Government ministers will amend the IfATE abolition bill this week, bowing to scrutiny from the House of Lords.
The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (transfer of functions, etc) Bill will reach report stage in the Lords on Wednesday before moving to the House of Commons.
Ministers have come under fire for replacing IfATE, a quasi-autonomous body, with Skills England, which will be an in-house agency within the Department for Education.
The bill also gives the secretary of state powers to bypass employers and directly approve apprenticeship standards and assessment plans.
During the bill’s committee stage, skills minister Jacqui Smith argued these powers would only be used by exception but was criticised because the bill does not detail what those exceptions are.
This week, Smith will amend the bill to commit the government to publish the “matters that will be taken into account” when deciding to use those powers.
During previous debates on the bill, Smith reiterated that the “default” position would remain that employers, or “groups of persons”, develop standards and assessment plans.
However for “emerging” or “rapidly developing occupations” it might be necessary for the secretary of state to sign those off so changes happen quickly.
“Scenarios in which it may be appropriate for the secretary of state to use this power to prepare a standard are those where using a group would be disproportionately onerous for employers or other stakeholders; unnecessary because only minor adjustment or revisions were required; or where it could create undue delays.”
Smith has another amendment which would require the government to publish a report detailing how powers it will subsume from IfATE have been used. That report must be published within six months of IfATE closing.
Conservative shadow education minister Baroness Barran will attempt to amend the bill so Skills England is established independently of DfE, however this is unlikely to pass.
New digital “school profiles” that link existing databases and offer a “one stop shop” for information about a school’s performance might be extended to FE providers, the government has said.
The Department for Education published proposals today for a “significantly strengthened school accountability system”, with the education secretary Bridget Phillipson vowing to raise “the bar on what we expect from schools”.
It comes as Ofsted launches its own consultation on the design of new-style report cards, which are set to introduce a colour-coded five-point grading scale from “exemplary” to “causing concern” across potentially 20 areas for FE colleges and providers.
Ofsted’s inspection judgments play a critical role in the DfE’s accountability regime with the further education and skills sector. Current single headline grades are used, for example, to decide whether to terminate apprenticeship provider contracts and whether to place a college into FE Commissioner intervention.
In announcing changes for school accountability, the DfE said it recognised that the introduction of report card arrangements will also “mean a different approach” to accountability will be needed for FE providers.
While no FE-specific proposals have been put forward yet, DfE said it will “work with the sector and stakeholders over the coming months to consider a proportionate and relevant approach to how Ofsted grades are used in future across the range of engagement and accountability activity”.
During this time the DfE will “revamp the way parents see information about schools, through new digital ‘school profiles’”.
At present, there are multiple online databases for the public, such as “get information about schools”, “compare school performance”, Ofsted’s website and scores of weekly, monthly and annual publications on things like attendance.
The government’s plans “will mean a comprehensive modernisation of the Department for Education’s existing online schools directory, creating a one-stop-shop where parents can see key, up-to-date data around areas like attainment and attendance, as well as the school’s latest inspection report card”.
DfE’s consultation revealed that it “will explore whether this approach” of school profiles “should be extended to further education institutions”.
A “first version” of the profiles are expected to launch in the 2025-26 academic year, with further development expected based on “continuous user research”.
Ofsted has unveiled what its new report cards, set to replace current inspection reports later this year, could look like.
Consultation documents also explain what providers need to do to achieve a revised set of grades in a refreshed, but perhaps not refreshing, set of inspection categories.
Ofsted’s new regime will see an end to the familiar ‘outstanding’, ‘good’, ‘requires improvement’ and ‘inadequate’ grades for its headline inspection categories (more on those below).
When introduced, FE providers will receive grades along a new five-point scale: ‘exemplary’, ‘strong’, ‘secure’, ‘attention needed’ and ‘causing concern’.
New-style inspections will result in one of these grades for a new suite of categories. As previously announced, there won’t be an overall effectiveness grade for FE and skills providers from September.
Ofsted only provided the press with an example of what a school reportcard would look like. The number and titles of categories are different for FE and skills.
School report card example
For FE and skills providers, there will be provider-level grades for leadership and inclusion but up to 16 grades for provision types, depending on what is offered.
Currently, a single grade is awarded per provision type: young people, adults, apprenticeship and high needs learners.
Ofsted now proposes to inspect and grade the following for each of those provision types: curriculum, developing teaching and training, achievement and participation and development.
Safeguarding will either be judged ‘met’ or ‘not met’ at provider level, as is current practice. Colleges and designated institutions will continue to be judged for their contribution to meeting skills needs.
So for an FE college offering courses to young people, adults, apprentices and learners with high needs, this would see the number of grades they receive double from ten to 20.
Staff wellbeing is a leadership priority
To achieve at least a ‘secure’ grade for leadership, bosses will need to evidence they have prioritised staff wellbeing and workload, making sure the latter is “sustainable and proportionate.”
Staff wellbeing is one of four themes within the proposed leadership category alongside: strategic leadership and capacity to improve, governance and oversight, and stakeholder engagement.
A provider’s leadership would be deemed ‘attention needed’ if their decisions are “sometimes burdensome to staff”. Staff workload is found to be “unsustainable” could trigger a ‘causing concern’ judgment.
Governors will have to show they are “highly effective in holding leaders to account” in order to be considered ‘strong’ including specifically over quality of support and provision for disadvantaged and SEND learners.
Improving education standards will need to be “consistent” and “sustained” across the provider in order for leadership to be considered at least ‘secure’.
The new ‘exemplary’ grade can only be achieved if inspectors find each theme is ‘secure’ across the entire inspection, and ‘strong’ across each leadership theme. Even then, proposals to award this grade will go to a national quality and consistency panel for moderation.
“Successful submissions will be published as part of a series of best practice reporting,” Ofsted said.
New inclusion judgment
New inspections will examine providers’ inclusive practices and the quality of support it offers to disadvantaged and high needs learners.
The themes here are: inclusive practices, identifying and meeting needs and removing barriers and supporting learners with SEND and/or in receipt of high needs funding.
Learners must feel “welcome and valued and have a strong sense of belonging to the provider” in order for inspectors to award at least a ‘secure’ grade.
However, if support for SEND students is not “precise, sustained or effective”, that would flag as ‘attention needed’.
Full access to curriculum
Themes under the microscope for this category are: leadership of the curriculum, securing knowledge and skills to access learning and for future learning and inclusive curriculum culture and practices.
As a provision-type grade, providers will receive a curriculum judgment for each of the following they offer: programmes for young people, adults, apprenticeship and high needs learners.
An example of a ‘secure’ curriculum is where “leaders make sure the curriculum allows enough time for teaching, practising and revisiting content, and for addressing any gaps in learners’ knowledge as quickly as possible.”
Evidence of curriculums where content and sequencing have not been sufficiently considered by leaders would be deemed ‘causing concern’.
Developing teaching and training
Another provision-type category, this one examines: leadership of teaching and learning, professional development, high quality teaching and learning and inclusive teaching culture and practices.
To be deemed ‘strong’ in this area, leaders will be expected to have an effective professional development programme and have a “nuanced” understanding of the quality of teaching.
Teachers and trainers must be “up to date with their professional practice and with technological developments” in order to score ‘secure’.
To hit ‘strong’, inspectors will be looking for teachers that are “expert at checking learners’ understanding and adapting their teaching to meet learners’ needs.” They’ll also expect provider leaders to own “focussed actions with clear milestones” to drive continuous improvements in teaching and training quality.
Achievement data
For each provision type offered, inspectors will be gathering evidence of: achievement in national tests and examinations, learners developing detailed knowledge and skills, attitudes to learning and work and relevant skills to access training.
Achievement rates feature heavily in this category with Ofsted continuing its focus on disadvantaged, SEND and high needs learners.
Hitting rates “broadly” in line with comparable national rates will be deemed ‘secure’. But inspectors will look at learner achievement scores based on their starting points, the consultation states.
Disadvantaged learners will need to achieve “at least as well as their peers” will also be needed to score ‘secure’.
Learners found to be making slow progress and who do not “always maintain positive attitudes to learning” would flag as ‘attention needed’.
Participation and development
This is the final provision-type grade (you’ll be pleased to read) and includes: strategic leadership, attendance and participation, wider opportunities, learner readiness for next steps and dealing with bullying and harassment.
A ‘secure’ score for each provision type would require leaders to ensure learners “attend well” and have access to activities outside their course to help them progress, such as volunteering, leadership and citizenship programmes.
Quality of careers guidance also features in this category, and must be tailored effectively for each learner in order to be considered ‘strong’.
‘Strong’ practice in this category also includes high staff retention and morale.
If barriers to attendance are not dealt with, or if learners have “little confidence” leaders will deal with concerns or issues, that would be deemed ‘causing concern.’
Contextual healing
Complementing the report card, Ofsted proposes to utilise contextual data in inspections and its published report cards so inspectors “understand the circumstances in which leaders are operating”.
This would include data on learner disadvantage and SEND, trends in performance data, absence and attendance rates and data on the local area, such as quality of other education provision and deprivation.
“We know that many providers operate in challenging contexts. This cannot justify poor outcomes for learners, but inspectors can use this contextual information to help their discussions with leaders,” the consultation document says.
‘We don’t want to add to leaders’ workloads’
Ofsted said it wants to change how inspection looks and feels.
“This is especially important at the point of professional interaction and conversation between inspectors and leaders,” the watchdog added.
This is how the process Ofsted inspections will go, under the new proposal:
Before the on-site inspection, Ofsted will keep the initial phone or video conversations with leaders.
It has removed the deep-dive methodology, and will instead work with leaders to decide the areas to focus on, typically leaders’ improvement priorities and any actions since the last inspection.
The watchdog added that it doesn’t want to add to leaders’ workloads and will not ask them to produce written evidence to support each standard within each evaluation area of the toolkit.
All inspections will start by discussing and observing the provider’s work against the ‘secure’ column.
Any dispute on emerging grades for an evaluation area will require leaders to gather a “broad enough” range of evidence.
“At the end of the inspection visit, inspectors will clearly state the evidence that has led to their provisional conclusions. They will reflect that evidence in the report card,” Ofsted said.
Ofsted’s consultation is now live and closes on April 28.
FE colleges and providers will be judged on a colour-coded five-point grading scale from “exemplary” to “causing concern” across potentially 20 areas under Ofsted’s new report cards – double the number in current reports.
The watchdog has come under early fire for the plan unveiled today, with one union claiming this system will introduce a de facto new league table that “appears to be even worse” than the single-phrase judgments they replace and less “humane”.
Ofsted’s consultation confirms that overall effectiveness judgments will be removed but multiple areas will be cast as either ‘exemplary’, ‘strong’, ‘secure’, ‘attention needed’ and ‘causing concern’. This replaces the current ‘outstanding’, ‘good’, ‘requires improvement’ and ‘inadequate’ grades.
FE providers will be judged on seven headline areas: leadership, inclusion, safeguarding, curriculum, developing teaching and training, achievement, and participation and development.
The latter four areas will also receive one of the judgments for each of the following types of provision offered: education programmes for young people, provision for learners with high needs, apprenticeships and adult learning programmes.
So for an FE college offering courses to young people, adults, apprentices and learners with high needs, this would see the number of grades they receive double from ten to 20.
Colleges will also continue to be judged on whether their contribution to meeting skills needs is ‘limited’, ‘reasonable’, or ‘strong’.
As well as headline grades for each area, Ofsted will publish short descriptions summarising their findings.
New hurdles ‘bewildering for teachers and leaders’
Ofsted said this system will allow inspectors to “highlight success when things are working well, provide reassurance that leaders are taking the right action where improvement is needed, and identify where more urgent action is required to avoid standards declining”.
And, as well as “giving more nuanced information”, this approach will “help reduce pressure on staff – by presenting a balanced picture of practice across more areas, not a single overall grade”, the watchdog claimed.
But whistleblowers from Ofsted contacted FE Week’s sister title last week to warn the consultation is a “sham” and new inspection report cards have been “cobbled together at ridiculous speed” with no underpinning research and concerns by experienced officials ignored.
Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said today that Ofsted and the government “appear to have learned nothing” from the death of headteacher Ruth Perry, which is why the changes are being made, and have instead “devised an accountability system which will subject a beleaguered profession to yet more misery”.
Pepe Di’Iasio
He believes that the system of applying five new judgments to a range of performance areas creates a “set of hurdles which will be bewildering for teachers and leaders, never mind the parents whose choices these reports are supposedly intended to guide”.
Di’Iasio added: “We would question whether it is possible to reach with any degree of validity, in the course of an inspection, such a large number of conclusions – all of which are critical to those being inspected and where judgements may be finely balanced between categories. It is certainly a recipe for systemic inconsistency.”
Ofsted said that in parallel with today’s consultation, the Department for Education is consulting on proposed changes to intervention and support in maintained schools and academies.
The watchdog was however unaware of plans for how FE intervention will be impacted by the new-style report cards. Currently, the DfE uses Ofsted judgments to decide whether to terminate apprenticeship provider contracts and whether to place colleges into FE Commissioner intervention.
Ofsted’s consultation suggests a return to a heavy focus on data, with providers warned that they will score the two lowest judgments in the “achievement” category if their achievement rates are “below comparable national rates, based on learners’ starting points”.
Other contextual data to be used in inspections and reports include learner characteristics, performance outcomes, absence and attendance figures, and local area demographics.
‘Worse than single-word judgments’
The consultation will run for 12 weeks until April 28, with more pilot inspections due to be carried out in coming months, before Ofsted publishes its final response in the summer.
Chief inspector Martyn Oliver
A new inspection framework will then be introduced in September, with the return of inspections after the summer break delayed until November to allow for trialling of the new model and inspector training.
Daniele Kebede, general secretary of the National Education Union, said the proposals “will make matters worse, not better”. He said new chief inspector Martyn Oliver “has failed to deliver” the changes needed, and “has ignored the voice of the profession”.
“He has set a course for Ofsted to remain just as out of touch as before, just as crude in its assessments,” Kebede added, saying the proposed grading scale “maintains the current blunt, reductive approach that cannot capture the complexity” of an education provider’s “life nor provide more meaningful information to parents”.
Di’Iasio added: “School and college leaders had high hopes that an approach to inspection based on report cards might be more nuanced and humane. Sadly, the way in which Ofsted and the government are going about this suggests that the opposite will be the case.”
Interesting fact: A trek across the Sahara Desert raising funds for Macmillan Cancer Support taught Trevor the power of a positive mindset and an appreciation for everyday moments that bring joy and connection
Kieren McIntosh
Vice Principal (Curriculum and Quality), Lewisham College
Start date: January 2025
Previous Job: Group Curriculum Director, New City College
Interesting fact: At 17, Kieren studied music at Lewisham College and says he is proud to return 25 years later as vice principal as a first-hand FE beneficiary
A mum whose daughter quit a beauty course after being told to undergo a bikini wax is campaigning for students to have the right to say no.
Safiya removed her 16-year-old daughter from Barnsley College after being told peer-to-peer treatments were an assessment “requirement” in December.
A teacher claimed level 2 beauty therapy course students must do treatments – including bikini waxing – on each other as part of the learning process.
Following a review by management the college backed down and said Safiya’s daughter could practise on a “client”. But the teenager subsequently enrolled at another college and Safiya has launched a petition on website change.org.
TikTok protest
Safiya did not submit a formal complaint but later posted a series of critical videos on social media platform TikTok that gained nearly three million views.
She now wants colleges and training providers to make it clear to students they will not fail or be removed from courses if they refuse to undergo beauty treatments, including on “intimate” areas of the body.
The mum told FE Week: “It’s important that they’re encouraged to speak up, that children are empowered to know their voices are heard and that their bodies matter.
“They should have to consent and have rights over their own bodies – they shouldn’t be forced and coerced into doing [treatments] for the sake of their education.”
‘They need to experience it’
In a recording of a phone call with Safiya, posted on TikTok, a Barnsley College tutor says students “need” to experience treatments themselves through practice with other learners, before progressing to clients.
“They all do it”, the tutor insists. She then adds that if Safiya and her daughter have a “problem” they should “look for another programme”.
Safiya is told exceptions would only be made due to a “medical condition”.
Barnsley College principal David Akeroyd said he had since “reviewed and enhanced” practical assessment procedures to make clear that learners had the choice to consent to treatments as part of their course.
“Students also retain the right to withdraw their consent at any time” he added.
“The safety and well-being of our students is at the heart of everything we do, and we remain committed to upholding the highest standards of learning and care.”
Common practice…
Beauty therapy students undergoing treatments as part of their course, including bikini waxing, is understood to be common practice.
Other colleges told FE Week that participation in treatments was optional, since medical, personal or cultural reasons could make students feel uncomfortable.
But in comments made on Safiya’s TikTok videos, several social media users claimed they had also felt uncomfortable when undergoing bikini waxing treatments at colleges and feared they would fail their course if they refused.
Safiya said her daughter’s new college was “completely understanding” about her bringing in her own client to practise on.
…But not mandatory
VTCT Skills, the awarding body for Barnsley College’s level 2 beauty therapy course, told FE Week it “does not mandate” how learners source models for treatments.
It said: “These decisions are made by individual training providers in line with their own policies and educational approach.”
City & Guilds, a market leader in beauty therapy courses alongside VTCT Skills, does not stipulate whether learners must practise on each other.
Becky Priest, an Essex-based waxing specialist and teacher, said Safiya’s daughter’s initial experience with the college tutor was “shocking”.
She explained that while bikini waxing is not technically considered intimate, it is in a part of the body that many women are “really self-aware” about.
Priest added: “These children should be protected – they might be in a room where they feel uncomfortable – you don’t know how that could damage them.
“Colleges have to respect that there are many factors, like scars from self-harm, that young students might not feel comfortable about.”
Reading Supporting ESOL in Devolved Authorities, a report by the Association of Colleges and Bell Foundation, made me reflect on my early years in the English for speakers of other languages sector in the 2000s.
I had sold the fish and chip shop I ran for 10 years to follow my passion for education and retrain to become an ESOL tutor.
There was excitement in the air back then. The launch of the adult English, maths and ESOL core curricula brought significant funding, equipping classrooms with new resources and professionalising the sector. The Institute for Learning was established, ensuring teaching quality.
It felt like a national effort was underway to improve the lives of those left behind by illiteracy and low language skills.
The Moser Report (1999) called for a national strategy, sufficient funding and a well-trained workforce to support adult learners. Now, 25 years later, the same needs remain. Is this the moment England returns to a funded national ESOL strategy?
The Leitch Review of Skills in 2006 shifted the focus of funding towards vocational training for those who stood to benefit most.
Suddenly, ESOL learners – often those with the fewest resources – were expected to pay for their education. This marked a sharp decline in opportunities for many, with a stronger emphasis on employability at the expense of accessible language learning.
ESOL devo benefits
But the increasing recognition of ESOL within the devolved adult education budget through mayoral combined authorities is encouraging.
These authorities use localised place-based solutions to address ESOL needs within their communities.
At WM College, we’ve been able to use this flexibility to heavily subsidise course fees, meaning very few learners pay full cost.
However, despite the progress, we are constrained by a 56 per cent decline in real terms of AEB funding between 2009 and 2017, which limits the variety of courses we can offer and our ability to be demand led and innovative.
The government’s recent announcement of an additional £50 million to help fund FE teacher pay has again overlooked adult education providers and is another stark reminder of the challenges we continue to face to recruit and retain good tutors.
ESOL accreditation rethink needed
Providers like WM College are once again left out, limiting our ability to offer demand-led accessible provision for the adults who need it the most.
Employment-focused ESOL provision continues to be a challenge. Research by Schellekens reveals it could take up to 14.5 years for a learner with no English to reach employment-level proficiency. For many of our learners, securing higher-level employment is simply out of reach.
At WM College, we focus on practical, everyday language skills that support learners’ integration into their communities, building social cohesion and improving their wellbeing.
However, the emphasis on accreditation in language learning may need rethinking. While certifications are valuable, the broader outcome of building social and cultural capital can be even more critical for many learners.
For those learners who do possess the language skills needed to progress into higher-level employment, there should be pathways and funding for access to advanced qualifications, such as the international English language testing system (IELTS), or gateway courses that lead into vocational training or professional qualifications.
For our sector to be bold and innovative, funding must allow us to address the unique needs of our learners. ESOL courses should recognise not only learners’ starting points as English speakers but also the context of their entire lives.
At WM College we are incredibly proud that one of our ESOL tutors, Sam Pepper, was recently named Inspirational Tutor of the Year at the Mayor of London Adult Learning Awards for his dedication to helping learners achieve these wider life goals – an achievement that reflects the impact our staff have on the lives of our learners.
Our learners deserve funding that allows us to recognise the complexity of their lives and build courses that meet their real needs – not just their English skills but their ambitions and hopes for the future.
It is time for the government to consider how ESOL learners can be better supported, and ensure no one is left behind as the demand for English language skills grows.
I’m not going to quote Shakespeare at length, but many college leaders will feel they are suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune today.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies reported late last year that 37 per cent of colleges were operating in financial deficit in 2022-23, and 44 per cent of these colleges had been in deficit for at least three consecutive years.
My sense is that after five years or so of having slowed down – partly as a consequence of Covid – we will see an increase in the number of colleges that fall into difficulty. This could trigger more central government intervention, and potentially more mergers.
I have written before about how colleges could get on the front foot by conducting their own “College led SPA” (structure and prospects appraisal) but I haven’t seen much appetite in the sector for undertaking them recently.
Whereas 10 years ago there may have been a government policy aim to have fewer, larger colleges in England, I am unable to detect any national blueprint for FE today.
There may be a generalised feeling in government that a proliferation of providers is not ideal. But there is probably also an understanding that structural consolidation has natural limits.
We’ll see if a post-16 strategy changes that, but for now the improvement and intervention functions in government seem happy to allow providers to exist as currently configured, provided they are healthy in quality and financial terms.
So – for now – the most likely trigger for a merger remains organisational failure, government intervention, a diagnostic assessment that follows and a commissioner-led SPA that recommends a merger.
The key question is whether mergers actually work. Do they improve student outcomes and do local communities actually benefit?
There’s not much hard evidence on that front. Department for Education research in 2019 found no strong statistical evidence of college mergers leading to an improvement or deterioration of college performance.
Ofsted statistical analysis in 2023 found that since mid 2016, of those merged colleges that received their first full inspection, 81 per cent were ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’. This was 16 per cent higher than the proportion judged that way prior to merging. However, those colleges that didn’t merge also improved, by similar percentage points.
Context is everything when it comes to mergers. The two London mergers I led as chair were necessary to secure the colleges’ futures, but they were very different cases.
The Kensington and Chelsea College (KCC) merger took place in the wake of the Grenfell tragedy. The college merged with a wonderful mainly adult education college, Morley College. And Morley definitively improved outcomes at KCC.
When I was chair in 2018, KCC extraordinarily received its fifth ‘requires improvement’ judgement. Morley College was judged ‘good’ in 2023, arresting years of poor outcomes at KCC.
The North Kensington Centre for Skills (as KCC is now named) is today a vibrant and thriving part of the local community – a fantastic transformation in just five years since the merger, and nearly eight since Grenfell.
Richmond upon Thames College (RuTC) was officially ‘good’ at the point of merger in early 2023. But years of circling around a merger had taken its toll on achievement and student experience.
RuTC merged with Harrow College and Uxbridge College, and HRUC (the merged group) has also just been judged ‘good’. HRUC’s leadership no doubt hoped to secure ‘outstanding,’ but the Ofsted report details progress made.
A key question was how the merger would work given the geographical distance between Richmond and Harrow and Uxbridge. Ofsted offers nothing to suggest that this has impacted negatively on the student experience at any campus.
However, it is a key question for future mergers. I would like to see more detailed surveys of parent and student opinions feeding into the merger due diligence process, to ensure there is a good cultural and student-experience ‘fit’ when a merger takes place across significant geographical distances.
It’s difficult to say whether mergers work on a policy level. But there will very likely be more of them.
I remain of the view that colleges should get on the front foot and run their own structure and prospects appraisals. It could be the most effective way for a college leadership to take arms against its sea of troubles, avoiding the slings and arrows coming down the line!
The number of academy-converted sixth form colleges is set to overtake standalone sixth forms for the first time – with seven awaiting a government decision on applications.
About a fifth have since merged with general FE colleges, 34 have converted to academy status and seven have live academisation bids.
If all applications are approved there will be just 31 standalone sixth form colleges left.
The trend highlights the diminishing appeal of being a standalone sixth form. The government’s pay snub to sixth form college teachers while funding a 5.5 per cent rise for their counterparts in 16-to-19 academies last year ignited strikes and a judicial review threat.
However, the change of government has caused uncertainty about the likelihood of future conversions, with one sixth form principal suggesting Labour had gone “lukewarm” on academisation.
What’s the appeal?
Paul Britton, chief executive officer of Wyke Sixth Form College in Hull, applied to set up a multi-academy trust with two secondary schools and an infant school last April but is still awaiting a decision.
He said the current funding system “incentivises” becoming a 16-to-19 academy as school budgets are less likely to be cut and academies don’t pay VAT that costs him upwards of £300,000 annually.
He told FE Week: “Sixth form colleges are at a crossroads where they either become an FE college or they become academies. The idea of being an incorporated sixth form is a hangover concept.”
Sixth form colleges are also held to account for meeting local skills needs through vocational courses despite many focusing on A-levels.
Another sixth form college principal awaiting a decision on academy conversion, who did not wish to be named, agreed financial security and local collaboration were drivers of conversion.
He said: “The recent FE teacher pay snub is just another example of the insecurities of being a sixth form.”
Labour’s approach to academisation appears to be “drifting and requires clarity”, the principal added.
Academies curbed
Labour’s new education bill has sparked criticism for attempting to curb academy freedoms, including on pay.
The bill also proposes to stop the enforced academisation of failing schools and instead introduce a “discretionary” duty that includes alternatives such as the involvement of regional improvement teams.
It will remove the legal presumption that new schools should be academies and allow local authorities to table their own proposals.
Schools and sixth form colleges with outstanding applications are also rapidly approaching the deadline for accessing a conversion support grant of £25,000 per school or college, which ends in February.
A government spokesperson told FE Week it will continue to consider applications from sixth form colleges that choose to convert or join a high-quality academy trust, where there is a strong case to do so.
According to DfE guidance, academy applications are ultimately decided by regional directors who consider each case “on its merits”.
Who wants to convert?
The most recent academy conversion applications have come from Hills Road Sixth Form College in Cambridge, Scarborough Sixth Form College in North Yorkshire, and Leyton Sixth Form College in East London.
According to Leyton’s governing board minutes from September last year, the exclusion of sixth form colleges from the July pay deal “raised serious concerns”.
To “maintain financial health and provide effective, impactful sixth form education” the board voted unanimously to academise with William Morris Sixth Form in Hammersmith.
Earlier this month the College of Richard Collyer in Horsham, West Sussex, launched a public consultation on the formation of a multi-academy trust with a nearby secondary school after the Department for Education approved its application in November.
Wilberforce College in Hull, which hopes to form a trust with Withernsea High School, is still waiting for a decision after submitting an application in August 2023.
Sixth Form Colleges Association deputy chief executive James Kewin said the interest in academisation “continues to grow” and it is possible that this year will see convertor sixth form colleges “outnumber FE-sector sixth form colleges for the first time”.
He told FE Week the main drivers of academisation have changed little since 2015 – they include a desire to work more closely with academies or other sixth form colleges to drive up standards, improve efficiency and create CPD opportunities.
Sixth form colleges became incorporated bodies under the 1992 Further and Higher Education Act, which brought independence benefits.
But this status means they face the same funding inequalities and local skills accountability measures as general further education colleges.
Kewin said that since sixth form colleges and general FE colleges were reclassified as public sector bodies in 2022, “many sixth form colleges report they find it difficult to identify the benefits of remaining in the FE sector as bureaucracy has increased, funding inequalities have not been addressed and policy continues to be driven by a narrowly-defined skills agenda”.
