifications for the first time.

Today the exams watchdog revealed that more than 334,000 results for level 3 VTQs, which include BTECs and CTECs, are due to be issued in August.

Every year, A-level entry figures are published, but this is the first year that similar data has been published for VTQs.

Ofqual claimed the move marks the “first significant step towards parity of treatment between A-levels and VTQs”.

It is a “milestone” in the regulator’s VTQ action plan, which was launched following last year’s results debacle that saw around 21,000 BTEC and Cambridge Technical (CTEC) results issued late, leaving students in limbo.

Ofqual chief regulator Jo Saxton (pictured) said: “As astonishing as it seems, never have we had a definitive picture of the number of vocational and technical results expected ahead of results day, even though this has been in place for GCSEs and A-levels for many years.

“Over the years, we’ve heard a lot of words about parity, but the publication of this data represents the first concrete actions in securing parity for all students.

“Every student deserves the chance to move on quickly and smoothly to the next stage of their career after working hard to obtain their qualifications – whether they study VTQs or A-levels or a combination.”

Despite its promises of parity, the data published today is sparse compared to the equivalent release for A-levels and GCSEs.

Earlier this month, Ofqual published 2023 data which broke GCSE and A-level entry data down by subject and provider type.

FE Week has asked Ofqual for a further breakdown of their VTQ entry data as this was not initially released.

Ofqual said the entries data is the culmination of 2,500 schools and colleges in England confirming with awarding organisations which of their students expect to get level 3 VTQ results this summer.

The watchdog is working with a new VTQ Taskforce, made up of sector representatives, to oversee the delivery of its VTQ action plan.

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said: “With an economy crying out for people with technical skills, it is pleasing to see just how many young people are on course to achieve VTQs this summer.

“We should celebrate their successes just as much we do the achievements of their peers doing A-levels; and now we can see the huge number expecting a result, we can begin to understand the positive impact this part of the education system has on the economy and on young people’s lives.”

The VTQ taskforce members are:

.             Association of Colleges (Catherine Sezen, Interim Director of Education Policy)

 .            Association of School and College Leaders (Dr Anne Murdoch, Senior Adviser, College Leadership)

 .            Confederation of School Trusts (Steve Rollett, Deputy Chief Executive)

 .            Department for Education (Directors, Qualifications) (Observers)

 .            Federation of Awarding Bodies (Tom Bewick, CEO)

 .            Joint Council for Qualifications (Ian Morgan, Chairman, Margaret Farragher, CEO)

 .            NAHT (Sarah Hannafin, Senior Policy Advisor)

 .            National Association of Examinations Officers (Jugjit Chima, CEO)

 .            OCR (Jill Duffy, CEO)

 .            Office for Students (John Blake, Director for Fair Access and Participation)

 .            Pearson (Freya Thomas-Monk, SVP Vocational Qualifications & Training)

 .            Sixth Form Colleges Association (Bill Watkin, Chief Executive)

 .            UCAS (Clare Marchant, Chief Executive)

Council rapped for failing to meet student’s SEND transport costs

A mother has been awarded almost £3,500 in compensation after a council refused to pay to transport her son, who suffers with anxiety, to college.

The young adult, who has an education, health and care plan, spent three academic years being driven to and from college by his family as Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council “failed to recognise its duty to arrange free transport”, a report by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman found.

The review also highlighted an inadequate appeals process and poor record-keeping that led to long delays in addressing the mother’s concerns.

The council has agreed to apologise to the mother and reimburse her fuel costs and for the “distress, uncertainty and time and trouble” caused.

Local authorities do not have to provide free or subsidised post-16 travel support but have a duty to “encourage, enable and assist young people with learning difficulties/disabilities (SEND) to participate in education, up to the age of 25”, according to government guidance.

Young people with SEND qualify for free transport where a council assesses that, in order to attend education, they require transport arranged by the local authority.

Ali Fiddy, a solicitor and chief executive of the Independent Provider of Special Education Advice (IPSEA), said post-16 SEND transport was an area where “most local authorities are trying to cut costs by changing or limiting the offer”.

In a speech at the NATSPEC annual conference this week, she described the issue as a “real lottery” and “worrying issue” for families once their child leaves school at age 16. She said it was “very difficult to challenge” a council when it refuses to provide free travel for SEND learners in further education.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman reported that the young adult in Stock-on-Tees was originally travelling to college in shared transport, paid for by the council. But, when his mother said it was no longer suitable because of his anxiety, the council failed to “properly consider the mother’s concerns or make other suitable arrangements”.

The ombudsman found the council’s post-16 transport policy “was not in line with its statutory duties”, adding that the council should have provided transport free of charge “if it considered transport necessary”. Instead it required a contribution from the mother.

The investigation also found the council’s appeals process did not follow statutory guidance – it did not offer a hearing at stage two of the complaints process, and then did not direct people who were unhappy to the ombudsman.

Additionally, the ombudsman criticised the council’s poor record-keeping: it did not have a central system for recording decisions, which would have allowed these to be accessed after staff left.

Paul Najsarek, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said: “The council’s responses to my enquiries, and its current transport policy, leaves me concerned that there are systematic issues in Stockton that may be affecting other young adult learners who have education, health and care plans.

“I am also particularly concerned that the council is not signposting parents to my office if they are unhappy with the outcome of any complaint about its appeals process.

“I am therefore pleased the council has accepted my recommendations to improve its processes and policies to ensure other young adults – and their families – are treated fairly and in line with statutory guidance.”

Stockton-on-Tees council has now agreed to pay the mother £3,432.50.

The council has also agreed to amend its letters, templates and policies to ensure they fall in line with statutory guidance and refer people to the ombudsman, and provide training and guidance to staff responsible for school and college transport on its new policy.

Councillor Bob Cook, leader of Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council, said: “We recognise the findings of the ombudsman and have offered our apologies to Ms X, who we will also reimburse for fuel costs. 

“Steps have now been taken to ensure this does not happen again, including updating the relevant policy and procedures.” 

ESFA to run special AEB allocations review for colleges

Colleges facing cuts to their national adult education budget allocations due to underdelivery during Covid will have their funding reviewed, the government has announced. 

The special review of ESFA-funded AEB allocations for 2023/24 is planned for colleges and other grant-funded providers that have experienced a significant boost in delivery this year following drops in adult learner numbers over the previous two years.

Recruitment of adult learners took a fall in 2020 and 2021 amid the pandemic and associated lockdowns, forcing many colleges and other providers to underperform against their annual grant funding allocations.

The Education and Skills Funding Agency released individual AEB budgets for 2023/24 at the end of March, but multiple colleges found their allocations have been reduced compared to recent years.

The funding taken away from those colleges who suffered with low recruitment in the Covid years, delivering less than 90 per cent of their allocations, was used to increase the budgets for colleges who had over-delivered.

But there are concerns that the 2023/24 allocations will not be sufficient as recruitment returns to pre-pandemic levels.

The ESFA has now promised to review those most affected this November.

In an update to the sector today, the agency said: “We delivered ESFA adult education budget funding allocations for academic year 2023/24 at the end of March. Some providers received an allocation lower than their 2022/23 funding allocation. This is because their delivery was below 90 per cent of their allocation over the past two funding years.

“A small number of providers with lower funding allocations will have significantly increased their delivery in academic year 2022/23. This could mean their delivery in 2022/23 exceeds their allocation for academic year 2023/24.

“We will operate a review process for these providers in November 2023.”

This process will only apply to those providers who have a “significantly reduced allocation in academic year 2023/24” and can “evidence significant increased delivery in their R14 data return for academic year 2022/23”.

The ESFA said it will publish the criteria for this process and further information in the next update of the AEB funding rules “later in June”.

ChatGPT: Keegan launches call for evidence on AI in education

Education secretary Gillian Keegan is launching a call for evidence on using artificial intelligence (AI) like ChatGPT in education “to get the best” out of the new technology.

Keegan will tell the London Tech Week conference she wants to “kick start a conversation” with experts on using generative AI in a “safe and secure way”.

She believes teachers’ day-to-day work could be “transformed” by the emerging tech and help with workload, but that the standard is not yet there.

It comes a mid growing debate about the role AI should play in education – with fears it could be used for cheating by students.

The Department for Education has also today confirmed a new “digital and computing skills education taskforce”, made up of tech experts and led by senior civil servants (see full list below).

Members include Dame Wendy Hall, who developed the microcosm hypermedia system in the mid-1980s, a forerunner to the World Wide Web.

The group will establish what computing and digital skills are needed now and for the future and work with industry experts to “encourage” more young people to consider a career in cyber security, AI or computing, DfE said.

‘We need to understand the opportunities and risks’

Keegan is inviting schools, colleges and universities to respond to the call for evidence, which will close on August 23.

Ministers want to get a handle on how generative AI is being and could be used in education providers as well as any risks, ethical considerations and training needed for staff.

Keegan will tell tech experts the education workforce needs to be “best equipped with the skills and knowledge” so they can “ride the wave” of AI.

“For that potential to be realised, we – the government, our schools, colleges and universities – need to be able to understand those opportunities, as well as the real risks new technology brings.

“That’s why we want to kick start a conversation with experts from across education and technology to hear their views and learn from their experiences. This will help us make the right decisions to get the best out of generative AI in a safe and secure way.”

DfE previously advised schools and colleges they “may wish to review” their homework policies and strengthen cyber security as AI could increase the credibility of attacks.

Ministers committed in March to “convene” experts to work with the education sector to “share and identify best practice and opportunities to improve education and reduce workload using generative AI”.

Exam boards have also published their own guidance on “protecting the integrity of qualifications”. It stated schools and colleges should make students do some coursework in class “under direct supervision” to make sure they are not cheating.

The digital and computing skills education taskforce:

  • Julia Kinniburgh (chair) – Director General Skills, Department for Education
  • Tom Rodden (deputy chair) – Chief Scientific Advisor, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
  • Dame Muffy Calder – Head of College of Science and Engineering University of Glasgow
  • Rashik Parmar MBE – Group CEO of The British Computing Society The Chartered Institute for IT
  • Dame Wendy Hall – Professor of Computer Science at Southampton University
  • Matthew Scullion – founder and CEO of Matillion
  • Lawrence Munro – Global Head of Innovation at NCC Group
  • Araceli Venegas-Gomez – CEO and Founder of QURECA