While I abhor the cancel culture that has emerged in recent years, and welcome open debate and the exchange of ideas as part of a process for getting to the right place in the end, I am having to work hard to remain open-minded in the face of Jon Yates’ article in Friday’s FE Week.
It is exactly this sort of muddled and ill-informed thinking that is threatening the education and social mobility opportunities available to hundreds of thousands of young people.
It is baffling that experienced and intelligent people are still so confused about the differences between applied and technical education; between qualifications that combine the development of skills with academic learning and qualifications that lead to a specific occupation.
If we are to remain economically secure and globally competitive, the workforce needs sufficient technical skills, attested by technical qualifications; but society and the economy also need workers who have pursued applied and academic learning, attested by A levels, applied generals (AGQs) and university degrees, with a view to entering professional careers.
When Yates writes of “the government’s decision to stop funding a load of technical education courses”, is he being disingenuous or does he really think that BTECs and other AGQs, with their classroom learning and preparation for HE, are technical and serve the same purpose as (equally valid, but totally different) license to practise tech levels for example?
If the government was genuinely trimming the large number of technical qualifications alone, would this be “making some people cross”? Of course not.
But the fact is, the government is proposing to cut the majority of well-respected (by employers and universities) qualifications that have recently been reformed so that they are more rigorous and demanding (did you know that, Mr Yates, or is your disparagement of BTECs based on the old versions?)
They also currently provide a meaningful pathway for hundreds of thousands of young people who are ready to access level 3 education; 44 per cent of white working class 18 year-olds and 34 per cent of learners from a BAME background who go to university, do so with BTECs.
And, if BTECs are not available to these young people, what will they do instead? Entry requirements for many T Level courses are tougher than those for A levels. So middle-pathway students will not choose T Levels in significant numbers; they are more likely to choose A Levels – or become NEET. What, seriously, does Yates think they will do?
And when Yates says that an AGQ “gives children some job knowledge, but also doubles as a source of UCAS points to getting into university”, is he not aware that T Levels also attract UCAS points and that last summer, more than one in three T Level students progressed to university rather than the workplace?
Finally, the wholly unnecessary and rather puerile attempt to inject some humour into the article: “(Whisper it: They do have another purpose, which is to make Pearsons (sic) quite a lot of revenue)” suggests that Mr Yates does not understand that T Levels, as well as almost all other qualifications, are being delivered by awarding organisations that charge a fee for their product.
Is this article misinformation or disinformation? Either way, I won’t even wrap my fish and chips in it.
Previous Job: Interim HR Director, National Fostering Group
Interesting fact: Angie is a gold medal winner of the girls Canadian national ice hockey team
Chris Stoker-Jones
Director of Client Engagement & Experience, Learn Plus Us
Start date: February 2023
Previous Job: Director of Vocational Training, Catch22
Interesting fact: Chris is a passionate Newcastle United fan, living in Sunderland, who likes nothing more than playing with graphic design to promote local grass roots football
Steph Lee-Vae, art and design lecturer at Tresham College, was named FE lecturer of the year at the last Pearson National Teaching Awards. They tell Jessica Hill about their passion for dangerous sports and how being an LGBTQ+ ambassador affects their teaching.
Steph Lee-Vae claims they are “probably the worst person” to be put in front of young people – at least as far as parents are concerned. That’s because the winner of the FE lecturer of the year award has a dangerous pursuit that they actively promote to their students. Skateboarding.
Art and design lecturer Lee-Vae also used to box and do karate fighting (they reached semi-professional status as a teenager). They were even inspired by their 84-year-old nan to start motorcycling last summer.
Lee-Vae clearly has a penchant for danger. “I’ve been punched in the face many a time, but taking a slam on a skateboard is a whole different level. It really hurts.”
It is clear that Lee-Vae’s zest for life shone through to help them clinch the Pearson national award.
The 32-year-old’s youthful appearance means that even after a decade of teaching at Tresham College (part of the Bedford College Group), they are still mistaken for a student as they wander around theKettering campus.
“New teachers ask me why I’m wearing a staff lanyard. It really cracks me up.”
It takes “a good five months” for Lee-Vae to convince parents that they “actually know” what they are doing and that their young people are “in safe hands”.
The results speak for themselves. Last year, all Lee-Vae’s first-year graphics students passed first time and more than 80 per cent of their third-year students achieved a merit or distinction.
Steph Lee-Vae at the awards ceremony
Representing the LGBTQ+ community
Lee-Vae, non-binary and a LGBTQ+ ambassador, introduces themselves as “Steph – they, them – nice to meet you all”. These days their non-binary identity is “not even a thing” that they feel they “need to speak about” with their students.
They say LGBTQ+ students value having a teacher who represents their community. “To have representation for those students makes a difference, it makes them feel like they’ve got a place in this world.”
Non-binary students are still forced to choose “male” or “female” to access funding for their courses – unlike most other places in the public sector.
Lee-Vae believes this is wrong, pointing to “the need to reflect our current times and the society we live in”.
Some of Lee-Vae’s students question the “purpose and relevance” of gendered data and how it this used. “If this is for the purpose of capturing inclusivity data, then surely by excluding marginalised gender/ non-binary and trans people then this is incorrect data. It’s important that we as educators should be at the forefront of change and leading innovation for future generations.”
Lee-Vae believes people are “scared of what they don’t understand”, so coming out publicly as trans means people get to appreciate they are “not actually a big scary monster that’s going to take over the world and make all our kids queer” but “just a person who just wants to be me”.
“When you start to have representation and normalise it, it becomes a lot less scary.”
But Lee-Vae hasn’t always felt comfortable to express themselves so freely. When they came out as gay at 13, being non-binary was “unheard of” and they only felt able to publicly identify as trans three years ago after being inspired by an article about a trans headteacher.
As a public sector teacher Lee-Vae was “terrified about coming out” as non-binary, partly because of media stories “tarnishing” people from their community.
As a child, Lee-Vae’s mum and siblings spent two years in Florida and the move back to the UK at the age of nine was “difficult”. Lee-Vae threw themselves into “anything and everything”, embracing art and music as well as getting a black belt at 14 and fighting in the British karate championships.
But Lee-Vae recalls negative comments about karate being a “man’s sport” and they struggled with gender dysphoria, feeling “different on the inside to how I was communicated to”.
“It was hard enough coming out as a lesbian and getting all that backlash. I didn’t really see anyone like me from the queer community, and I struggled with that.”
Lee-Vae believes many people assume that being gay or trans is a “choice”, but they dispute this.
“If I could choose an easy life of being straight or cisgendered and not having to go through being bashed, that would be much easier.”
Steph Lee-Vae with Bedford College Group chief executive Ian Pryce
Super-skater
Lee-Vae enjoyed skateboarding as a kid, but it was only after becoming “super unwell” with endometriosis at 26 that it became a life passion. Lee-Vae has spent the years since then in and out of hospital on hormone therapy and undergoing regular surgeries that have triggered menopause.
“I decided that If I’m going to feel like crap anyway, I might as well do it while living life. I’m not going to let this illness dictate me and what my capabilities are.”
Lee-Vae describes skateboarding as “a form of meditation”.
“In that moment, nothing else matters. It’s a creative process – researching and learning the trick, the resilience of doing that trick over and over again for months, and probably slamming 15 times. When you get it, the joy you feel is amazing.”
Just around the corner from Lee-Vae’s home in Corby is Europe’s biggest urban sports venue, Adrenaline Alley, where Lee-Vae coaches young people every Tuesday evening. They now sit on its board of directors, and are setting up discount codes for Tresham students.
Touchingly, Lee-Vae’s arts students recently surprised them with a gift – a skateboard, designed by them that announced them as lecturer of the year.
Seeing the video of students embracing Lee-Vae that day shows what a long way they have come from when, as a young “anarchist rebel”, teaching was “the last thing” they thought they’d end up doing.
“Teachers would have laughed for sure at idea that I’d be a one of them.”
Lee-Vae was one of the first in their family to go to university, explaining the family norm was “you get a job at 16 and you graft”. But Lee-Vae’s mum encouraged them to “be anything you want to be”.
One of their teachers was an ex-football hooligan who “turned his life around”. He inspired Lee-Vae to start working with young people who were “misunderstood, and just need to be shaped up a little bit”.
Lee-Vae being surprised upon hearing they had won the lecturer of the year
Above and beyond
It is clear Lee-Vae goes the extra mile for their students, spending most lunchbreaks chatting with them to make sure they are coping. They are ever-mindful of the long waiting list for NHS mental health services. “In the meantime, they go to the people they trust the most – the teaching team.”
Lee-Vae points out that the college’s own counsellor has about 350 students to work through. “You can’t let one person deal with all that – you have to have that team approach.”
Lee-Vae’s also now regularly calls food banks to arrange provisions for those students “without food at home. We can’t turn a blind eye to it.”
The night before our interview, they were up until 2am researching new Adobe trends, with their “brain working overtime” on new learning opportunities.
They admit to sometimes feeling “overwhelmed” as their mind “does not switch off at night”.
“It can be hard, because for those young people you’re a show person, teacher, therapist and parent. With all these different hats, you’re juggling to create the best experience for them.”
Classroom debates
Lee-Vae’s constant quest for ways to make classes “a little bit more exciting” involved setting up a YouTube channel during the pandemic of video tutorials and digital workshops. They also founded a monthly creative arts digital magazine showcasing students’ work.
Lee-Vae, a digital pro, is not a big fan of social media, but talks to students about what they’ve seen on TikTok because “it’s important to understand where they’re coming from and what’s relevant to them”.
And they are not afraid to tackle difficult topics. One recent art session involved discussion of Andrew Tate and women’s rights, protests in Iran and abortion laws in America.
Another group debated social media beauty standards, with some 18-year-olds “feeling they need to have lip fillers and Botox. I tell them they look lovely as they are. The thing that makes us beautiful is our unique flaws.”
Lee-Vae believes when a teacher leaves “room for openness to talk, to express honest feelings in a safe environment where they’re not judged, that can lead to understanding” on these issues.
For Lee-Vae, teaching is a “two-way dialogue” with the students being the educators too.
“Young people are so innovative, and they bring their life experiences and knowledge into the classroom. There’s so much I’ve got to learn. When you stop growing, that’s when you need to reflect and change things.”
A Gloucestershire residential college has stopped using “intrusive” body-worn cameras and removed a CCTV camera that pointed at a girls’ bathroom after concerns were raised with Ofsted.
Inspectors visited Hartpury College’s residential provision in November, dropping its rating by two grades from ‘outstanding’ in February 2019 to ‘requires improvement’ after noting several safeguarding issues in a report published last week.
The watchdog labelled the use of CCTV in communal areas of the accommodation and body cameras worn by residential staff as “intrusive” explaining that it “fails to respect and protect the privacy of students”.
The report said that surveillance is used to gather evidence for when incidents happen, but found that “in one accommodation block, the CCTV points at the entrance to the girls’ bathroom”.
The report noted that in the event of an incident, the surveillance provides evidence, but inspectors found that “in one accommodation block, the CCTV points at the entrance to the girls’ bathroom”.
Inspectors reported that “all students sign consent to the use of CCTV and body-worn cameras as part of the application process” but “some students said they were not aware of the use of either CCTV or body-worn cameras”.
The report said that footage recorded and uploaded was at the discretion of individual staff members, which “raises concerns about how potentially sensitive footage is handled”.
The report said that the camera pointing to the girls’ bathroom had been removed and use of body-worn cameras stopped following the education watchdog’s visit.
About 700 residential students aged between 16 and 18 were based at the college at the time of the inspection, often under the supervision of just three or four staff in the evenings and overnight.
The report said there had been times when “students have been dropped off and left without adult support at this potentially worrying time” during visits to A&E.
Inspectors also found that bunk beds were too small for some students.
Despite the concerns, Ofsted recognised that the college “generally deals well” with the inevitably high number of safeguarding concerns it faces.
However, inspectors said there was a risk of issues being overlooked because there was a lack of a centralised system for recording incidents.
The DfE’s national minimum standards for FE residential accommodation stresses that “any use of surveillance equipment (e.g. CCTV cameras) or patrolling of buildings or grounds for security purposes does not intrude reasonably on residents’ privacy, is known to students and their parents and is compliant with legislative requirements/restrictions”.
Sources have indicated to FE Week that body worn cameras are not common practice in residential colleges.
The visit was carried out in line with the social care common inspection framework, which says that a monitoring visit of residential provision judged ‘requires improvement’ or ‘inadequate’ usually takes place within six months of the original inspection.
It states that residential provision in FE colleges is usually inspected at least once in every three year inspection cycle, or within two years for those with the lowest two ratings.
Hartpury’s inspection only related to its residential provision and not its education, which remained ‘outstanding’.
A spokesperson from the college said it was “disappointed by the outcome” and explained that “we are reviewing each of the recommendations as a priority; in some cases, we have immediately taken straightforward steps to meet the improvements required”.
The spokesperson added: “It is important to emphasise the inspection found no issues whatsoever that result in the residential students’ welfare not being safeguarded or promoted. We were also pleased that alongside the recommendations there were a number of positive findings.”
The college declined to respond to additional questions from FE Week about the use of body worn cameras.
Ofsted’s report has tasked the college with ensuring surveillance doesn’t intrude on students’ privacy, staff receive appropriate training and regular reviews on residential practice, and sufficient numbers of supervising staff are available outside of teaching time.
The college’s offering includes a mix of academic, vocational and land-based courses, including in sport, agriculture and animal and equine management.
The report did however find that the college ensured students were “well-prepared for residential life” while students reported feeling safe and well-supported during the day.
It continued that leaders and managers were “responsive and proactive” in acknowledging some of the shortfalls inspectors found.
Ministers are not discussing controls on apprenticeship levy spending amid re-emerging concerns that the pot could run dry, Robert Halfon has said.
The skills and apprenticeships minister batted away warning signs of budget overspend and insisted his department “can’t judge employer behaviour” and does not know the direction the budget will take each year.
He is instead focussed on achieving “as many starts as possible”.
Halfon made the comments in an interview, his first with FE Week since returning as minister, during a country-wide tour celebrating National Apprenticeship Week.
He took a swipe at business groups and the national media for peddling fake news about “wasted” levy funding, took a firm stance on calls to widen uses for the levy, and discussed his “top priorities”, including boosting achievement rates.
Apprenticeship budget sustainability risk
Since the levy’s launch in 2017, hundreds of millions of pounds of unspent apprenticeships funding has been returned to the Treasury each year against an annual budget of £2.5 billion. However, that underspend shrank to just £11 million in 2021-22 when 99.6 per cent of the budget was used.
The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education first warned the apprenticeships budget was heading for an overspend in 2018 when it forecast spending over the next four years. The National Audit Office also flagged a “clear risk” the programme was not financially sustainable as costs of training apprentices hit about the figure expected in 2015 when the levy was designed.
Senior civil servants and ministers later warned of hard choices if demand on the pot was too great, suggesting a potential need to limit employer usage of the levy.
Then-skills minister Anne Milton said one of the most palatable solutions would be a “pre-apprenticeship salary limit” to make high earners ineligible. Other suggestions from sector leaders included removing level 6 and 7 apprenticeships from the scope of levy funding.
Pressure eased with the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020 and numbers of new starters fell.
Experts believe government now needs to turn attention back to the sustainability of the apprenticeships budget in the face of rising numbers of higher level and degree apprenticeships, which are far more expensive to deliver and take an ever-increasing chunk of the budget.
Government appears to have recognised this in part by committing to increasing the annual budget to £2.7 billion by 2024/25. Importantly, the spend in 2021-22 included a one-off cost of £219 million to fund the £3,000 cash incentive scheme for employers.
Asked whether he was concerned about the apprenticeship budget going bust, Halfon told FE Week: “Well, first of all, the 99.6 per cent spend in 2021-22 is a really good thing and should be celebrated.
“We can’t judge what employer behaviour is, I can’t judge the budget year by year, but I can say that we’re doing everything possible to increase apprenticeship starts. We’ve set out the budget for £2.7 billion by 2024/25. I think we’re in a very good position.”
Pressed on whether his department has forecast future apprenticeship spending and the likelihood of an overspend, the minister said: “I just repeat what I said before, I can’t predict employer behaviour. But, you know, our budget is £2.7 billion by 2024/25. We’re trying to increase as many starts as possible. That’s all I’m going to say on that.”
And asked whether the DfE was looking at ways to limit apprenticeship spending to ensure sustainability of the budget like his predecessors were, Halfon said: “I’m not aware of any such discussions. That was clearly a long time ago. I’m just focused on increasing the number of apprenticeship starts, increasing the number of completions and the quality of provision, ensuring that we increase the number of degree apprentices and also that we increase the number of apprentices from disadvantaged backgrounds.”
He insisted that “we certainly can afford” large-scale increases to degree apprenticeship starts in the current system, even though the programmes are among the most expensive apprenticeships to deliver.
Halfon added that there are no plans to widen the levy so that it funds other types of training, as employer representative bodies have called for and the Labour Party has pledged to implement if it wins the next general election.
Stephen Evans, chief executive of Learning and Work Institute, said the latest apprenticeship spending figures “suggest pressure is building on the budget so you would expect DfE and Treasury to be keeping a pretty close eye on that”.
“If there is a worry that the budget could be breached then you do face pretty hard choices,” he told FE Week, adding that officials would have to either “ration apprenticeships in some way, get employers to stump up some more money by increasing contributions or widening those who pay into the levy, or the government has to stump up some more money”.
Evans, a former senior policy adviser at the Treasury, pointed out that, from the DfE’s perspective, the department might be comfortable working within the budget it has for the next two years, and after this point it will be for the next spending review and general election to decide whether changes or more funding is needed.
Jane Hickie, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said it is “unlikely we see an overspend in the next two years” and providers and employers should be “confident there is room for growth”.
However, she added that the next spending review settlement “will be critical to ensure that there is funding to match future employer demand”.
“In an employer-led, demand driven system, government should continue to support that investment in apprenticeships rather than look to restrict or ration provision,” Hickie said.
‘Thoroughly depressing’levy misconceptions
Halfon took aim at employer bodies and national journalists for spreading false claims about levy funding.
Every year representative bodies publish reports that state all the money from expired funds in levy-paying business accounts goes back to the Treasury. It leads to headlines including “UK apprenticeship levy is a £3.5bn mistake, say business leaders” in the likes of The Guardian.
The reports miss the point that the system was intentionally designed so that levy-payers wouldn’t spend all their levy contributions. Unspent money goes towards funding the rest of the system, including apprenticeships at small and medium-sized businesses who do not pay the levy, and English and maths training.
Halfon said it is “thoroughly depressing” and “worries” him “when you get some of the major industry bodies publishing reports with this kind of thing when they full well know how the levy works, the whole purpose and how it’s being spent”.
He pledged to take action: “It is my job to go out and communicate to make sure that the mainstream media understand this and people who know better shouldn’t be publishing these reports saying this.”
FE Week also quizzed Halfon on the DfE’s target of a national 67 per cent achievement rate on apprenticeship standards by 2025 – an ambition set by his predecessor Alex Burghart last year after the rate fell to 51.8 per cent in 2020/21.
Achievement rates for 2021/22 are set to be published next month, but the current minister would not be drawn on whether there has been improvement or not.
“What I will say is that the target very much remains at 67 per cent. We’re working very hard to try and improve that,” Halfon said.
Community learning in Somerset will return to the control of the county council later this year in a government U-turn following a decade of upheaval.
Somerset County Council’s training arm Somerset Skills & Learning (SS&L) transferred as a “community interest company” in 2015. It was part of a social enterprise experiment under the coalition government to consolidate skills and resident support funding streams from various government departments.
However the wheels quickly fell off after Vince Cable, business secretary at the time, lost his seat at the 2015 general election and the Conservatives won a majority.
The then-Skills Funding Agency put the community learning contract out to tender. Other departments followed, leaving funding for SS&L at jeopardy for every funding cycle.
The provider holds a £2.5 million contract for community learning in Somerset, but it is procured by the Education and Skills Funding Agency instead of the council.
In an update last week, ESFA said this approach is “out of step with the rest of England, where community learning funding is grant funded”.
“Therefore, from academic year 2023 to 2024, DfE are proposing to revert to grant funding Somerset County Council, bringing funding provision for Somerset Community Learning in line with the rest of the country,” a spokesperson said.
SS&L will continue to operate as a private training provider and have to bid for the contract through the council.
Devolution plans in the region meant the council and SS&L anticipated the decision but were blindsided by the implementation.
Kathryn Baker, chief executive of SS&L, said the timing was “really, really challenging” for the both the provider and the local authority. She said reverting to the council in August 2024, for example, would have allowed time for the council to put the necessary infrastructure in place.
“From a community point of view the timing is an issue because it’s a risk to the continuity of the provision. Who should be planning? We are currently delivering the contract, curriculum planning traditionally starts around about now, so that’s quite a challenge. Without at least a year’s lead in, how does the programme continue? For us it is lack of time to change our business model,” she said.
A spokesperson for Somerset County Council said: “We are working with DfE to consider the implications of the change and appreciate it may be unsettling for the current provider. We are keen to ensure that continued benefit to the people of Somerset is secured via this important source of funding.”
Sue Pember, a former director of FE funding in the Department for Education who is now the policy director of adult education network HOLEX, said returning grant funding to the council was the “ESFA trying their best to make good on the past”.
She described the 2015 move as a “brilliant idea”, adding that it was unfortunate the way events turned out for SS&L which, “by no fault of their own, really has been caught in a mire of procurement rules for the last few years, even though the original spin off out of the council was something that the Cabinet Office and Department for Education and Department for Business, Innovation and Skills encouraged”.
Pember added: “Since then, it has been really quite difficult for the spin off to operate. I hope that the right thing is done and SS&L gets the contract.”
Baker described the best part of the last decade as a “rollercoaster” and “not an easy space to be in”.
She and her team are now working on a new business model ahead of the grant funding reversal.
A bolstered pay award has been secured for staff at West Thames College – its second this year.
The University and College Union (UCU) has reported that a 5 per cent consolidated pay award across the board has been agreed for 2022/23.
According to the union, a 3 per cent pay award was agreed in December and backdated to the start of term. However, it says that further negotiations have secured another 2 per cent, which will also be backdated to the start of term.
Adam Lincoln, UCU regional officer, said the deal was as a result of “determined organising” from members.
“We are always willing to negotiate fairly with management and we thank the college leadership team for their serious engagement with UCU in negotiating this agreement.
“The deal we have reached shows exactly what can be achieved when our members stand together.”
Lincoln said that there was “no excuse” for college employers in “ignoring the severity of the cost of living crisis facing staff”.
UCU members across 26 colleges took part in strike action in the autumn over a pay dispute, although West Thames was not one of those whose staff took to the picket line.
The Association of Colleges recommended a 2.5 per cent pay increase last summer, having upped its offer from 2.25 per cent.
At the time, AoC chief executive David Hughes explained that “the money is simply not there”, but recognised the increase is “both inadequate compared with inflation and also on the cusp of what is affordable for most colleges”.
The UCU had been lobbying for a 10 per cent rise with a minimum uplift of £2,000.
West Thames College has been approached for comment.
Leaders of a university technical college (UTC) in Hertfordshire have spoken of their “disappointment” after the government confirmed it will close due to low student demand.
The Watford UTC will see its current students in years 11 and 13 through to the end of the academic year before it closes. New starts for years 10 and 12 were suspended last year.
Its closure means an uncertain future for the college’s 22 staff members.
Watford UTC will be the 13th UTC to cease operation since their inception in 2010.
Year-end accounts at the college for 2022 indicated that its governing body had agreed “by mutual consent” with the Department for Education to close. A “solvent winding up” of the organisation is to be completed within 12 months of its accounts being filed.
The college has not attracted as many students as projected since it opened in 2014, with lower funding as a consequence.
Financial figures showed a net revenue deficit of £103,000 in 2021/22, with a net book value of fixed assets valued at £7.7 million.
The Baker Dearing Trust, which issues licences and advocates for UTCs, said efforts to stabilise the college had included bolstering numbers by applying to lower its entry age and a proposal to join a multi-academy trust.
A spokesperson from the trust said those efforts offered “promising results for the long-term sustainability,” to both the school and education provision in Watford.
“We are disappointed in this outcome, especially considering the UTC’s ‘good’ rating from Ofsted and the high-quality destinations the UTC students have been able to achieve with staff,” the spokesperson added.
Ash Patil, chair of governors at the UTC, said: “We are disappointed with this outcome, as staff, governors and stakeholders have been working hard on a solution to safeguard the future of the UTC.”
Patil added that “every effort will be made to ensure students are supported to complete their studies successfully”.
The UTC’s website said it offered full-time and technically orientated courses for up to 600 students aged 14-to-19, but the college has failed to hit those numbers in recent years.
At the time of its Ofsted inspection in March 2017 it had 169 students, about half of whom were on 16-to-19 programmes.
The college currently has 54 students – 39 in year 11 and 15 in year 13. New enrolments stopped last year while the DfE considered the college’s future.
In May 2018, the Education and Skills Funding Agency handed the college a financial notice to improve because of budget concerns.
Officials tasked the UTC’s governing board with securing a balanced budget and growing student numbers at a realistic rate.
More than 50 UTCs have opened since they were launched in 2010 by former education secretary Lord Baker. Many of the colleges have, however, faced financial difficulties and struggled to attract students.
The Baker Dearing Trust shared figures last year that showed student recruitment was improving across most UTCs, but FE Week analysis found that while five are oversubscribed, more than half are less than two-thirds full. BDT has said that UTCs must be two-thirds full to be financially viable.
Two of those were submitted in the most recent round of free school bids – one for a new UTC in Southampton being led by UTC Portsmouth, while the existing Doncaster UTC has applied for a health sciences and green technologies school.
Work on a third bid for Suffolk is ongoing with the aim of being lodged in a future application window.
Conservative MP for Watford, Dean Russell, who is also a governor at the college, paid tribute to Watford’s staff and governors and said that UTCs “have an important role to play in the country’s education”.
He added: “That being said, following exhaustive efforts to find a route to keep the UTC open with every option examined and explored, I accept the Department for Education has had to come to this decision.”
As every FE corporation, governance professional and principal knows, under the Skills and Post-16 Education Act there is a mandatory requirement for colleges to commission an external review of governance (EGR) by July 2024 and every three years going forward.
The DfE sets out the expected terms and it is heartening that they state the focus of a review should not only include compliance, structures, policies, and processes, but also “the effect of board culture and behaviours on decision-making, including facilitating appropriate challenge and contribution, and on the culture and tone of an organisation”.
This is against the backdrop of an unfortunate narrative that seems to lay the failures of colleges at the door of governing bodies. While there are undoubtedly examples of weak governance, no board operates in isolation from its senior leadership team (SLT) or the sufficient (or otherwise) allocation of adequate resources to support governance, including in its governance professional. A governing body can only be as effective as the relationships and culture that underpin it.
On a practical level, EGRs require colleges to spend thousands of pounds at a time when there are more pressures on already stretched budgets than ever before. It is essential, therefore, that the EGR brings real value and a set of recommendations that, when implemented, will have a positive impact on the quality of the learner experience and the success of the college.
To achieve this, it is vital that everybody involved in governance — governance professionals, chairs, governors, and senior leaders — agrees the purpose, understands the value and is prepared to contribute to the process.
The DfE guidance requires any EGR to take into account the Code of Governance (most usually the sector’s Code of Good Governance for English Colleges). The Code provides an excellent checklist of statutory, regulatory, and good practice markers to follow (namely, the process). In isolation, however, it cannot tell us how effective a college’s governance is. A board could comply fully with the Code and, arguably, still have meetings that fail to do their job.
A board could comply fully and still fail to do their job
Anyone who has worked with boards will recognise the scenario where agendas, papers, procedures, and processes are all in place, yet somehow there’s a disconnect in the boardroom. Maybe the meeting has gone rogue, the discussion has become fractious or has veered off at a tangent from the main purpose and valuable time has been lost. Or maybe proceedings are stilted, individuals are disengaged and decisions are made on the nod. People leave the meeting feeling dispirited and frustrated. All this despite having a diverse group of highly qualified, talented, and experienced individuals around the table.
The answer, to me, lies in the first P: People. People make a culture where the shared purpose (the college mission, vision, values and strategy) drives everything and strong performance oversight becomes the norm. Relationships at all levels are key: between the chair and individual governors; between governors and the SLT individually and collectively; and between the chair, principal and the governance professional. I’m not talking about being ‘mates’ — a relationship between chair and principal conducted in the pub or on the golf course is not good governance (and believe me, it happens!).
Through getting relationships right, a truly inclusive and dynamic governance culture can be built, based on mutual trust, strong communication and an understanding of and respect for each other’s roles. Within such a culture, every individual is confident to perform their role, and individual contributions — including those that don’t conform to the norm — are valued. Expectations are set and communicated, and strong challenge is part of the package when these are not met.
There is no doubt that in organisations where governance is most effective, any sense of ‘us and them’ has been eliminated and a ‘one team’ approach is evident. Governors operate true strategic leadership in pursuit of the college’s common purpose, leaving the principal and SLT to run the college, implement strategic goals and mitigate strategic risk (the performance).
Colleges should invest in developing relationships (including induction and training) not only for chairs and governors on their roles, but also for senior staff on the importance of good governance and their roles in supporting this.
