The Student Commission on Racial Justice will soon publish its 2023 Manifesto for Action. Over the next five weeks, its commissioners will set out its five key priorities and recommendations exclusively for FE Week.
I’m 17 and study A level French, English language and drama and theatre studies at Barnsley College. I am also part of the Student Commission on Racial Justice, which has recently published its manifesto for action, with key recommendations for tackling issues around racial justice.
The manifesto focuses on five key priorities, one of which is teaching and learning. In this area, after hearing and sharing many stories from teachers and young people, our recommendation is to diversify the curriculum and improve teacher training. The young people we spoke to are clear: a lack of proper training is having adverse effects on us as students. On the other hand, some have experienced that effective teacher training can help to better our experiences.
Nobody seeks to deny that the writers centred within the English curriculum are anything other than talented writers. But Shakespeare and Dickens are far from the only writers who have written work worth reading in English. We need teachers to broaden our exposure to and understanding of literature. In fact, it should be required that our curriculum reflects Britain’s diverse culture and represents people of all backgrounds. Students in classrooms today report noticing and appreciating when this is applied.
I still recall having to read Of Mice and Men in year 8 as our focus for English literature. Published in 1937 and set in the 1930s, Steinbeck’s book heavily features the use of the ‘n-word’. As a 13-year-old black person, I wasn’t too bothered about the use of the word by my teacher, since she had warned us before that slurs were involved and how we might feel if she used it (albeit only in this context).
Books with racial slurs embolden those with inclinations towards racism to express it
But in spite of her warning that none of us were supposed to say it, certain students did – directly to me and my mixed-race friend. Reflecting on this, it’s clear there were many problems before we even started reading. Why is a book with slurs part of the curriculum? Was it necessary to say the slur at all? I didn’t realise how much it upset me until a year later, trying to work out why I did not want to go back to school after lockdown.
No matter how you present it, books with racial slurs embolden those with inclinations towards racism to express it. They normalise language that is taboo for good reason. There are better ways to explore the great depression, if that’s what we want to do with our precious curriculum time.
Diversifying the curriculum means drawing from a wider variety, not just of writers, but of perspectives too. There is a wealth of outstanding writing in English. It sets the bar of expectation low to say nothing more appropriate can be found than a book with racial slurs, and it makes the inclusion of black students a lesser priority than the comfort of repeating the curriculum.
At least I can say that I don’t have many experiences that I can attribute to inefficient teacher training, but I can say that the Student Commission have discussed this a lot. Too many have had worse experiences than me, and improving teacher training has been a really important topic for us. Improving training would mean informing and preparing teachers on what to do if/when there is discrimination taking place in the classroom, as well as encouraging and appropriately supporting students to have conversations about race and inequalities, whether in the classroom or in tutorials.
Good teacher training in racial equity would mean students felt safer and more confident about approaching their teachers for advice. It would help to promote more trusting student-teacher relationships, and might just put a stop to the kind of verbal abuse I and so many others have been the victims of.
The evidence from our commission is clear. When it comes to teaching and learning, diversifying the curriculum and better preparing teachers to tackle racism and racial inequalities are crucial to improving education for students from minoritised ethnicities. That’s as true for French as for English, and for theatre studies as well as any other qualification – academic or technical.
As the newly appointed Head of Equality and Diversity, I took a moment to think where do I start? What if I made a mistake in this role? All these unanswered questions encouraged me to reach out to colleagues at other colleges.
I was very fortunate that I had made contacts in across the West Midlands due my work in safeguarding. Those people were able to point in the direction of others who, like me, were responsible for equality and diversity. In some cases, in fact, this was the very same person.
Like me, other equality and diversity leads had found themselves isolated in the role, so they had set up working groups which were also able to put me in touch with the right people. Where I couldn’t find anyone from a specific college, safeguarding or equality and diversity policies on their websites pointed me towards the best person to reach out to.
I had never worked with other colleges before, but like sustainability, equity and diversity is among a raft of new challenges that call for a culture shift with a focus on collaboration. Everyone I reached out to was welcoming and supportive because we are travelling a similar journey. We built up closer relationships that have allowed us to share good practice and tried-and-tested resources.
This saved a lot of effort, and it saved money too. Arranging for EDI specialists to come into colleges can be expensive, and we have so much expertise between us. Considering the financial constraints on colleges, this is a very positive, practical and effective move.
We began with a West Midlands Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Network, meeting online two or three times a year to talk about activities and events we were proud of and then discuss areas of development we would like to work on. The experience of colleagues has sped up identifying and implementing solutions and been so effective that we now meet face to face and even visit each other’s settings to build on those benefits.
I know this has helped me grow and develop my confidence in the role. I’m braver for it when introducing new ideas, because I know I can trust the recommendations I work with. The result is a cost-effective and positive experience for all our staff and learners.
The hardest thing is to make the first contact
It’s also made us want to go further. We have no also launched a BAME network which provides an opportunity for BAME staff to meet up with colleagues from across the region to share their experiences. This helps to increase the confidence of BAME staff to break down barriers to talking about race and ethnicity, and to give voice to their experiences. It also supports talented BAME staff who wish to progress in their careers in sector that remains unrepresentative. Our network helps them by promoting training courses and other opportunities which may not have been highlighted to them.
We also invite guest speakers to share insights about what is happening in the FE sector more broadly, and how diversity is driving improvements in other sectors too. And this collaborative work to amplify the collective voice of BAME staff means our own expertise is being more widely recognised. We support and feed back to other organisations such as Colleges West Midlands, Association of Colleges, Education and Training Foundation and others.
This is a powerful approach that should be adopted in other regions. It’s delivering better practice, more cost effectively, and the ultimate beneficiaries are our students. The hardest thing is to make the first contact, but you’ll be surprised how quickly it builds from there. Promoting events and network meetings on social media is a great multiplier too. When people see what’s happening, it encourages them to come forward.
I have personally found these networks extremely beneficial and inspiring. It is a privilege to work with talented like-minded staff from other colleges – staff I would never have had the opportunity to collaborate with in the past. Wherever you are in the country, I guarantee others are clamouring for the same experience.
It’s a little over three years since the beginning of a wave of lockdowns to combat the Covid pandemic. By now many of us are back to business as usual. But for a whole generation of young people whose education and early career opportunities have been stifled the journey has not been quite so smooth.
According to a recent report from City & Guilds, there are over 800,000 young people in the UK who are not in education, employment or training (NEET). While this figure is shocking to some, we educators know all too well that young people have been among the hardest hit by the devastating aftershocks of that period.
In response, we need nothing less than a seismic shift in how we think about education. It’s no longer a case of retaining our students, but of reintegrating them and offering them a much-needed second chance.
Implementing programmes nationally to capture the nearly 16 per cent young people currently classified as NEET is not without its complications. The government’s spring budget recognised the role that economically inactive people could play in filling the 1.3 million vacancies in our economy today. However, consistent underfunding means that existing services and programmes are already under immense strain, and not operating at the scale required to solve the problem.
One such programme is NEET re-engagement programme at Leeds City College, which aims to improve young people’s skills while helping them prepare for their next steps. Further education colleges are unique in their ability to provide a ‘one-stop shop’ for careers advice, pastoral support, education and work experience. Other organisations offer some of these services, but it’s rare to find one that has it all.
Our bespoke programme helps students aged 16 to 24 to develop skills in essential subjects, particularly maths and English, all while engaging them in enrichment activities and supporting them with progression.
The move to online learning during the pandemic deepened the chasm of access to quality education. For some of our most vulnerable young people, the amount of lost learning was substantial, leaving them wholly unprepared for further education or employment. In crafting and delivering our programme, we focus on removing such barriers.
We need a seismic shift in how we think about education
It’s not just in the classroom that young people are facing struggles. Mental health charity, Young Minds reported in 2021 that 67 per cent believed that the pandemic will have a long-term negative effect on their mental health. Issues of low self-confidence have been directly linked to long periods of social isolation; I’ve had countless young people tell me they simply don’t feel up to the challenge of employment.
One of the young people on our programme had always dreamed of pursuing a career in creative arts, but was too anxious of being around so many people after lockdowns to pursue their ambition. This example is repeated everywhere across the country.
We often think of young people as highly social, but in reality the thought of stepping back into a classroom for the first time in over two years has been undeniably overwhelming. We are fortunate enough to have a smaller facility that can host our programme, and have implemented shorter session times to make them more manageable.
But by far the most common barrier is finance, with the rising cost of living meaning many young people are undertaking temporary, part-time work at the expense of their studies. As part of the programme, students are offered meal cards and free bus passes to minimise cost and support with their responsibilities outside of the programme.
Even in its infancy, I’ve seen this programme make a real difference to those who had nowhere else to turn, and with 14 new referrals already this month, it’s clear there’s demand. Like many others across the sector, we are proud of the work we’re doing and we know more needs to be done.
Put simply, the UK’s labour market cannot afford to disregard the potential of so many. Colleges are a natural place to invest in the multi-faceted work this challenge requires, and failure to reengage those who do not currently have the resources to fulfil their potential constitutes a huge missed opportunity for policy makers.
Over one in 10 college boards pay their principals seven or more times the median employee salary – several of which have recently been hit by strikes over low staff pay, FE Week can reveal.
Experts have branded a pay multiple of this level as “high” while unions have lashed out at principals earning up to 10 times more than their workforce who can “insulate” themselves from the cost-of-living crisis as lower-paid staff reportedly turn to foodbanks to get by.
But colleges with the largest gaps have defended the so-called high multiples, explaining they are due to the college generating higher turnover than the sector norm, factoring in relocation costs, and in some cases including pension contributions as part of principal take-home pay.
‘That sounds quite high to me’
Colleges must report their pay multiples as part of their annual financial reporting to the Education and Skills Funding Agency. It is calculated by dividing the highest-paid member of staff’s basic pay (in most cases, the college principal or group chief executive) by the median pay of the rest of the full-time-equivalent workforce.
Out of 127 general FE colleges in England with published accounts and one accounting officer for the full 2021/22 academic year, FE Week identified 15 colleges with pay multiples of seven or more.
The average pay multiple for general FE colleges that have had one principal has sat at 5.7 consistently in the last four years. But while the sector average hasn’t moved, individual college pay gaps have.
The single biggest pay multiple hailed from Weston College, whose principal Paul Phillips earned a basic salary of 9.6 times more than the median pay of his full-time staff in 2022.
This was an increase from 8.75 in 2021, which a college spokesperson said was due to the median pay value dropping from an uptake in administrative roles in 2022, usually lower paid than lecturer salaries.
“The pay multiple is higher than that of the sector average as a result of the Weston College Group generating turnover significantly higher than sector norms, with activities extending far beyond the traditional remit of further education,” the spokesperson added.
Phillips’ basic salary in 2022 rose by £36,000 to £258,000 and includes a £60,000 payment for external consultancy work with agencies like the ESFA. On top of that, Phillips received £75,000 in pension contributions and was awarded £29,000 in benefits in kind, the nature of which the finance director cannot reveal without permission from Phillips, a spokesperson said. His total remuneration package for 2022 was £362,000.
While the college did not explain the 16 per cent basic salary rise, its accounts praised Phillips’ accomplishments in the year at length, including receiving a knighthood and his “impressive” role as a national leader of further education.
Weston College staff planned to strike throughout late September until a last-minute pay offer from management was initiated.
“That sounds quite high to me,” said Imran Tahir, a research economist from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, when asked if pay multiples of seven, eight and nine were normal for a public sector organisation.
Tahir, who co-authored a recent report on college teacher pay, said median staff salaries in the FE sector tend to be low which will “pull the multiple up”.
“I imagine there isn’t a lot of variation in median salaries between colleges, so what is likely to be driving the difference in pay multiples between different colleges is principal salary,” he told FE Week.
“I think the question is better framed as why do some colleges pay their principals such high salaries? It’s these high-paying colleges which will have the high pay multiples.
“I don’t have a definitive answer to that question I suspect different colleges will have their idiosyncratic reasons for paying their leaders especially high salaries.”
The IFS report found that in 2010/11, the median salary (adjusted for inflation) was £42,500 for a college teacher. The median dropped to £34,500 in 2022/23 – a 19 per cent fall.
University and College Union general secretary Jo Grady said: “College staff have been hit with over a decade of real term pay cuts, many now have to use food banks to survive, and pay is so low colleges face a recruitment crisis. It cannot continue.”
However, Tahir acknowledged that the “continual decline” in college funding would make it hard for colleges to find money from their existing budget to pay their staff.
Strike action over low pay
Low salaries and rejected inflation-linked pay offers in FE have been the subject of a wave of staff strikes in recent years. A country-wide ballot for college strikes is on the cards later this year.
“Principals earning up to ten times more than the average staff member are able to insulate themselves from a cost-of-living crisis that is pushing their employees into poverty,” Grady told FE Week.
“College principals have a small window to reallocate resources and protect their staff or they will be hit when strike ballots come.”
Three colleges in FE Week’s analysis with the highest pay multiples in England have been hit by such strikes in the last 12 months.
One is Bridgwater and Taunton College, whose principal Andy Berry earned a basic salary of £180,000, up from £162,000 in 2021. The college reported the second-highest pay multiple of 9.2, up from 8.66 the previous year. Last September, the college’s campuses were met with a 10-day strike over pay.
Bridgwater and Taunton College did not respond to requests for comment from FE Week.
Strikes engulfed Tyne Coast College earlier this week, which reported an 8.65 pay multiple for 2022, a nudge higher than 8.52 in 2021.
Some colleges such as Tyne Coast have blamed the high multiples on including pension contributions into basic principal pay. Most general FE colleges have a separate row in their accounts for pension contributions, but several in FE Week’s analysis have been paid as salary instead.
A Tyne Coast spokesperson explained that the £237,000 basic salary includes £45,000 of employer pension contributions and reflects Lindsey Whiterod’s dual role as chief executive of Tyne Coast College and chief executive of Tyne Coast Academy Trust.
In the case of North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire College whose pay multiple was 7.6, its accounts said the chief executive’s pension contributions “ceased during this period and have been paid as salary”.
A spokesperson told FE Week the “apparent change to the pay multiple relates solely to this change”.
Meanwhile, the highest reported basic principal salary was Gerry McDonald from New City College, who leads negotiations on pay with trade unions on behalf of the AoC. He earned £294,000, which included pension contributions. This reflects a rise from his 2021 basic salary of £241,000 to include £57,000 in lieu of pension contributions.
The college accounts explain that McDonald became a deferred member of the Teachers’ Pension Scheme in July 2021, and the college did not make any pension payments during 2021/22, so the board agreed to add it to his basic pay.
As one of London’s largest colleges, New City College’s pay multiple for 2022 was 8.72, up from 7.03 the year prior.
Staff at four New City College campuses went on strike last October. The college declined to comment when approached by FE Week.
Elsewhere, “the contribution for relocation benefits” was Coventry College’s reason for the increase in its principal’s basic salary increase to £156,000 in 2022. A college spokesperson said its pay multiple rise from 7 to 8.5 was because most staff had not received a pay rise in up to 10 years.
The spokesperson explained that since the principal was appointed in 2020, all staff received a 1 per cent pay rise, there will be a review of curriculum salaries next year for almost a quarter of staff, and it paid out a 9.7 per cent national minimum wage increase early and rolled out a 3 per cent pay-rise from April 1, 2023.
On the other side, three colleges with high pay multiples reported a decline this year: Derby College Group (DCG), Burton and South Derbyshire College, and Luminate Education Group. The latter two explained this was due to pay awards given to staff during the year.
Burton and South Derbyshire College said their pay multiple of 8.32 was due to the chief executive Dawn Ward’s “decades of experience in successfully leading colleges, including our overseas operations and staff”.
“Inevitably, this length of experience and related remuneration would inflate BSDC’s ratio in comparison to the sector average,” a spokesperson added.
NCG, which has a pay multiple of 7.23, explained that it is a “complex organisation made up of seven colleges” and due to the “nature of the role and its nationwide remit, the role of CEO isn’t comparable with a traditional principal’s role in an FE college”.
Luminate Education Group said that as one of the largest FE corporations in the country with a turnover of over £100 million, thousands of students and staff, which includes two higher education institutions, the principal’s renumeration “reflects the responsibility of the operations and performance of a large and complex organisation”.
And the LTE Group, which runs The Manchester College as well as several other training providers, added: “During 2021/22 the LTE board mandated pay restraint for senior roles, and the chief executive and executive team received a lower annual pay increase than other colleagues, with the majority of employees across the group being awarded a pay rise which was at least twice as high, in recognition of their contributions in delivering high-quality training and education to our learners.
“We appreciate the difficulties colleagues face caused by the rising cost of living and, as an organisation, we will continue to lobby the government, alongside other industry bodies, for additional funding for pay.”
Data blunders
On May 24, the EFSA published its annual college accounts spreadsheet.
According to publicly available data, 20 colleges had pay multiples above 7. However, after FE Week reached out to all of them, five claimed the calculations were wrong.
Some have even republished accounts and informed the ESFA of the miscalculation, such as North Kent College, whose pay multiple was originally 10 until a spokesperson clarified that it was a human error and its actual pay multiple for 2022 is 6.5, a drop from 6.7 in 2021.
Two colleges said the error was made by using the median salary of actual staff pay, which includes casual staff, invigilators, and part-time staff, against ESFA guidance which requires all colleges to calculate the pay multiple using the median pay of full-time equivalent staff.
FE Week did not count colleges with more than one principal in 2021/22 in its analysis.
Reading through FE Week’s article earlier this month on the growth of degree apprenticeship I couldn’t help but think that I live in some sort of parallel universe.
The article outlined how degree apprenticeship spending “hit half a billion (pounds) last year” and “swallowed a fifth of DfE’s (apprenticeship) budget in 21/22.” The article then went on to outline how ‘experts’ warn that: “the rapid rise in their share of the market is squeezing out opportunities for younger workers and threatens the sustainability of the apprenticeship budget”.
But is this right? And shouldn’t the FE sector be celebrating the growth of degree apprenticeships and higher apprenticeships at the level of a bachelor’s or master’s degree?
Beyond the FE sector, others are pushing for more degree apprenticeships. For example, in March the government asked the higher education regulator, the Office for Students (OfS), to establish a £40m Degree Apprenticeship Development Fund to grow capacity.
Degree apprenticeships are being used to train the police officers, registered nurses, allied health and adult social care professionals and social workers that the public sector and society need. In the private sector, degree level apprenticeships are a key programme to develop the highly skilled engineers (of various types), digital specialists and scientists. The growth of degree apprenticeship is a key government policy.
Let’s look at some of the facts:
In the list of the top ten degree level apprenticeships listed by FE Week, police constable is at number four, registered nurse number five, advanced clinical practitioner, number eight, teacher number nine and social worker at number ten. Are we really saying police forces shouldn’t spend their apprenticeship levy funds on training, through apprenticeships, new police constables, the NHS on nurses, local authorities on social workers and schools on teachers? Surely there is no better use of apprenticeship funds.
We would suggest doubling the spend on degree level apprenticeships
At number two in the top ten degree level apprenticeships is the senior leader and at number three is the chartered manager. Look at any analysis of skills gaps and shortages in the UK and the deficit in management skills will always feature. UVAC believes that the sector making most use of management apprenticeships is the NHS; which is also the organisation paying the most apprenticeship levy. With substantial pressure on the NHS, drawing on the levy to train managers and senior leaders to manage the organisation is an excellent use of the apprenticeship budget.
It is also important to note that many level 3 apprenticeships are costly to deliver. The move from apprenticeship frameworks to apprenticeships standards has raised quality but has also raised the cost of apprenticeships. Many level 3 apprenticeships, particularly in STEM occupations, are costly to deliver and have been allocated high funding bands.
Finally, a 20 per cent spend on degree level apprenticeships means a whacking (and arguably questionable) 80 per cent of the apprenticeship budget is spent on apprenticeships at level 2 (GCSE level) to level 5 (HND / Foundation Degree level).
In policy terms there are two key drivers for apprenticeships: productivity and social mobility. Degree level apprenticeships are a key tool to tackle skills gaps and shortages at levels 6 and 7 – vital if the UK is to develop as a high-skill, high-productivity and high-pay economy.
If we are to use apprenticeships as a real tool for social mobility, we also need to use degree level apprenticeships to open progression routes to the professions, higher pay and senior level occupations. We should also prioritise apprenticeships that will support the move to a net zero economy, which again means greater use of several key degree level apprenticeships.
The real issue that needs highlighting is why such a low proportion of the apprenticeship budget is currently spent on degree level apprenticeships. Indeed, UVAC would suggest a doubling of the apprenticeship budget spend on degree level apprenticeships to 40 per cent is easily justified by skills, productivity, social mobility and net zero arguments.
It’s too little, not too much of the apprenticeship budget that is currently spent in this area. But of course, some will quite correctly point out that it’s the overall size of the pot that is the root problem.
A training provider with multi-million-pound adult education contracts across several mayoral combined authorities has suddenly closed down.
Vocational Skills Solutions (VSS) was one of the fastest growing training providers just a few years ago, but has now been forced to call in the administrators.
Managing director Phil Juniper told FE Week several factors led to the “heart-breaking” decision that now impacts hundreds of learners and scores of staff.
The reasons include the pandemic, a “substantial” clawback due to undeclared associate agreements, a failed legal challenge against the West Midlands Combined Authority’s (WMCA) decision to deny it a contract worth over £3 million, and, ultimately, a “significant downturn in income”.
VSS was a national provider that started out as a subcontractor in 2012. The company secured its first direct contract with the Education and Skills Funding Agency in 2017 to deliver adult education budget (AEB) funded courses.
It also had a brief stint delivering apprenticeships but swiftly pulled out after “making significant losses” with the programmes.
The provider went on a period of significant growth around the time of AEB devolution in 2019, securing £4 million worth of adult education contracts in the mayoral combined authorities of Manchester, London, Liverpool and the West Midlands.
Juniper told FE Week the business was then hit “very hard” by Covid-19 and associated lockdowns which forced the firm to take out several loans.
Learner numbers fell by half over the next 12 months as recruitment struggles continued, leaving the company with a “much longer period of recovery than anticipated”.
“We had all the funding we could spend, but without learners coming through the door, we continued to make losses,” Juniper said.
In November 2021 the provider was further hit with a clawback of over £1 million after it used associate tutors from other training providers under “associate agreements”, which was determined as “undeclared subcontracting” by the ESFA and Liverpool City Region.
Juniper said: “This was a business error, and we agreed to pay the money back to keep our contracts, which we were successful in doing so in the main. However, this added further pressure to the financial position of this business.”
Despite the substantial clawback with Liverpool City Region, VSS was given a boost when it was awarded a five-year contract for £1 million per year starting in August 2022 with the authority.
But the future of the business relied upon securing more contracts in other areas.
The company re-tendered for its West Midlands contract of around £3.4 million but was informed in March 2023 that it was unsuccessful, having not made it through stage one of the process.
Juniper claimed that not one current provider in the region had won the contract, or even made it through stage one, “highlighting that there had been a significant failure in their tender process”.
His firm issued a legal challenge to the WMCA, requesting several documents and information about the qualifications and training of the evaluators, which was denied.
However, VSS was provided with a “different scoring methodology than the one provided in the tender specification, which caused a complete loss of confidence in the WMCA’s ability to manage a procurement exercise from this point on”.
A spokesperson for the WMCA responded: “Whilst we’re disappointed in the outcome of the initial call, in which only a small number of bidders were successful, we remain committed to achieving our ambition to secure provision that best supports our residents – and have recently completed a further call to secure local place-based provision for our residents. All of our procurement is conducted through a fair, robust and transparent process.”
Juniper said the WMCA contract refusal left his business’ financial position “at breaking point” and was forced to close the West Midlands operations down at the end of March.
He added: “Throughout April, the business suffered a significant downturn in income, and as the West Midlands response to my legal challenge was somewhat very dismissive and lacking in any accountability from them, and no future tendering opportunities seemed to be in the pipeline, with the advice of my advisory board and financial advisors, I made the heart-breaking decision to cease trading with immediate effect on April 28, 2023, paying as many staff as I could prior to closing the doors.”
VSS has now handed back its other AEB contracts. The company’s accounts for 2022 show net liabilities of £1.6 million.
Juniper said: “VSS has changed the lives of over 28,000 learners throughout the last 12 years and has contributed tens of millions to the economic growth of the regions we operated in. This is something I am personally very proud of.
“I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank all my staff for their hard work and dedication. I am most sorry for them, as they now try to source work in an industry that is in a significant crisis.”
A training provider has overturned an ‘inadequate’ Ofsted judgment following an extraordinary decision by the watchdog to publish – and then unpublish – the damaging verdict.
UK Training & Development Limited (UKTD) has now remarkably been rated as ‘good’ following a reinspection just months after the provider was dealt the lowest possible grade.
The inspection saga shines a light on Ofsted’s already under-fire complaints process and sets a precedent for appeals against grade four results, an outcome which usually results in contract termination from the Education and Skills Funding Agency for private training providers.
UKTD’s managing director, Theresa Wisniewski (pictured), told FE Week she was “delighted” with the outcome after a “long and arduous battle”.
“These events have come at cost both financially and personally to me, both of which there is no recompense for, however, the fight for justice is one that had to be made,” she said.
‘Substantive evidence’ forced reinspection
UKTD, based in Hemel Hampstead, was originally inspected in July 2022 and following an unsuccessful appeal, Ofsted published an ‘inadequate’ report in October.
But UKTD continued to appeal the judgment with legal advice from Duncan Lewis Solicitors, arguing that it was a “flawed and inaccurate inspection” and was successful in securing a rare reinspection, which led to Ofsted removing the grade four report from its website in December.
A completely different and smaller inspection team was sent back to UKTD in April and resulted in ‘good’ judgments across the board.
The provider’s main complaint when the grade four report was published was that inspectors had failed to consider the impact of Covid-19 on the hairdressing industry that it delivers apprenticeships to.
Several other providers, mainly in the hospitality, service and care sectors, have issued similar complaints over the past year after receiving ‘inadequate’ Ofsted judgments – and in some cases have tried and failed to overturn the judgments in the High Court.
Wisniewski said she was able to land a reinspection due to “perseverance and substantive evidence that the previous inspection outcome was wrong”, but refused to say exactly what new evidence was submitted.
She added: “The inspection by comparison in April was challenging but fair and as a result we were able to showcase our provision effectively and achieve the right outcome for UKTD.
“Unfortunately, many providers have suffered from an Ofsted culture and regime that in my view has failed to recognise and properly understand the intricacy and pressures in the delivery of work-based apprenticeships in what has been a very difficult few years.
“The education inspection framework has been used in some cases by inspectors to view providers without context, failing to adequately take into account sector issues, the range of employers we work with, and other mitigating circumstance such as a pandemic and economic crisis.
“As a training provider and a business, we also experienced the impact of Covid and survived whilst still providing good quality training, support and outcomes for our learners and employers. This has not been recognised adequately in some inspections and in particular those sectors that have been hit hard, such as hairdressing. Additionally, not every provider delivers the same model, and this can bring different challenges, but this does not mean we are not good at what we do.”
Complaints process to be reviewed
Training providers and colleges have been successful in getting their judgements upgraded prior to inspection reports being published in the past, but it is unheard of for Ofsted to remove a report after publication and decide to carry out a reinspection.
UKTD’s success comes shortly after Ofsted’s senior leaders admitted their complaints policy “is not working” and will be reviewed.
Officials have been told to make the process more human and less bureaucratic, FE Week understands, following backlash from the education sector.
Paul Warner, director of strategy and business development at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said his organisation is “pleased that Ofsted are taking on board criticisms of the appeals process” which will “help to ensure continuing improvements in the inspection process even more through further co-operation with the sector”.
The feedback in UKTD’s ‘good’ report is unrecognisable to the ‘inadequate’ report published just months ago.
The grade four report claimed that leaders had “not rectified many of the weaknesses identified at previous Ofsted inspections”, accused leaders of lacking “ambition” for apprentices who allegedly often struggled to meet the demands of work and study because they “do not regularly receive their entitlement to time away from work”.
It also claimed that apprentices were “frustrated” with the training and assessment provided.
But the grade two report states that leaders “have taken effective action to improve the quality of education”.
Apprentices now have “very positive attitudes to their training”, “quickly gain highly relevant and up-to-date practical hairdressing and barbering skills”, and benefit from tutors who “collaborate closely with employers to link the practical teaching in salons to the theory sessions that tutors teach”.
Wisniewski said the report now “accurately and reflects our provision fairly”, adding that the reinspection was conducted by an Ofsted team that “had the right skills, competencies, and a willingness to fully understand our provision and the issues during and after Covid”.
An Ofsted spokesperson said: “We have nothing further to add to the published inspection report.”
This isn’t the first time UKTD has battled ‘inadequate’ Ofsted grades. The provider was given the judgement twice in 2017.
The two inspections were based on safeguarding failings. It is not clear why the Education and Skills Funding Agency did not terminate the provider’s contracts following the previous grade four judgements, as is usual practice for independent training providers.
The agency can, however, decide not to terminate contracts in exceptional circumstances.
UKTD, which was set up in 1998, was also judged ‘inadequate’ in 2006 by the Adult Learning Inspectorate – Ofsted’s predecessor.
The owner of an east London training provider has been slapped with a seven-year director ban after investigators found fake apprenticeships that earned him almost £1 million.
The Education and Skills Funding Agency investigated London College of Global Education Ltd after an Ofsted new provider monitoring visit found “examples of people on the list of apprentices who were not studying at the provider” in 2021.
Narayan Sah, the provider’s owner, was paid £994,690 for 471 apprentices in 2020/21. Following Ofsted’s visit, the ESFA alerted Sah that the agency would be investigating his training provider.
Shockingly, following the notification, an “internal verification of learners” conducted by Sah led to 463 of his 471 apprentices being removed for being ineligible for funding, if they existed at all.
DfE figures record 400 starts at London College of Global Education when the company began delivering apprenticeships in 2020. None of the learners enrolled completed an apprenticeship qualification for which funding was obtained, the Insolvency Service said.
Most of those ghost apprenticeships were advanced and higher-level ICT programmes. Ofsted reported all off-the-job training was delivered remotely.
Taking away the eight apparently eligible learners, the ESFA demanded the return of £885,989. By the time the company went into liquidation in July 2021, this was reduced to £429,189.
Sah founded the company, originally known as Sagarmatha Consulting Limited, in 2010, but is now disqualified from company directorship until May 2030.
Liquidators report that investigations with the ESFA are ongoing in their latest update, published on Companies House in September 2022.
“Meetings were carried out with the ESFA to discuss concerns that they have raised in the conduct of the company. The matters identified from these investigations are ongoing however, so as to not prejudice any potential future litigation, the joint liquidators do not intend to disclose the specifics of the investigation to date,” the report said.
Among the company’s £1 million-plus liabilities to creditors, including the ESFA, over £20,000 is owed to HSBC, over £18,000 to Dubai-based ed tech company Seeding Brains Education and Training, and FE Week’s publisher, LSECT, is owed £168.
Awarding body VTCT has beefed up its apprenticeship end-point assessment (EPA) operation by taking over Skills for Logistics.
Skills for Logistics, which claims to have a 25 per cent market share in apprenticeship assessments in the logistics sector, became a subsidiary of VTCT last week.
The move adds eight apprenticeship standards to VTCT’s EPA roster, taking its total to 31 and making the charitable trust the joint tenth largest end-point assessment organisation.
VTCT chief executive Alan Woods said the acquisition will help ease the process to gain Ofqual recognition for Skills for Logistics – suggesting that the latter has to date been unsuccessful in getting EPA recognition from the regulator in its own right.
Skills for Logistics offers assessments for LGV drivers, supply chain warehouse operative and supply chain practitioners. As the UK struggles to deal with widespread and well-documented lorry driver shortages, VTCT’s ability to bring “that size and scale to their operation” as part of the acquisition will be significant, Woods said.
“We now have 31 EPA standards that we are responsible for, so we’ve got size and quality that we’re bringing to the game,” he added.
“But we also need to have that quality and rigour from Skills for Logistics – they have got fantastic employer relationships.”
Woods said the takeover will not lead to any redundancies, adding that VTCT will use some of the “firepower on our balance sheet” to take Skills for Logistics into new areas, which will “enable them to develop some new products and services”.
VTCT’s presence in the logistics sector will be expanded, as it aims to “develop ourselves into an organisation which is working in as large a part of the foundation economy” as is appropriate.
David Coombes, the managing director at Skills for Logistics, and Paul Spink, the company’s development director will continue to lead the business while the same board will still be in place.
VTCT meanwhile will “continually look” for acquisitions which will help them improve their provision within the foundation economy.
