Latest news from FE Week

Employer partnerships are no longer enough to tackle the skills crisis

The sector has long prided themselves on having ‘excellent relationships’ with employers. Accordingly, colleges around the country have been collaborating on a level not seen before to help tackle skills gaps. Whether it’s via apprenticeship provision, work placements or some curriculum delivery, there is no doubting the value that strong, industry partnerships can have on students’ learning and progression.

And many employers recognise the benefits of engaging with colleges; enabling them to secure their future skills needs and influence the types of skills and behaviours being taught to the next generation of experts.

Government skills policy has always been focused on the need for employers and educators to collaborate. The apprenticeship act of 1964 established the framework for young people to receive practical training alongside their academic education – and FE colleges have continued to play a crucial role, designing courses with local employers to meet the specific skills requirements of a regional workforce.

There has been a growing emphasis on collaboration between higher education institutions and employers too. Degree apprenticeships are well regarded, together with research and development opportunities and work placements being integrated into HE programmes.

The more recent apprenticeship levy and development of T Levels have further reflected the government’s support for employer-led training, and the fundamental role it needs to play in the growth of the economy.

So, at first glance, the introduction of LSIPs is not revolutionary in terms of employer-educator partnerships. Arguably, they’re just another take on encouraging organisations to work together, with the aim of getting more people into good jobs.

But having become fully immersed in developing the LSIF bid for the Local London region over the summer (which is our response to the LSIP), it’s clear that meeting the challenge of the skills crisis requires more than that.

What we have realised and learned through the LSIF process is just how much more can be achieved when working collaboratively with other colleges, HEIs, training providers and local authorities – as opposed to just linking up with employers.

It goes beyond employers. It is about working as a regional collective

Crucially, every organisation involved in this work has the same aim. We all want to meet employers’ skills demand, open up great local job opportunities for people in our communities and help support a thriving economy.

This goes beyond just working with employers. This is about breaking down barriers – including any concern about ‘competition’ between colleges. It is about working as a regional collective to maximise the funding available and develop effective proposals that will achieve the greatest possible impact for local people.

By joining up with 12 other FE colleges across the Local London region, three universities, adult education providers, local authorities and many employers – we have been able to collectively design an approach that will address green and digital skills gaps across our whole region.

This process has not been straightforward. It has taken time and, most importantly, has required genuine drive and commitment from every partner to make it work.

But the skills crisis is not going away. We need to create a system that can operate with greater agility to meet the rapidly changing needs of the workforce. This isn’t just about qualifications; it’s about training people in the way that employers need, to respond to their ever-changing operating environment.

Our focus on digital and green skills is just one example, but the picture is the same across multiple industry sectors.

Colleges are expert collaborators; we understand the needs of our students and we can adapt and flex to meet the needs of businesses. But discrete college-employer partnerships alone are no longer enough to close the rapidly expanding skills gap.

Genuine engagement with stakeholders across the whole skills ecosystem – including local authorities, funding agencies and all types of education providers – is crucial if we are to develop, create and sustain long-term solutions and secure the necessary funding.

What’s more, by creating this collaboration blueprint, we will have a far greater ability to influence and shape policy moving forward. The Local London LSIF is proof that there is strength in numbers and shows just how much impact can be achieved when people are committed to achieving a shared aim.

How to embed ED&I into your everyday teaching and learning

ED&I. When I reflect on what those three letters have meant to me and my students throughout my FE career, I’m proud of what I’ve achieved and of how far the sector has evolved. However, there is still a journey ahead; I know a number of my peers still struggle to make it part of their teaching.

For me embedding equality, diversity and inclusion has never been ad hoc or a novelty. It has enriched my classroom practice in many ways, but more importantly it has allowed my learners to see themselves reflected back through the curriculum. The level of engagement that has come from that is uncanny, and seeing it come to fruition is always a pleasure.

This holds true irrespective of the learners you have before you. Even a group lacking in diversity – or not diverse at all – will benefit from incorporating ED&I. There is not a class I have taught where the value of engaging with thoughts, ideas and concepts outside of learners’ lived experiences hasn’t been immediately obvious.

There are endless possibilities and often so many unknowns within ED&I, so I will attempt to demystify it. If you’re not sure where to start, my answer is an obvious one: at the very beginning.

A labour of love

In my experience, ED&I must be embedded at the earliest stage of planning – be that a curriculum intent document, scheme of work or lesson plan. For example, when planning lessons I always start with the area of ED&I I would like to embed before I think about how I am going to teach the skill.

Whether it’s anti-racism, LGBTQIA+ inclusion or disability awareness, I decide the message that is going to underpin the teaching of the skills, assessment and overall thematic tone of the lesson. Once I have determined this, I begin to do research, compile resources and plan assessments that incorporate the theme.

As an English specialist, my subject organically lends itself to being diversified through exposing learners to a multitude of texts. However, any area of the curriculum – academic or vocational – can be enhanced in this way. All it takes is a little labour of love.

Any area of the curriculum can be enhanced in this way

Simply start by researching the profile of an under-represented group you wish to embed in the lesson. It could be the profile of neurodiverse people within construction, the number of women in engineering, Middle Eastern and African architecture, statistics from the Windrush movement. The possibilities are endless.

I recently taught a lesson on speech writing while introducing my learners to European standards of beauty. Challenging those standards stirred up passions. In turn, this led to powerful speeches as my learners competed to create the most impactful language devices to illustrate their points of view.

An arduous task?

But why do it at all? For some, starting at the beginning might mean going a little further back than the planning stage. Often we can feel inflicted upon by wider organisational priorities and start to perceive ED&I as the ‘agenda of the week’ – to be resented or avoided until it falls off the long laundry list of disdain.

ED&I is too important and fundamental to fall into obscurity, and the key to engaging everyone is to demonstrate how it applies to each of us. Where does your desire to teach find its genesis? What groups do you personally represent, knowingly or unwittingly? What are the unique aspects of your identity as a lecturer, and how do these impact on what you bring to the classroom? This may not be comfortable, but it will be cathartic.

But in the end, the single most impactful element of all the ED&I training and CPD I’ve done has been drawing attention to diversity as a strength within the classroom. The peer learning that springs from bilingualism, how cognitive diversity impacts problem solving, the richness of creativity and arts from different cultures. These are not dispensable add-ons but essential components of learning.

ED&I requires us to expand what we value as conducive to learning and as essential cultural capital.

Anything short of that would be the antithesis of inclusion and will feel like an arduous task – instead of the labour of love that it is.

Are private equity backers bad apples or golden eggs?

Transposing the world of private equity (PE) onto the education sector brings with it a curious mix of potential and perils. But the biggest risk is that both the hopes and fears of stakeholders are underpinned by a general lack of knowledge of the sector. So what does everyone need to know in order to proceed with due caution?

Dissecting the dilemma

As reported in FE Week, we’ve seen a surge in PE firms investing in training providers. High stakes, accelerated careers, significant exposure and control-centred dynamics are evidently tantalising for many. For others, the prospect of strong financial backing in a precariously and poorly funded sector is clearly a strong pull factor.

But there’s no such thing as a free lunch. The PE arena has an adrenaline-fuelled obsession with performance. It feeds off results. Success in inseparable from profitability and speedy returns, and such intense pressure results in a ‘survival of the fittest’ culture of leadership.

So while the upside may be lucrative, it is balanced on a knife-edge. Financial prosperity and positive audit outcomes are non-negotiable, and faltering on either front can result in swift repercussions.

Competing imperatives

PE-backed firms are premised on growing and generating profit. When such firms enter funded training markets, the stakes morph considerably. The human element of shaping future generations is as crucial to ITP providers as financial stability and an effective business model.

Accordingly, a number of recent articles about hiring on our website are written with new FE sector entrants in mind. They aim to find a balance between these too-often competing imperatives. What to do when improving organisational agility meets the challenges of career progression and fluid leadership. How improving structures, cross-departmental opportunities and rotational tasks fosters growth. How upskilling employees bolsters capability and contributes to dynamism.

A recurring theme is that the churn in senior leadership can be avoided with mindful appointment strategies and careful workforce planning. Key is appointing sturdy senior teams that mitigate risk while driving consistent, effective growth. In my experience, a collaboration of the right sector expertise and a PE firm’s own team works best.

It’s not all churn and burn

If the downsides are properly mitigated, PE-backed firms can bring a lot to the table. Many are predicated on profound impact and speedy advancements. With fewer layers of leadership and a lean structure, employees tend to have more exposure and responsibility. Employees that have a greater impact are typically happier at work.

Greater autonomy offers freedom to make decisions without wading through layers of bureaucracy – an often-touted criticism of working in FE colleges. Quick decision making, freedom to lead and the exhilaration of high growth present a sense of fulfilment not found elsewhere.

And of course there is the prospect of greater financial rewards – a honey pot that attracts quality talent. For those who can tenaciously ride the tide, the rewards (both monetary and developmental) are plentiful.

Implications for learners and beyond

As this trend has gradually seeped into the training provider sector, the ripple effects have already reached learners. A financially robust and quality-led institution can invariably offer better resources and upgraded training prospects – a potential win for learners. At least in theory.

However, the uncertainty associated with PE-owned firms casts a long shadow. The urgency to deliver financial results could risk eclipsing the core purpose of quality education.

Worse, it can eclipse any education taking place at all. We’ve already seen seemingly ‘cut-throat’ actions including liquidations, mass redundancies and market exits.

With frozen funding bands, unpredictable bid patterns and the rising cost of money, there is a huge pressure for investments to make a return.

Given the high-stakes nature of PE investments, there’s an inherent possibility of more volatility with both successful and unsuccessful outcomes. Striking that difficult balance between financial ambition and educational goals is trickier than ever.

For now, while appreciating the accelerated progress that comes with PE backing, it’s prudent to shield our learners, staff, and careers from potential risks. We must approach this new frontier not with fear but with an informed perspective.

Whitehall doesn’t know best – but devolution is harming skills policy

The next UK government will have to completely reboot the post-18 tertiary education system. Why? Because the current devolved and separate four nations’ skills policy model has largely failed to shift the dial on UK productivity and investment in training.

The reasons are many and complex. In a report commissioned by the Federation of Awarding Bodies, my co-author, Matilda Gosling and I painstakingly audited decades of policy reports and recommendations designed to improve skills. Time and again, we read statements written by successive governments with terms like ‘skills revolution’, ‘world-class’ and ‘gold-standard qualifications’.

We concluded that on the important skills metrics, the UK has been ‘running to stand still’. Since the Leitch Review of Skills reported under the last Labour government, only the target to increase HE participation has been met. We were supposed to be world-beaters in productivity by now. Instead, we are skills laggards.

Real wages have stagnated since 2005. The UK has come second from bottom since 2010 in productivity growth compared to our main European competitors. Investment from employers in training workers has nearly halved over the same period, with a staggering 60 per cent decline in training hours since 1997. We liken all these efforts by policymakers to running up an escalator the wrong way.

You can see this struggle in the data: in the period from 1993 to just before the 2008 financial crash, UK productivity growth increased by 40 per cent. Since that time, it has resulted in only 4 per cent growth according to ONS.

No wonder then that people are feeling worse off, exacerbated by the current cost of living crisis. Yet, talk to economists and about the only thing they can all agree on is the positive relationship between better skills and higher wages.

The UK doesn’t have to accept decline. Poland and Slovenia are projected to overtake British living standards by 2030. Strip away the economic powerhouse that is London and your average Brit is poorer today than a resident of Mississippi – the most deprived state in the US.

The UK doesn’t have to accept decline

The academic, Daron Acemoglu argues that nations fail when they allow extractive institutions to prevail. Prosperity flounders when politicians forget that skills and labour markets are like ecosystems that need to be cultivated carefully.

When you look at the current phalanx of devolved bodies and skills quangos, what we see are far too many extractive regulators and institutions. Our research found that the regulatory burden on the FE and tertiary sector has doubled since 2010. The Office for Students is a prime example, labelled ‘must do better’ by a parliamentary committee recently.

Instead of creating UK-wide bodies to regulate post-18 qualifications and apprenticeships, we have allowed the erosion of the UK’s own internal market by setting up and paying for parallel skills bureaucracies. For British citizens, depending on where they live in these islands, it increasingly means a postcode lottery of support.

A reboot is needed that dismantles the top-down English skills delivery model based on ‘Whitehall knows best’. But that doesn’t mean government getting out of the way.

The UK lacks an industrial strategy with a determined focus on improving skills and productivity. Therefore, it’s time to end the nonsense of so many competing quangos and replace them with a UK-wide approach.

One of our key recommendations is to establish a new UK Department for Employment, Productivity and Workforce Skills. By using the reserved employment powers Westminster retained since 1997, it should be possible to reclassify some policy areas like apprenticeships and national occupational standards as UK legislative competencies.

That doesn’t mean to say that devolved administrations (including mayoral combined authorities) should not enjoy a high degree of flexibility when it comes to implementation. Ministers need to trust the sector more. But it really does make sense to pool stretched resources in a more effective UK national skills mission.

Perhaps only then will we start running up the skills and productivity escalator the right way. Prosperity depends on it.

Awarding organisations are perfectly placed to break barriers to LLE

DfE permanent secretary, Susan Acland-Hood recently acknowledged significant hurdles along the way to the first delivery of Level 4 and 5 courses via the newly remaned Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) in 2025. One of these is the establishment of a third registration category by the higher education regulator, the Office for Students (OfS) which providers and awarders of short courses or modules will require to be eligible for funding via the LLE.

To be ready for delivery in autumn 2025, the OfS will need to publish the new regulations for this category and set up a process for providers to apply for registration. Providers relying on this registration will need to have completed the process well ahead of launching courses so that they can confidently advertise their programmes. Many will be holding back on planning provision until some outline of the regulatory requirements are available.

However, Awarding Organisations (AOs) are already well placed to act as the conduit between students and education providers to assure quality and standards. Instead of – or as well as – registering providers for LLE provision through OfS, explicitly endorsing the existing role of AOs could open up LLE-powered provision rapidly. It would also negate any additional regulatory burden in time for the launch in 2025. After all, they are already held to account by Ofsted and IfATE for the quality of provision through FE colleges and other centres.

This model is already successful for regulating arguably higher-stakes assessments such as GCSEs and A Levels and could expedite the approval process for the OfS’s new ‘third category’ of providers. This could particularly benefit smaller and specialist providers who might resist the demands of additional regulatory burden.

In addition to reducing regulatory burden, such an approach would help drive investment in and sector-wide marketing of LLE programmes to create awareness and demand for short modular credit-bearing programmes.

Giving existing AOs a greater role in the LLE is one of eight recommendations in Pearson’s recently published policy Spotlight on the Lifelong Learning Entitlement. The Spotlight includes public polling and feedback from expert roundtables.

LLE represents a genuinely pivotal shift

The Spotlight also recommends launching a multi-channel awareness campaign to drive demand and share clear information and guidance for interested individuals, particularly those who might be hesitant to take out income-contingent loans without a full understanding of the commitment they are taking on.

The polling is clear that adults in the target market, typically already in work and with family and financial commitments, currently have low appetite for loans and low understanding of the repayment terms which vary according to salary benefits gained.

Other recommendations go to the heart of the design of the LLE, for example reducing the 30-credit minimum to broaden access to shorter courses and micro-credentials.

Similarly, the requirement for LLE modules to be nested into ‘parent’ qualifications could be relaxed to ensure providers can respond in an agile way to fast-moving technological advances such as generative AI.

Not surprisingly, our research also concluded that it is vital that support and funding for Level 3 learning remains in place after Advanced Learner Loans are absorbed into LLE. Those who would benefit most from upskilling might struggle to access Level 4 or 5 programmes without improved progression pathways from Levels 1 to 3.

Many respondents also emphasised that the success of LLE hinges on the seamless transfer of credits between different providers. Questions about the value of credits from different institutions, recognition of prior learning and the alignment of credit levels have yet to be resolved. This will require extensive collaboration between providers.

The requirement for standardised transcripts for all LLE-funded modules offers a unique opportunity to reimagine how we record learners’ journeys. Using digital skills wallets and blockchain technology could create dynamic and coherent records of individuals’ educational achievements.  

This innovation would meet with the public’s desire for tangible and secure certifications and ensures that learners can showcase their incremental learning to employers and for progression to further learning.  

LLE represents a genuinely pivotal shift in how individuals will access education throughout their lives. Such changes are, of course, complex. We hope our recommendations are a step towards overcoming the early hurdles, and look forward to working with the sector to unlock LLE’s full potential.  

Revealed: Funding band changes from IfATE’s ‘top’ 100 review… so far

Funding bands for 18 apprenticeships have been boosted by the government, so far, amid a promised review of the 100 “most-used” apprenticeship standards.

However, questions have been raised about how the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education is deciding which apprenticeships are in scope for the special review, which was pushed for by ministers, as FE Week analysis shows many involved have low starts.

As part of its “crackdown on rip-off university degrees” media push over the summer, the Department for Education committed to “updating 100 apprenticeships in sectors such as construction and healthcare, so they reflect the latest technological advancements and work better for employers and apprentices”.

The IfATE then told the FE sector it would “review the content of 100 of the most-used standards so they reflect technological developments and up-to-date technical skills”.

Those reviews had started in April and the institute pledged to “complete” the 100 reviews by the end of December 2023. To date, the institute has completed 59 reviews but is yet to even identify the other 41 standards.

Of those 59 reviews (see full list below), 18 have included an increase to funding bands. Five have ended up being retired.

The apprenticeship with the biggest funding band increase was the level 6 chartered legal executive, which shot up by £15,000 from £12,000 to £27,000.

The level 2 bricklayer, level 3 assistant accountant, and level 2 hairdressing professional apprenticeships all had increases of £4,000.

Despite its claim that the “most-used” apprenticeship standards would be part of the 100 reviews, 18 of the 59 reviewed so far had zero starts in 2021/22.

Simon Ashworth, director of policy at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said: “Unlike other areas, there is a process to enable the regular review of both the content and funding of apprenticeship standards.

“However, as we have pointed out, that process takes far too long. The impact this has had on both provider financial stability and market supply is unacceptable. We are also still awaiting the outcome of some standards from the exceptional funding band review announced at our Autumn conference last year.

“It was positive to initially hear the announcement in July to speed up the review process and commitment to 100 reviews by December 2023, but the 59 standards reviewed to date are by no means the ‘most used’ ones, and to support the IfATE we will be providing a list of standards which we believe need urgent reviewing before December 2023.”

The IfATE told FE Week that several high-volume apprenticeships, including carpentry and joinery, digital technology solutions professional, hairdressing, installation and maintenance technician, bricklayer, assistant accountant and retailer have been reviewed.

However, the “need to take account of a range of factors in prioritising reviews inevitably means that some of the other recently reviewed apprenticeships have not been high volume ones”.

The institute said that beyond the 59 reviews already completed since April, it is “not possible to say definitively which four reviews will be completed by December and contribute to the ‘100 target’ because of the need to involve external stakeholders”.

When prioritising apprenticeship reviews, the institute considers several factors including the time since the last review, its external quality assurance rating, withdrawal rates, start volumes, the existence of any dispensations, and its published target to “green” certain apprenticeships.

Each review involves the institute and employers considering whether an apprenticeship’s content “still fully complies with IfATE policy and meets employer needs”.

This could lead to “outputs ranging from significant changes to the occupational standard and end-point assessment plan, with the potential for a resulting funding band change, through to retirement of an apprenticeship or no change at all”.

Incoming Ofsted chief ‘misled’ MPs

The incoming Ofsted chief inspector has been accused of misleading MPs over claims exclusion rates in his turnaround trust’s schools were “lower than most” in the areas they work.

Analysis by FE Week’s sister publication Schools Week found Outwood Grange Academies Trust’s secondaries excluded twice as many pupils as other schools in some of their regions.

The trust’s chief executive, Sir Martyn Oliver, made the comments to the education committee earlier this month at a pre-appointment hearing. The committee later endorsed him for the top job.

Frank Norris, an education adviser at the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, said the comments “could be viewed by members of the committee to have been misleading and those statements were relied upon by those who voted that he was indeed appropriate to appoint”.

Kim Johnson, the only education committee MP who voted against appointing Oliver, said he should now be “brought back to the committee to answer for his words. Had we heard the truth at the committee, others may have raised similar concerns.”

‘He should be brought back to the committee to answer for his words’

Oliver made the comment after being challenged by MPs over the trust’s high suspension rates. He said: “Our figures for permanent exclusion are lower than most in the areas in which we work.”

However, Schools Week’s analysis shows OGAT’s 13 secondary schools in the Yorkshire and Humber had a 0.31 exclusion rate, compared to 0.17 across the region’s other secondaries. In the north east, OGAT’s seven secondaries had a 0.64 exclusion rate, compared to 0.3 in others. The trust has four secondary schools in the East Midlands and two in the north west, where its exclusion rates are negligibly smaller (see table). The analysis only looked at secondary schools.

The national permanent exclusion rate for secondary schools was 0.16, compared to 0.33 at OGAT.

An OGAT spokesperson told Schools Week that Oliver was “grateful for the opportunity to clarify his comment”.

“He was comparing permanent exclusion rates between some individual schools in Outwood to some of the other schools in the same LAs [local authorities] which have a similar profile,” they added.

The trust did not provide any analysis or examples to back up the claim.

Schools Week looked at the three councils where OGAT had three or more secondaries in 2021/22. The trust’s schools had higher exclusion rates than other secondaries in two of the areas, with one negligibly higher.

In Wakefield, OGAT’s four secondaries had an exclusion rate of 0.36, compared to 0.24 among the council’s other 15 secondaries.

The trust spokesperson added schools had been “under-performing for years and were some of the most challenging in the system when we took them on. These schools have been transformed by OGAT.

“They now provide academic rigour and high standards in our academies alongside high levels of personalised care and support, and our approach has achieved some of the best Ofsted grades in our schools’ histories, with most ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ – sometimes the only schools rated ‘outstanding’ in the areas we work.”

All OGAT schools also “play a full role in taking permanently excluded children, children educated off site and children directed to us via fair access panels,” the spokesperson added.

Supporters of zero-tolerance turnaround approaches, such as OGAT’s, say short-term rises in exclusions are sometimes a necessary consequence of embedding better behaviour policies to both improve standards, and protect pupils and staff.

However, of OGAT’s 13 Yorkshire and Humber secondaries, the three most recent to join were in 2018 – five years ago. On average, the schools have been with the trust for nine years. In the north east, the average is seven years.

Norris, who has been analysing school performance across the north in his role for the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, said: “This is not sustainable school improvement. High exclusions over a long period of time doesn’t suggest a trust that has got a handle on embedding effective school improvement.”

After a fall during the pandemic, permanent exclusions rose nationally in 2021/22. However, they are still below the peak in 2018/19. However, an investigation by Schools Week last week found many councils have reported further rises last year. Official figures are lagged and will not be published until later in the year.

Temporary exclusions (suspensions) are at their highest rate since recent records began. One in 17 secondary school pupils were suspended at some point in the 2021/22 academic year.

Collective effort can bring college pay back where it needs to be

After campaigning hard all year, we were delighted that in July the Secretary of State for Education secured around £200 million in 2023/24 for colleges and other FE providers to address key priorities, including the recruitment and retention of staff.

The money is significant – and yet not enough.

Significant because it has allowed the AoC to this week recommend that colleges aim to increase pay by 6.5 per cent, in line with the school teachers’ pay award accepted by the teaching unions. Not enough however, because after 13 years of funding cuts, college pay still lags behind schools and industry, and the cost-of-living crisis is still biting hard.

Three things are clear to me. First, we have shown that by a concerted campaign nationally, supported by college leaders across the country, we can win the investment our sector so sorely needs.

That’s why we have invited the college staff unions to join us in that campaigning and put down their ballot papers – we have shown our resolve to win funding to go into pay and we want staff and union support for that over the coming months and years.

Second, this year’s win must be only the starting point in bringing college pay back to where it should be after years of declining investment by this government and its predecessors.

The extra money came about because DfE officials and ministers agreed to consider college staff pay alongside teacher pay in schools and recognise that the enormous gap between schoolteachers (£42,000) and college lecturers (£33,000) is not acceptable. That bodes well for the future and our prospects of closing that gap completely.

Third, the mechanism that DfE used to distribute the additional funding has resulted in very different amounts of money available in each college to put into pay. That was inevitable whichever mechanism they used, but we know that some colleges will simply not get enough additional funding to afford our recommended 6.5 per cent.

That’s why we have also recommended that every college is fully transparent with how much additional funding they have got and how it is being spent on staff. We campaigned saying we needed more money to pay staff better, so we want to show that we meant it.

With a general election on the horizon, we know that we need to influence the thinking and the manifestos of the political parties.

Investment in colleges was decimated after the 2010 election; let’s all work together now to make sure that is reversed whoever wins in 2024. Staff in colleges deserve it, our communities and employers need it.

AoC advises colleges to match 6.5% school teacher pay rise

The Association of Colleges has advised colleges to “aim” to increase staff pay by 6.5 per cent to help close the “unacceptable” gap between FE and the school sector.

A pay award of 6.5 per cent, to apply to FE staff for the 2023/24 academic year, would match the pay rise accepted by school lteachers earlier this year following unprecedented strike action.

The college recommendation came after the latest round of negotiations between the AoC and the five unions making up the National Joint Forum (NJF), which is calling for a 15.4 per cent pay rise for college staff.

The AoC has until now refused to make a non-binding pay recommendation to its members until extra funding had been provided by ministers.

The representative body said today that colleges should use all of their cut of the £200 million government 16 to 19 funding boost announced in July to fund the staff pay boost and “address staff recruitment and retention challenges”.

Announcing the new funding, Gillian Keegan, the education secretary, told MPs in the House of Commons that she “expects” this extra funding “to go to the front line”.

AoC chief executive David Hughes said: “We have long said that the gap between the school and FE sectors on teacher pay is unacceptable, and it is an enormous step forward that the government has finally accepted their responsibility as funders to put that right.”

The association did acknowledge the “difficult position” colleges with smaller 16 to 19 cohorts face and will likely not be able to afford such a pay recommendation.

That’s because the extra funding, £185 million in 2023/24 and £285 million in 2024/25, is being allocated to colleges through increased programme cost weightings and the per-student funding rate for 16- to 19-year-olds.

Colleges with larger adult or apprenticeship cohorts will therefore struggle to meet the AoC’s recommended 6.5 per cent pay award.

“It [6.5 per cent] will be exceptionally hard for those colleges with small or no 16 to 18s,” said Mark Malcolmson, principal of City Lit, a large adult education college.

“It would have been much fairer if the whole college sector was treated equally.”

College leaders that spoke to FE Week, but wished to be unnamed, said that while there was widespread agreement that the 16 to 18 allocation process was unfair, several would be able to fund a pay award of around 6.5 per cent.

Others were worried about losing staff to nearby colleges that received an big increase to their 16 to 19 allocation and were concerned about the medium to long-term impact on their budgets.

Gerry McDonald, chief executive of New City College and chair of the AoC’s employment policy group, said he would like to see as many colleges as possible making the 6.5 per cent pay award.

“College leaders do not want pay in colleges to slip even further behind schools and industry roles,” he said.

“However, it is absolutely clear that a number of colleges will not be able to achieve 6.5 per cent because the new funding is simply and transparently insufficient.

Collective effort can bring college pay back where it needs to be

“By using the 16 to 18 budget to distribute funds and linking it to high-cost subjects, the additional funding available for college pay as a proportion of overall college turnover varies enormously between colleges. This would make a simple single pay award recommendation difficult to achieve for a large number of colleges.”

Hughes called on the unions to halt striking.

“My hope is that this funding will be only the first step towards closing the gap over the coming years, but I know that we will need to campaign hard to achieve that,” he said. “That’s why we are asking the unions to campaign with us nationally, rather than taking action locally. We have shown this works.”

Earlier in May, the Association of Colleges doubled down on its refusal to make a pay proposal for next year, as doing so will “let the government off the hook” for funding colleges properly to pay its staff.

Unions are understood to be pressing the AoC to agree to a national pay bargaining framework for the sector and call an end to the annual process of non-binding pay recommendations, which colleges can choose to accept or ignore.

UCU general secretary Jo Grady said: “Our analysis shows the money is there for college bosses to raise pay and treat staff fairly.

“The money has now arrived to pay our members fairly and a conditional recommendation of 6.5 per cent has been made.”

Last year, the AoC made a 2.25 per cent pay award recommendation, below the 10 per cent demand from unions. It was subsequently rejected.

UCU is currently balloting union members in 89 colleges to vote for industrial action, which will close on Tuesday 10 October 2023.