Gateway is a ‘no man’s land’ that leaves apprentices vulnerable

Completing an apprenticeship is a significant achievement, marking the end of formal training and the beginning of a new journey – recognition, promotion or new career.  However, what follows this milestone is a phase that has been relatively under-explored and is often overlooked: the waiting period before the end-point assessment (EPA). This phase, which we might aptly call a ‘no man’s land’, poses challenges for both apprentices and training providers, revealing a gap in the system that needs attention and reform.

Apprentices who have successfully completed their training can find themselves in limbo during the waiting period for their EPA, formally known as Gateway. This period can vary in length; it could be a matter of weeks or, in some cases, significantly longer.

The uncertainty of this phase can have an impact, and for some it is a disheartening experience, especially for those who feel unprepared or unsupported. This critical phase can lead to various outcomes, such as failing an assessment and needing a retake, losing faith in the apprenticeship process or even losing confidence to the point where they no longer wish to be assessed and leave the programme.

According to the ESFA funding rules, apprentices remain the responsibility of the training provider during gateway. This is even though the training is complete. However, no additional funding is allocated to provide support during this time. This places training providers in a challenging situation. They are responsible for apprentices’ progress, but they often lack the necessary resources to offer support beyond the formal training period.

Increased safeguarding risk

There are other considerations during the ‘no man’s land’ period, not least safeguarding. As a crucial aspect of the training programme designed to protect learners from harm and ensure their wellbeing, safeguarding can’t just stop in gateway. During the waiting period for EPA, apprentices are not exempt from potential safeguarding risks.

In fact, the vulnerability they may face during this phase can be significant. While waiting for EPA, apprentices might experience feelings of isolation. This isolation can expose them to risks such as mental health challenges including anxiety and depression. For those who fail and need to retake, the risk of learners leaving prior to completion is much higher.

It is important for providers to ensure that the same safeguards, identification, reporting and resolving of safeguarding issues are in place for those in gateway as those on programme. For example, are their apprentices less likely to report safeguarding concerns during the waiting period, fearing that it could negatively affect their EPA or job prospects?

Providers should perhaps establish a system of regular check-ins with apprentices during the waiting period similar to the support provided during the active training programme. They can offer access to support services such as financial counselling to address specific vulnerabilities.

Impact on employers

Employers can also be affected. For example, in the event of a failed EPA some employers may be reluctant to pay for a retake, especially if they feel that the training provider did not adequately prepare the apprentice. This reluctance can strain the relationship between employers and apprentices, creating a less-than-ideal environment for skills development and progression.

Ofsted inspects ‘the whole of the apprenticeship training’ but not the EPA. The role of the inspectorate is a grey area during gateway and while we don’t want to see more burdens placed on providers, it is reasonable to ask whether some form of evaluation of the apprentice’s experience should take place.

With a national membership of providers of all types, the Fellowship of Inspection Nominees can see a concerning picture emerging over the level of support for apprentices during gateway. Therefore we call on the DfE and other stakeholders to take a closer look at this no man’s land issue now to build in more accountability, funding and regulation.

Ofsted surrenders in secret legal battle over ‘fatally flawed’ inspection

A major manufacturing body has overturned an ‘inadequate’ Ofsted judgment following a year-long legal battle that the inspectorate was forced to back down from, FE Week can reveal.

Make UK is now set to be judged as ‘good’ following a reinspection just months after it was told it would be handed the lowest possible judgment, which would have closed its training division and led to around 120 job losses.

The firm suppressed the grade four after forking out over half a million pounds defending itself through the courts. It argued that the inspection, which made allegedly unsubstantiated claims of “misogynistic” behaviour, was “fatally flawed”.

FE Week understands that Ofsted pulled out of a judicial review hearing scheduled for last month at the eleventh hour, and at least one inspector has been suspended.

This is the second time in the space of a year that Ofsted has rowed back on an ‘inadequate’ judgment for a private training provider only to reinspect the company and upgrade it to ‘good’.

Make UK has called for “urgent reform” to Ofsted’s inspection model in light of the saga.

A spokesperson for the company said: “We have had no choice but to robustly challenge the outcome of a sub-standard Ofsted assessment that was fundamentally inaccurate and based on a fatally flawed inspection.

“Our experiences suggest that the Ofsted model for assessing private training providers is not fit for purpose and requires urgent reform. Our challenge to that report appears close to a successful conclusion and we look forward to saying more shortly.”

Ofsted declined to comment.

Make UK, formerly known as the Engineering Employers’ Federation, is an influential organisation that represents manufacturers across the country. It is chaired by Lord Hutton of Furness and was name-checked twice in last week’s autumn statement speech by chancellor Jeremy Hunt.

The company trains around 1,200 engineering and manufacturing apprentices at any one time. Its last published Ofsted inspection result was a ‘good’ in 2016.

Ofsted went back into the provider in January this year and dealt ‘inadequate’ ratings across the board a month later. The provider was accused of delaying student progress due to a lack of qualified staff, poorly run courses such as failing to provide relevant materials for welding students, and failing to offer a programme that was tailored to students’ existing abilities.

The most significant allegation made by the inspection team was around safeguarding, namely that there was “misogynistic behaviour”. Make UK refuted this in the strongest possible terms and said the highly damaging claim was “unsupported by any evidence”.

A judgment to this effect would have likely led to the Education and Skills Funding Agency terminating Make UK’s contract to deliver apprenticeship training.

The company quickly launched legal action and was successful in securing a judicial review that prevented Ofsted from publishing the report, having argued that Ofsted’s criticisms were irrational, unevidenced, and based on insufficient sample sizes.

Make UK was also granted an anonymity order whereby its identity could not initially be revealed during the proceedings.

While the company geared up for a showdown in the High Court, Ofsted conducted a follow-up mandatory monitoring visit in August and identified positive provision.

The watchdog then decided, off its own back, to conduct a full reinspection in October ahead of the court hearing with a completely different inspection team to the January visit.

FE Week understands new but yet undisclosed evidence came to light around this period that made it clear to the inspectorate it would not win the case in court. The reinspection resulted in an overall ‘good’ grade and none of the issues identified in the January inspection were found.

The report is expected to be published in December.

DfE’s spending on T Level public awareness efforts revealed

The Department for Education has spent less than 1 per cent of its T Levels budget on publicity efforts, FE Week can reveal amid mounting concerns over a lack of awareness of the flagship qualifications.

A Freedom of Information request shows that £11.7 million has been used for PR and communications campaigns since 2018.

The DfE will have pumped £1.75 billion into the rollout of T Levels by the end of the 2024-25 financial year, with funding available for 100,000 starts by that point.

However, between 2020/21 and 2022/23 just 16,400 students were recruited onto a T Level. It means a marketing cost per T Level student of around £650.

Various reports have raised concerns about continuing low levels of awareness of the new technical courses among young people, parents, employers and even schools.

Most colleges have missed their enrolment targets since T Levels launched in 2020, and several have even scrapped some T Level courses due to low demand.

Ofqual reported in August 2023 that up to 43 per cent of students had no understanding of the qualifications. And over the summer a highly critical Ofsted review slammed promotion efforts after finding that a portion of T Level students who were recruited felt “misled”. 

The watchdog’s deputy director for FE and skills, Paul Joyce, told FE Week he was struck by the lack of public awareness of what a T Level is and what the course involves at this point in the rollout.

Sector leaders told FE Week that the government has “significantly underestimated” the difficulty of launching an entirely new and complex qualification in a landscape where well-established qualifications already exist.

Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: “Despite the millions spent on raising awareness of T Levels, it is worrying that providers are concerned the T Level ‘brand’ is not well known and that the qualifications are not understood by parents or school staff.”

Bill Watkin, chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, added: “In their current guise, T Levels are a high quality but minority product. Attempting to promote them as a mass-market product was therefore always going to be an uphill struggle.”

The marketing figures shared with FE Week showed that for the first three financial years from 2018, over £7 million was spent on specific T Level advertising by DfE.

But from January 2022, the department ditched the individual marketing campaigns in favour of a more joined-up approach, spending approximately £4.5 million on the promotion of all technical education options.

These include the Get the Jump campaign, which sought to raise awareness of all education and training pathways and the Join the Skills Revolution campaign, which aims for more employer involvement in programmes such as apprenticeships, Multiply numeracy courses and T Levels.

The campaigns are handled by agencies contracted by DfE. Last October, M&C Saatchi was handed an up to £9.5 million contract to handle the government’s Skills for Life campaign, receiving over £1.5 million per year for four years from 2022/23.

The DfE also works with the Gatsby Foundation, which was set up by Lord David Sainsbury who also led the government’s technical education review in 2016, which paved the way for T Levels. His foundation launched a campaign in 2022 led by The Apprentice star Tim Campbell to target parents, carers and guardians of 11 to 16-year-olds.

ABS announcement ‘undercuts’ T Levels investment

Experts told FE Week that the government could have spent more funding on promoting T Levels instead of choosing to replace the qualification with the Advanced British Standard (ABS), as proposed by prime minister Rishi Sunak in October.

Ben Verinder, marketing expert and managing director of Chalkstream, told FE Week: “Launching a new national flagship qualification like T Levels requires considerable investment in order to raise awareness among the target market because – as we saw with Diplomas – they need a critical mass to succeed.

“So, spending millions to introduce T Levels to young people and their families is, on the face of it, a wise and necessary investment. What is not so wise is undercutting that investment by announcing the future demise of the qualification to national media.”

Verinder added: “We carry qualifications with us throughout our lives. If we are told that at some point they will be devalued, we won’t invest in them, no matter how big the marketing budget.”

Barton said the move by Number 10 to announce the ABS just three years after T Levels launched was “completely incoherent”.

“It will further confuse students and parents and teachers, making it more difficult to recruit students to these courses, and undermining the marketing work that has taken place,” he added.

A DfE spokesperson said: “We have invested over £11 million in national communications and marketing campaigns promoting T Levels, and these will be continued into at least 2025. 

“This academic year we also provided all T Level providers with up to £10,000 to invest in extra careers guidance. Our network of over 400 T Level ambassadors are also helping to boost awareness among employers, parents and students. 

“These efforts have resulted in a 36 percentage points increase in T Level awareness among students in years 9 to 11 in the last two years, with nearly 70 per cent of year 11 pupils also now aware.”

Halfon ‘encouraged’ by apprenticeship trends since the levy 

The skills minister has said he is “encouraged” by the growing take-up of higher and degree apprenticeships, as new data shows their share of the market has almost tripled since the launch of the levy.

Robert Halfon is also “pleased” that two-thirds of apprenticeship starts are now at levels 2 and 3 – though this is now the lowest proportion on record.

Final full-year apprenticeship figures have now been published, and confirmed a 3.5 per cent drop in overall starts from 2021/22 to 2022/23, as reported by FE Week last month.

The data release also included a section showing the trends in apprenticeship take-up since the launch of the levy in 2017. Overall, starts across all levels fell by 10 per cent between 2017/18 and 2022/23, moving from 375,760 to 337,140.

In 2017/18, the proportion of level 2 apprenticeship starts sat at 43 per cent, while level 3 was 44 per cent, and higher levels had just 13 per cent.

By 2022/23, however, soaring higher level starts accounted for 33 per cent of all apprenticeship starts, whereas level 2 starts shrunk to 23 per cent. The proportion of level 3 starts remained unchanged at 44 per cent.

The numbers of higher-level apprenticeship starts (112,930) are now at the highest on record and level 2 starts (76,280) the lowest.

Shift driven mainly by level 6 and 7s

The rise in degree-level apprenticeships is the main driver for the trend.

Level 6 apprenticeships have quadrupled from 6,370 in 2017/18 to 25,030 in 2022/23.

And starts at level 7 have risen by five-fold, from 4,500 to 21,760 over that period.

FE Week understands discussions are ongoing between Number 10, the Treasury and the Department for Education about potentially restricting the amount of levy funds that can be spent on degree-level apprenticeships amid affordability concerns.

Young people squeezed out even further

Starts for young people have also continued to decline since the launch of the levy.

In 2017/18, those aged 16 to 18 accounted for 28 per cent of all starts. This fell to 23 per cent in 2022/23.

Meanwhile, starts for those aged 25 and over made up 41 per cent of starts in 2017/18, which grew to 48 per cent in 2022/23.

The proportion of starts aged 19 to 24 has stayed stable over that time, shifting only slightly from 30 per cent to 29 per cent.

Figures ‘please’ minister

Responding to the data, Robert Halfon, the DfE’s minister for skills, apprenticeships and higher education, said: “I’m pleased that these figures show that under 25s continue to make up over half of all apprenticeship starts, and two-thirds of starts are also at Level 2 and 3.

“I’m also encouraged that take up of higher and degree apprenticeships has grown, demonstrating the demand for these opportunities is high. 

“Degree apprenticeships are a brilliant alternative to doing a traditional three-year degree and support employers to tap into the higher-level skills they need. We are investing £40 million over the next two years so we can provide even more degree level opportunities.

“We are continuing to promote apprenticeships to young people through our Apprenticeships Support and Knowledge programme, backed by £3.2 million a year. You can now also search for apprenticeships on the UCAS Hub and from 2024, students will then be able to apply for apprenticeships through UCAS alongside an undergraduate degree application.”

You’re never too young (or too old) for honest self-appraisal

When I was asked to attend a ‘strengths’ course as part of my participation in the Skills and Education Group’s emerging leaders programme, I have to admit I was more than a little sceptical. At the age of 32, I felt sure I knew my strengths and weaknesses and that no amount of additional probing or analysis was necessary. How wrong I was.

The course was devised and run by Hannah Miller from coaching company, Sidekick. Using the world-renowned CliftonStrengths assessment, it was focused on personality and preferences. We were taught how to really get to know ourselves: what we do best, and how and why we contribute and show up in the way we do. The theory is that the more we understand these aspects of ourselves, the better equipped we are to make the right professional decisions and to build a career that really works for us.

It made me realise that I’m at my best when I’m working directly with students; listening, engaging, and helping them to navigate their way through college life – and, ultimately, their next steps. As Nottingham College’s Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire collaborative outreach partnership (DANCOP) project manager I was already working to raise the aspirations of learners from disadvantaged backgrounds and to help them realise their potential, but I wanted to get back to that one-to-one, direct support.

As a result of the course, I switched to becoming a pastoral tutor in our A Level department. Just a few weeks into my new role, I already know I made the right move. And the experience has got me thinking: imagine if I’d understood myself this well when I was younger.

Every day I work with learners who don’t fully understand their strengths and don’t know how to navigate or overcome their weaknesses. So I contacted Hannah and discovered that she already had a version of the course for young people. We collaborated to devise a bespoke, face-to-face version that we could run over two days at Nottingham College. We called it Purpose Pursuit, Young Adult Edition.

We wanted the programme to develop attendees’ confidence and focus on their strengths. We also wanted to address the notion that career and next-step support can sometimes be quite generic or leave young people ill-equipped.

Imagine if I’d understood myself this well when I was younger

By liaising with the college’s pastoral staff and the DANCOP programme, we approached 25 learners to take part in the first of our courses. We focused on students who were either progressing onto their second year of A Levels, needed help in considering their next steps, or were at risk of not completing their course due to issues around confidence.

For two days, we worked with those learners to focus on their moments of brilliance and to view them as clues to their real purpose. We looked at talking confidently about who you are and what you bring to a situation, and we worked on identifying transferable skills, experiences and behaviours.

We also worked to identify weaknesses and figure out how to navigate what might be holding these learners back in order to remove barriers to change. Doing all of this enabled us to tease out realistic five- and ten-year goals for every person in the room – along with a plan on how to achieve them.

The course was a huge success, but one moment really stood out for me. One particular learner, who hadn’t lived in the UK for long, was struggling with their identity and with what they saw as an uncertain future. This manifested in a fear of talking to other people. By the end of the two days they were joining in a group discussion. This was a big win.

So we are now planning to run the course again at the end of this month for another 25 learners. I cannot wait to see what impact this will have on the next cohort of learners. And meanwhile, we will also be catching up with our last cohort to monitor and support the longer-term impact of taking part in the programme.

One thing is certain: it has already been transformative for me.

8 reasons we shouldn’t use the term ‘provider’ – and what we could say instead

In the ever-evolving landscape of education, a debate is brewing over the term ‘provider’ and its application to esteemed institutions such as colleges, institutes for adult learning and local authority adult community education services. Advocates for change argue that the use of this term diminishes the significance of their work and fails to garner the attention and recognition they rightly deserve.

For my part, it seems that the term ‘provider’ could mean anything. It’s demeaning, disrespectful and minimises the great work our sector does to support individuals and their communities.

Not convinced? Here are eight reasons to jettison the word from our educational vocabulary, and my pitch for what to replace it with.

1. Narrow focus

The term ‘provider’ suggests a narrow focus on delivering services, potentially overshadowing the broader educational goals of these institutions. Learning organisations aspire to more than just service delivery; their missions often include fostering critical thinking, creativity and personal growth. Often, they support learners, families and whole communities well beyond the strict remit of providing courses.

2. Incomplete representation

Learning institutions are not just service providers; they engage in curriculum development, research, policy advocacy and community engagement. The term ‘provider’ falls short in representing the multifaceted role they play in society, potentially diminishing their standing and role in fostering economic gain.

3. Depersonalisation of education

Critics argue that the term ‘provider’ depersonalises the educational process, reducing education, mentoring and teaching to mere mechanical processes. This oversimplification neglects the intricate and nurturing relationships that form the foundation of effective learning.

4. Commodification of learning

Referring to education as a ‘service’ delivered by a ‘provider’ emphasises a transactional relationship  that belongs in the register of commerce rather than education. It’s language that undermines the intrinsic value of learning, turning it into a mere commodity, and the relational nature of education.

5. Overemphasis on delivery

The use of ‘provider’ can shift the focus towards the delivery of content, sidelining crucial aspects of the learning experience. Learning is not solely about what is provided but how it is absorbed, understood and applied.

6. Downplaying diversity

‘Provider’ oversimplifies the diverse nature of education and learning, failing to capture the variety of approaches, methods and philosophies employed by different institutions – and indeed within institutions.

7. Quantity over quality

Perhaps inadvertently, the term ‘provider’ with all its connotations prioritises quantity and profitability over educational quality and ethical considerations. This is a key concern among critics of the commercialisation of education, and one its proponents have consistently argued should be guarded against.

8. Incommensurate with our standing

The department for education and its agencies extensively use the term ‘provider’, while simultaneously talking up FE’s parity with other parts of the education sector and its importance to economic prosperity. For all the reasons above, the language and aspiration are essentially incompatible. The term is disrespectful, hinders the sector’s desired standing and diverts attention from learning organisations’ overarching objectives and values.

Embracing ‘learning organisations’

It would great if agencies of government could use institutions’ true names: college, institute for adult learning or local authority adult service. If that’s not possible then we advocate a change and propose adopting the term ‘learning organisations’ as a more encompassing and respectful alternative. This shift would better reflect the multifaceted nature of these institutions and highlight their crucial role in shaping society.

As the debate continues, the education sector grapples with the challenge of finding a term that truly encapsulates the essence of these vital institutions. Of course, there are other more pressing priorities, but one thing I am convinced of is that the choice of language goes beyond mere semantics.

How we are referred to – and how we refer to ourselves – reflects our values, our priorities and our worth. That makes this debate an empowering one for the sector. But more than that, it could turn out to be the key that unlocks many of our other challenges.

How colleges can foster safe engagement with the Israel/Palestine conflict

The current conflict between Israel and Gaza means it is incumbent on college leaders to familiarise themselves with the legal framework around issues of discrimination, extremism and freedom of speech as they impact campus life.

Colleges have a statutory duty to take reasonably practicable steps to ensure freedom of speech within the law for staff, students and visiting speakers. This is in addition to their duty as public authorities to act in a manner compatible with the European Convention of Human Rights, including the qualified right to freedom of expression.

Neither of these duties were mentioned in the education secretary’s letter to colleges, which focused on duties to prevent harm and ensure safety. This may be because the letter was also addressed to schools, which operate under a different statutory context. Rather than being restricted by concepts of harm and safety, free speech obligations permit colleges to intervene where speech is unlawful, including by taking disciplinary action where proportionate.

Words and context will always be highly relevant, but there are a range of ways in which campus speech could potentially be unlawful.

Terrorism offences

Hamas is a proscribed organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000. Students and staff may be at risk of committing a range offences by speaking in support of it. These include inviting support for Hamas or expressing supportive opinions regardless of whether these might encourage others to support it. Arranging meetings and protests that appear to support Hamas or its activities is also unlawful. Other offences include glorifying terrorist events that have already occurred.

Colleges may be at risk of breaching their Prevent duty if they don’t take steps to ensure such offences do not occur. The Prevent guidance extends to exposure to non-violent extremism, so colleges may be required to act where speech strays close to support for Hamas or violence more generally.

Incitement and harassment

Speech about the conflict could amount to a public order offence such as incitement to racial or religious hatred or causing harassment, alarm and distress. Similarly, online speech could amount to a communications offence.

Colleges can also intervene where speech constitutes unlawful harassment under the Equality Act.  This is unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic (such as race or religion) that has the purpose or effect of violating a person’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for that person.

Where conduct is intended to harass by targeting individuals or groups, then the decision to take action should be straightforward. More problematic is where protest or debate is claimed to have the effect of harassing individuals.

In these cases, the law applies a three-point test:

  1. Whether the individual experienced the conduct as harassment
  2. The circumstances in which the conduct occurred. For example, it will be relevant that the speech relates to matters of public interest and is taking place in a setting where the aim is to advance knowledge
  3. Whether it is reasonable for the conduct to be perceived as harassment given the fundamental importance of freedom of expression – a right that extends to ideas that disturb or offend.

Fostering relations

Where colleges are aware of campus tensions, the public sector equality duty to foster good relations may require them to intervene proactively to ensure all groups feel supported and able to participate effectively in campus life. Colleges may want to consider issuing guidance on freedom of speech, emphasising their duty to uphold it while highlighting the risks of criminal offences or unlawful harassment. 

Speech which transgresses the guidance should be investigated quickly and proportionate action taken where appropriate to ensure the parameters of lawful free speech are respected. Staff and students who feel marginalised or vilified should be offered appropriate support. The aim should be to enable students and staff to discuss matters of public interest freely and robustly without exposing themselves, others or the college to the consequences of unlawful speech.

Given the complexity of the legal position, colleges may understandably be concerned that they will face complaints and potentially legal or regulatory challenge whatever they do. The key will be to demonstrate that decisions were made reasonably, taking all the evidence and responsibilities into account.

Reclassification one year on: Capital, control and confusion

This time a year ago, we discovered that colleges were, after all, in the public sector and had been since 1993. The office for national statistics (ONS) made this declaration, citing an international statistical standard introduced eight years earlier, in 2014.

ONS is a slow and methodical organisation. It looked again at laws passed by Parliament in the 1990s and, because the statistical rules had changed, the ONS national accounts committee changed its mind. No longer private sector, it said. Colleges have been public sector all along.

Unlike ONS, the department for education moved quickly. Within minutes of the ONS announcement, DfE ministers presented a statement to parliament and the education and skills funding agency (ESFA)’s chief executive sent a letter to college principals. Following treasury orders, they introduced a series of new controls on college decisions.

With immediate effect, colleges were ordered to ask for approval on issues like taking out loans, offering financial support to other organisations via guarantees and making voluntary severance payments worth more than three months of salary.

The DfE gave governing bodies a six-month notice period for new approval rules for offering high pay to senior staff, but all other controls started from 29 November 2022. The government only acts this fast when there’s a crisis or when they need to pre-empt bad behaviour. It was an over-reaction and not a good start to a new era. 

So, while the rest of the world may remember last November as the ChatGPT launch date, a group of college leaders will remember it as the time when the government created hassle, doubt and unproductive paperwork. In a few cases, this almost derailed long-planned building projects. As the weeks and months passed, DfE and ESFA officials sorted things out, created new forms to fill and invented a process for colleges to borrow from the government instead of banks.

A year on, things have settled down and reclassification is old news.

The rules are in place. They are an irritant but they’re now quite familiar. Discussions in leadership teams have reverted to other challenges.

The rules are in place – an irritant, but quite familiar

The talk at this November’s AoC conference was about novel and contentious technology rather than tedious accounting rules. But college public sector status is now a fact of life, and that won’t be changing soon. ONS made an all-encompassing judgement about colleges and it would require a big reform to change their mind.

There isn’t the political appetite now to comprehensively deregulate colleges and take apart the intervention apparatus piece by piece. With £6 billion in public spending going to the sector and a high profile for skills, it’s hard to think of a scenario in which a future government would make this choice. This leaves the college-DfE relationship in an unsatisfactory state.

Having promised financial freedom in the past, DfE is now the main lender for colleges alongside its roles as majority funder, curriculum promoter, occasional capital project manager, charitable regulator and intervention agent.

Different teams of officials have different tasks but there’s a risk of conflicting messages. College leadership teams retain the most important duties: organising staff, managing courses, talking to employers and addressing student needs. But they do so with an increased list of government instructions.

Meanwhile, colleges now find themselves back in the public sector just at the point when top-down treasury financial control is greatest.

This leaves colleges less certain than ever about future capital funding – not just how much they’ll have but how it will come. At a time when student numbers are rising, there is growing pressure to provide skills for the economy. Where investment is needed to modernise buildings for new uses and new sources of energy, this is an obvious worry.

In the end, independence is a state of mind. Whatever their classification or accounting status, colleges have a social purpose.

The new controls are a responsibility and reclassification has been a distraction but if we let it get in the way of all the things we need to do, we’ll only have ourselves to blame.

‘Milestone’ Ofsted result for arts college

A specialist arts college in Hereford is celebrating a “milestone” achievement after securing top Ofsted marks.

Hereford College of Arts was today awarded ‘outstanding’ grades across the board following a full inspection in October.

The college was previously rated as ‘good’ and has been on an improvement journey since 2011 when it was handed an ‘inadequate’ rating by Ofsted.

It currently has 522 FE learners across two campuses, who study level two and three courses across art and design, music performance and production, performing and production arts, and creative media production and technology.

Inspectors praised learners’ “in-depth knowledge, understanding and creative skills often beyond their level of study”.

The report said this was due to leaders planning a range of activities and events that enrich a “well-thought-through” curriculum.

“Leaders have created a curriculum that consistently and extensively promotes the personal development of learners,” the report added. “Learners are provided with many opportunities that go beyond the curriculum.”

One example is music and performing arts learners getting involved in their community through initiatives such as bringing music into local schools and a concert to support Hereford’s refugee musicians. “As a result, learners are acutely aware of why it is important to contribute actively to society,” the report said.

Teachers were complimented for using project work to set the development of skills into real situations and contexts and taking care to check learners’ understanding of key concepts carefully and effectively.

The watchdog said learners are highly motivated and enthusiastic about their learning and work collaboratively.

The Ofsted report also highlighted that a “very high proportion” of learners progress to the next steps, often going to study at prestigious institutions.

“Learners develop the high-quality skills and knowledge that they need to become successful artists,” it said. “They benefit from highly skilled teachers, technicians and industry practitioners sharing their knowledge and experience.”

Principal Abigail Appleton said: “This report is a milestone for Hereford College of Arts, but we know ‘outstanding’ is a way of travelling and not a destination. Hereford College of Arts is on a journey of continuous improvement and development, committed to serving the needs and ambitions of every individual student, but also to helping develop and serve the community of our city and region and the needs of a changing world.

“I am immensely proud of the whole staff team, all our expert and passionate academic and professional services staff, but also of the students, governors, parents/guardians, colleagues in partner education institutions and the wider community of businesses, other organisations and individuals in Herefordshire and elsewhere who have helped the college achieve this ‘outstanding’ judgement.”