After travelling thousands of miles, facing extremely dangerous situations, often stuck in legal limbo – refugee and asylum-seeking students arrive in the classroom.
What are the stories they bring with them?
What systems are they facing here?
And how can FE unleash their skills and experience?
Join education journalist Jess Staufenberg as she speaks to students and the staff working with them, from all over the world.
Sheraz Amin
Executive director -Digital Transformation, The Bedford College Group
Start date: May 2022
Previous Job: Head of Digitial Transformation, Santander UK
Interesting fact: Sheraz has worked ten different countries and across England, but has yet to visit Scotland or Wales
Charlotte Rawes
Vice Principal – Progress and Performance, Lancaster & Morecambe College
Start date: April 2022
Previous Job: Director of Apprenticeships & Employer Engagement, Lancaster & Morecambe College
Interesting fact: Charlotte is a former student of LMC, having studied there between 1993-1995, completing a BTEC Level in 3 Leisure Studies
Dr Helen Gray
Chief Economist, Learning and Work Institute
Start date: July 2022
Previous Job: Principal Research Economist, Institute for Employment Studies
Interesting fact: Helen sings in a chamber choir which once performed to Madonna in Lisbon
Lee Jamieson
Vice Principal – Curriculum & Quality, Solihull College and University Centre
Start date: September 2022
Previous Job: Assistant Principal, Solihul College and University Centre
Interesting fact: Lee once climbed the tallest mountains in Scotland, England and Wales in 24 hours. While he didn’t experience the spiritual awakening he was hoping for, he did raise money for cancer charities that are close to his heart
The government published research from its Skills and Productivity Board on Wednesday along with the first set of data for the new Unit of Future Skills.
The Skills and Productivity Board was set up in October 2020 and included a team of labour market economists who gave advice on how courses and qualifications should align to the skills that employers’ need post-Covid-19.
Before Wednesday no findings had been published by the board.
The SPB has now wound up and been replaced by the Unit for Future Skills. The research conducted over the last two years has finally been published, ahead of this transition.
Below is a summary of the SPB’s long-awaited research and more information on the Unit of Future Skills’ first data release.
SPB Research
The SPB commissioned a consultancy called Frontier Economics to assess the usefulness of skills taxonomies.
Skills taxonomies can be used as a framework by which to measure the demand for the skills by employers, the current supply of those skills from workers, and the potential supply based on courses offered by education providers and employers.
The board found the best taxonomy to use is called O*NET, which was developed by the US Department of Labor.
However, there might be some gaps in information with O*NET as it prioritises analysis of broad skills, with attributes summarised in a smaller number of measures than in other taxonomies.
So, Frontier Economics suggested where needed, taxonomies such as those developed by Nesta and ESCO present skills at a very granular level, could be used to plug these gaps.
Left Behind Localities/ Levelling Up
Research from Kenneth Mayhew looked at “lagging areas” and how levelling up initiatives will need to be tailored to the different needs of different localities.
It presented a list of items which the DfE might want to “keep in mind” as they develop future work programmes.
The report explored the problems faced by lagging areas – noting “there is rarely, if ever, one single problem, which if addressed, will significantly transform the fortunes of a locality”.
It also explored the role of skills in levelling up strategies – calling for the DfE to ask a series of questions around local skills improvement plans and saying the department should make use of taxonomies to understand local problems and solutions.
Possible initiatives which could benefit lagging areas were outlined – such as more policy-orientated work on how to ensure teacher quantity and quality in some of the UK’s more deprived areas.
The report also noted the “inadequacy of careers advice to secondary school students and adults” and argued there is scope for research on the extent to which it varies by locality and on what can be done to improve it.
Analysis of longitudinal education outcomes
This report explored how investments in education or skills in poorer performing areas could improve productivity.
A key part of this research was an analysis that used the longitudinal education outcomes dataset.
Findings were that there are very high returns to qualifications, in terms of both employment and earnings.
For example, reaching level 2 – something almost one in six people under 27 do not do – increases the probability of employment for women (men) by around 19 (10) percentage points and earnings by around 22 per cent (13 per cent).
The returns from qualifications are higher in areas of the country that are economically poorer performing.
Researchers found that reaching level 2 increases employment prospects for women (men) by around 25 (13) percentage points for individuals living in areas in the bottom quartile based on the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD, the 25 per cent most deprived areas of the country), but only around 18 (8) percentage points in other areas.
Another key finding was that investment in skills alone is unlikely to be sufficient to ‘level up’ economically poorer performing areas.
The analysis found that the returns from education in poorer performing areas are strong, with the benefits of upskilling highly likely to remain within those areas, highlighting the importance of skills investments for the levelling up agenda.
How can skills promote productivity in poorer performing areas
This paper used existing knowledge and research to explain why there is variation in productivity across the country and the role that skills played in these variations.
It posed a range of questions about where national skills policy could go next in relation to the agenda around levelling up productivity.
Recommendations included a call for the DfE to map and seek a greater understanding of existing local skills initiatives and institutions and find ways to disseminate examples of good practice.
The report said the DfE should think about the future systems architecture and governance of skills policy – and how skills policy can best be conceived of and delivered in a more joined up way across traditional divisions or silos within the department.
A strong emphasis should be placed on local aspects of the work of the Unit for Future Skills, the report said, arguing that it will need to gather and analyse high quality and granular labour market information that can inform decision making at local levels.
The report also said consideration should be given to evaluation of the skills work of combined authorities, and considered alongside the planned evaluation of LSIP trailblazers.
Opportunities and challenges for improving labour market information on skills
This report sought to support the development of the new Unit for Skills which aims to improve the quality, quantity and accessibility of labour market information.
Researchers highlighted the key labour market information gaps and opportunities, and illustrated where improvements could be made.
They outlined a number of priorities for improvements to LMI on skills that the DfE should tackle.
For example, the report said that local level data on demand is currently poor but should be a priority for improvement.
It suggests that web-scraping could be used to provide a direct indication of skills in demand, rather than relying on indicators of demand at the occupation level.
In terms of supply, data on the stock of skills within the workforce is also limited, according to the report. This is a barrier to identifying where to invest to raise productivity.
In terms of suggestions, the paper highlighted the need for a skills taxonomy.
“UFS should help to develop a common language and taxonomy of skills that can be used consistently throughout the skills system to strengthen the link between qualifications and skills produced for the labour market,” the report said.
Understanding current and future skills needs
This report is an overview of the Skills and Productivity Board’s work to document the skills needs of the economy now and in future, with a view to identifying skills mismatches and growing areas of skills needs.
It identifies a set of ‘core transferable skills’ that are currently in high demand across many occupations and that are likely to continue being in high demand in the future.
These include communication skills, digital and data skills, application of knowledge skills, people skills, and mental processes.
The SPB said that because these skills are valuable across a wide range of jobs, firms have weaker incentives to invest in them than in firm-specific skills.
“Investing in the development of these core transferable skills is therefore likely to be worthwhile for the government,” the report added.
The report identified skills that are growing in importance and used across many occupations in the economy.
These included people skills, mental processes and application of knowledge skills, and skills associated with being able to teach others and be a good learner.
Skills that are growing in importance, even though they are used in relatively fewer occupations, include STEM knowledge (particularly relevant for Health and Science and Technology occupations, and already likely to be in shortage now), care skills, important for Health occupations, and a range of management skills.
Unit for Future Skills dashboards
The Unit for Future Skills is an analytical and research unit within the DfE.
It has been set up to improve the quality of jobs and skills data, and builds on the analysis and research of the Skills and Productivity Board.
This week, the unit published data on the type of employment people undertake after training.
This data can be accessed through four dashboards – including the Career pathways dashboard, Graduate outcomes dashboard, Further education outcomes dashboard and the 16 to 18 qualifications dashboard.
The FE dashboard shows qualification level, employment and earnings outcomes data for apprenticeships and adult further education.
And the 16 to 18 qualifications dashboard shows detailed qualification level, employment and learning outcomes for 16 to 18 year olds finishing study at further education institutions.
The Association of Colleges’ area director for London has been made an honorary MBE by the Queen for services to further education.
Mary Vine-Morris was among esteemed foreign nationals awarded honorary gongs this week ahead of the Queen’s birthday honours list next week.
Vine-Morris, who has an Irish passport, has served AoC’s London membership for over seven years and prior to that led on 14-to-19 for local government body London Councils, following a nine-year stint at the Learning and Skills Council.
As well as leading AoC’s membership services in London, Vine-Morris has also been the organisation’s national lead for employment in recent years, working in tricky issues related to industrial relations, pay and conditions.
The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has congratulated Vine-Morris, telling FE Week: “This fantastic achievement is testimony to Mary’s leadership at the Association of Colleges and long-standing support for further education and training in London, including her continued contribution to City Hall’s work on jobs and skills.”
Awards for foreign nationals are known as ‘honorary’ but recipients are still entitled to use the letters after their name if they choose.
Vine-Morris describes the honour as “deeply personal”.
“I know I should say how pleased I am that this accolade is contributing to the sector getting some well-deserved publicity – and I am – but the truth is this is deeply personal to me. My mom would be very proud of this achievement, and I only wish she was still alive to see it,” she said.
“I was born in in County Cork in Ireland, before moving to Willenhall, in the West Midlands, so I want to share this with all the other non-UK passport holders working so hard in our colleges and across the sector.”
David Hughes, chief executive of the AoC, said: “Everyone at AoC is delighted for Mary. She has worked tirelessly for the sector, for learners, for better education and skills throughout her career and her focus on better outcomes shines through her work.
“The fact the mayor of London is singing her praises tells you all you need to know about her influence.”
The government has ditched its controversial 20 per cent requirement for off-the-job training in apprenticeships and replaced it with a new baseline.
Significant changes to English and maths policy, calculation of prior learning and new eligible costs have also been revealed in draft apprenticeship funding rules for 2022/23.
Published today by the Education and Skills Funding Agency, the rules state that from August 1, the minimum volume of off-the-job hours will no longer be linked to total working hours; instead a consistent baseline figure of six hours per week will be introduced, irrespective of the hours worked by the apprentice.
This means that apprentices who work more than 30 hours per week can now spend less than 20 per cent of their week doing off-the-job training.
The 20 per cent off-the-job training rule was introduced following the apprenticeship levy reforms in 2017. Many in the sector have complained that the rule is the single biggest barrier to apprenticeship recruitment, but others view it as a vital part of the apprentices’ development.
The ESFA said the 20 per cent rule means that an apprentice who works longer hours is potentially unfairly impacted, because higher working hours means a higher threshold for eligibility.
Announcing the change to a six-hour per week baseline, the ESFA said: “From 1 August, the minimum volume of hours will no longer be linked to working hours; instead we will have a consistent figure, irrespective of the hours worked by the apprentice. This will be six hours per week (this figure was chosen as it represents 20 per cent of 30 hours, which all part-time apprentices are currently doing). The six hours per week is for calculation purposes only; once calculated the programme can still be delivered flexibly.”
However, the agency said this change “must not dilute the existing requirement – to provide the right level of training to every apprentice”.
The volume of training that is delivered must be guided by the initial assessment of the apprentice and this “may mean that an apprentice trains for more than six hours per week”.
Association of Employment and Learning Providers director of policy Simon Ashworth welcomed the move.
“The approach using actual and individual contracted hours created inequality. This meant that some individuals had to undertake additional training to their peers, purely because of their contracted hours – which don’t always correlate to what training they actually need,” he said.
“Along with being fairer, the proposed baseline approach is simpler to understand. We are glad that the ESFA have listened and acted on these concerns.”
The ESFA also announced today that people who start a level 2 apprenticeship without level 1 English and maths will no longer need to automatically attempt level 2 English and Maths tests to complete their apprenticeship.
“It will mean that thousands of level 2 apprentices can focus on securing a level 1 English and maths qualification with only those who are really ready to take the level 2 tests attempting them,” the agency said.
The ESFA has been reviewing eligible costs associated with apprenticeships for over a year.
The sector is still waiting on the final outcome of the review, but the agency revealed today that initial assessment has been added as an eligible cost.
But there will be changes resit costs when it comes to eligible and ineligible rules. The ESFA will provide full details when it publishes the outcome of the eligible costs review “shortly”.
Prior learning refers to skills and knowledge gained by learners before they start their apprenticeship, and must be taken into account by providers when negotiating a price with an employer to ensure cash is not being used to teach an apprentice something they already know.
A new formula that must be used to reduce the price that is agreed with the employer, to account for prior learning, has been included in the funding rules.
To reduce the total negotiated price providers must, from August 1, calculate the percentage of prior learning that the learner has, as a percentage of the off-the-job training hours that they would deliver to an apprentice with no relevant prior learning for the same standard.
The ESFA explains: “For example, if the individual’s prior learning accounts for 300 off-the-job training hours and typically, for the same standard, you would deliver 1,000 off-the-job training hours to an individual with no prior learning, this would equate to 30 per cent prior learning.
“Reduce the price by at least 50 per cent of the prior learning percentage, from the maximum funding band (the 50per cent reduction recognises fixed costs). For the example above, where the apprentice has 30 per cent prior learning, this means there must be a reduction in price of at least 15 per cent of the maximum funding band. This reduced price is the maximum that will be paid using apprenticeship funding (e.g., £8,500 for a £10,000 funding band).
“This new maximum funding amount becomes the starting point for further negotiation on price with the employer. Additional discounts could be applied, for example, where the apprentice is part of a large cohort.”
The ESFA said that having reformed the apprenticeships programme over the past five years, it now wants to “make it simpler to use for employers, training providers and apprentices themselves”.
Announcing the rule changes to this effect, skills minister Alex Burghart said: “We now want to focus on making the system as simple and user-friendly as possible, reducing bureaucratic burdens on employers and providers and giving apprentices the best possible experience.”
Talks are under way for a London-based college to de-merge from its northern-based parent group, FE Week has learnt.
Lewisham College is understood to be in negotiations to be transferred from NCG to its neighbour London South East Colleges (LSEC).
In a joint statement, the two college groups said: “In view of the government’s levelling up agenda and the vital role that further education is set to play in this, NCG and London South East Colleges are engaging in early discussions regarding FE provision in Lewisham and opportunities to collaborate.”
“No decisions have yet been made,” the statements added, however, “discussions are wide-ranging and we look forward to exploring all options together, with a shared focus on continued high-quality FE provision in south-east London.”
London South East Colleges already operates across eight campuses in the London sub-region. According to its website, the group, through its constituent local colleges, can trace its roots in south-east London back to the early 1900s.
In the event a “re-merger” does happen, it will be something Lewisham College will be fairly used to.
Lewisham College, which has campuses in Lewisham and Deptford, south-east London, has been subject to several controversial changes over the past ten years. Its merger with Southwark College in 2012 sparked “fierce criticism” from the University and College Union at the time over the near £300,000 cost of its rebrand to ‘Lesoco’.
Two years later the brand was dropped and it became Lewisham Southwark College. In the years that followed, the college endured two consecutive grade four Ofsted inspection results, becoming the first – but not the last – college do so, and then faced local opposition to proposals to merge with Newcastle-based NCG.
In April 2017 the merger went ahead. Then, 18 months later, NCG announced that it would be splitting Lewisham Southwark College back to two distinct institutions – still part of NCG, but with their own principals.
UCU reps at both colleges wrote to the FE Commissioner in April 2019 claiming that the NCG merger had resulted in mismanagement and a deterioration of terms of conditions.
They called for the FE Commissioner to investigate whether the colleges’ future “could lie elsewhere”. NCG said UCU’s claims were “wholly inaccurate”.
FE Week understands that Southwark College will remain part of NCG.
Multiply, the government’s new £560 million adult numeracy programme, is a rare new spending boost for adult essential skills.
As mayoral combined authorities and upper-tier local authorities across England write their investment plans, it’s timely to think about how the programme can achieve maximum impact.
Funding for adult learning and skills via the adult education budget has fallen from £2.8 billion in 2011/12 to around £1.5 billion today, a real-terms cut of over 50 per cent. Rising inflation is now set to reduce its real value further.
While Multiply money is certainly welcome, it only represents a fraction of what has been lost in investment and learning opportunities.
And, with the programme envisaged to last just three years, it falls short of the sustained, long-term investment that Learning and Work Institute has argued for.
Multiply presents an important opportunity to raise awareness and boost participation in numeracy learning. Adult participation in numeracy learning has fallen by more than 60 per cent over the past decade.
Meanwhile, our 2021 adult participation in learning survey shows that only two in five adults are aware of the existing entitlement to fully funded English and maths learning up to level 2.
Adults who left full-time education early, adults with low qualification levels and adults who haven’t participated in learning recently are all less likely to be aware of the current adult numeracy offer.
The local authorities tasked with delivering Multiply face a sizable challenge but evidence and data can support them to target effectively, improving reach and impact.
Over the past eight months, we’ve been running evaluations of innovative, place-based interventions to look at what works at a local level to engage learners in essential skills learning.
Our evidence suggests that tailored messaging will be vital. Learner engagement must shift away from marketing courses towards showing how learning leads to outcomes that are relevant to people’s motivations in life and in work.
Our evidence suggests tailored messaging will be vital
As the Multiply programme isn’t intended to replace or duplicate numeracy provision delivered through the AEB, this is where things get interesting. The Multiply prospectus sets out a ‘menu’ of interventions for local areas to draw on and tailor to the local context.
This includes options for different contexts and cohorts for numeracy learning, such as the workplace, community groups, parents and people recently released from prison.
This is particularly encouraging, given our findings that contextualising learning, and working with trusted community organisations, are vital for engaging adults.
Delivery can offer flexible routes to qualifications, or be offered as non-accredited learning to boost engagement and confidence in everyday maths.
This aligns well with what the evidence tells us is effective practice in adult essential skills provision.
Reductions in funding rates and moves away from non-accredited learning over recent years mean that much of the outreach work providers do to work flexibly with employers and community groups has been lost.
Meanwhile international practice in adult essential skills often has a very different ratio of accredited to non-accredited learning, and a much greater emphasis on working with employers. So the workplace is seen as a key setting where learners can be engaged and skills developed.
To achieve impact on the wider essential skills picture – including numeracy, but also literacy, digital skills and ESOL, where skills needs are arguably just as acute – the trick will be for local areas to use Multiply investment to unlock wider benefits.
Multiply partnerships forged with wider stakeholders, such as employers, schools, community groups and housing associations, could also boost referrals and participation into other kinds of essential skills learning. This would also ensure that Multiply is accessed by those who would benefit from it most.
Just one in seven of the first students who studied a course designed to prepare them for T Levels chose to progress on to a full T Level, FE Week can reveal.
English and maths requirements, a lack of suitable work placements and more attractive qualification offers have all been cited as factors in the low transition rate.
It comes as the government ploughs ahead with controversial plans to defund alternative level 3 qualifications, such as BTECs, that overlap with T Levels, from 2024.
Ministers have been urged by unions to reverse the “rash” cuts to alternative T Level courses amid the “very concerning” figures.
But college leaders, along with the Department for Education, insist it is too early to write off the course and blamed Covid-19 for the low transition rate.
The T Level Transition Programme (TLTP) is a one-year post-GCSE study course aimed at students who would like to do a T Level but are not quite ready for its academic and technical demands. The programme’s primary purpose is to move students on to a full T Level.
Figures obtained by FE Week following a freedom of information request show that 847 students started a T Level transition programme in 2020, of whom 118, or 14 per cent, went on to start a full T Level the following year.
A further 277 students from the first TLTP cohort chose to progress on to other level 3 courses, such as BTECs, or an advanced or higher-level apprenticeship.
The transition programme was rolled out in parallel with the first three T Levels – in construction, digital and education, and childcare – in 2020. Thirty-two colleges and schools delivered the TLTP in 2020/21 and it is currently being delivered by around 70 providers this academic year.
Colleges that spoke to FE Week, most of whom did not want to be named, said the academically rigorous nature of T Levels, namely requirements around English and maths, was the key reason for why students opted to not go on to study a full T Level.
Students were originally required to achieve either a grade 4 in English and maths GCSE or level 2 in functional skills to pass their T Level programme. But this exit requirement was removed mid-way through the first cohort, in November 2021, after the DfE “consistently” heard of some students being put off taking a T Level because of the rule.
T Level students are now only required to work towards the attainment of maths and English if they have not already achieved grade 4 at GCSE, as they do on other 16-to-19 programmes.
Colleges are free to set their own entry requirements, but research has found that many require students to already hold a grade 4 in English and maths.
One of those colleges is HCUC (Harrow College & Uxbridge College). The college had 52 students complete the T Level transition programme in 2020/21, but only one chose to move on to a full T Level. The rest opted instead for a BTEC in digital, and an apprenticeship or one-year level 3 alternative in early years.
An HCUC spokesperson said the college’s aim with the transition programme was to enable students “to develop the widest skills-set available, based on their individual talents and challenges, to ensure their progression options are as flexible as possible and meet their needs as closely as possible”.
Numerous other colleges reported that transition students opted for more practical courses with less focus on exams, partly because of the Covid-19 pandemic.
As part of the TLTP, students are expected to undertake “appropriate work experience activities” to prepare them for the mandatory 45-day minimum industry placement component of a full T Level.
Research conducted by the NFER on behalf of the DfE was published this week and reported that “very few” students were able to secure placements in the first year of the transition programme because of Covid, which put them off going for a full T Level.
Catherine Sezen, senior policy manager at the Association of Colleges, said: “Given the impact of Covid on the first cohort of students embarking on the T Level transition programme, it is too early to write off the programme.”
She added that the AoC believes overall progression from the transition programme was “positive” and recommended that progression outcomes “are evaluated over the next couple of years as more T Level are being introduced”.
But Jo Grady, general secretary of the University and College Union, said the government should find the figures obtained by FE Week “very concerning”.
“It is yet more evidence that the government has made a rash decision in stripping away funding for tried and tested level 3 qualifications like BTECs,” she added. “If the government cares about student choice and opportunity, it needs to reverse the BTEC cuts and stop dictating disastrous policy that runs against the advice of the sector.”
Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said the data shows that embarking on a T Level requires a “very big commitment from the student concerned”.
“We are sure T Levels will be a very good option for students confident about their future careers, but this is not the case for many young people, and this is why we have repeatedly argued that a full suite of BTECs and other applied general qualifications should be retained to give young people a range of options,” he added.
The DfE agreed with Sezen: “We cannot judge the programme on the basis of one year of data. The first year of delivery is likely to have been atypical for a number of reasons. This is a new programme, T Levels themselves are new, and providers will still be learning what works in supporting students to progress on to T Levels.
“It was also introduced amid the pandemic, which will have impacted on students and the delivery of the programme. Progression to T Levels may not therefore be representative, and we will continue monitoring T Level progression for subsequent cohorts.”
College staff should be given a 2.25 per cent pay rise next year, the Association for Colleges has recommended.
This is the highest pay recommendation since 2014, but well below the call from unions for a 10 per cent rise.
The joint trade unions – University and College Union, National Education Union, Unison, Unite and GMB – have rejected the offer, calling it “insulting”.
AoC, which negotiates with unions representing staff on behalf of college, said it recognises that a 2.25 per cent salary increase is not sufficient to address the impact of the cost-of-living crisis.
But the association said it could not recommend a higher rate for 2022/23 due to the “enormous funding pressures” facing colleges amid surging inflation.
The AoC and the unions are set to reconvene in June to continue talks.
AoC chief executive David Hughes wrote to education secretary Nadhim Zahawi earlier this week to plead for emergency funding so that colleges can increase their pay offer.
After making a 2.25 per cent pay recommendation, Hughes said: “Colleges want to pay their staff more, and they absolutely would if they could, but it is clear from discussions last week that they are experiencing enormous challenges dealing with inflation, and particularly spiralling energy prices, as well as increases in national insurance and pension contributions and other costs.
“The impact of this is that pay – which has lagged for many years behind schools and industry – is now resulting in major difficulties in recruiting and retaining the people needed to even maintain delivery, let alone grow the offer.”
He added: “Colleges are reeling from a decade of cuts and are now being hit by soaring inflation which has eaten away at any recent uptick in funding.”
The gap between school and college teachers currently stands at around £9,000.
The AoC has repeatedly recommended a 1 per cent pay increase for staff over the past five years much to the protest of unions which have in turn launched numerous strikes.
Last year’s spending review announced that the DfE will be investing an extra £1.6 billion in 16-to-19 education and training by 2024/25, compared with the 2021/22 financial year. This includes an up-front cash boost which will see the rate of funding per student boosted by over 8 per cent in 2022/23.
Hughes said these funding decisions for 2022/23 assume 2 per cent inflation for 16-18 courses and 0 per cent for everything else (adult education, apprenticeships and higher education) which is some way off the current 9 per cent inflation.
But after receiving this latest pay offer, the joint unions said: “The employer body has chosen not to use significant increases in core central government 16 – 19 funding to invest in college staff, despite unions campaigning alongside AoC to secure it.
“The unions have unequivocally rejected the offer from AoC and informed the employer body that they plan to move to ballot.
“AoC have been encouraged to return with a much improved offer to ensure college staff are not forced to take industrial action this Autumn term. The unions agree that they will continue to engage in negotiations while making plans for action.”
Gerry McDonald, chief executive of New City College, who leads discussions on behalf of colleges, said: “We fully recognise the financial difficulties faced by staff across the sector alongside the funding crisis of the sector itself.
“I am pleased that both sides have agreed to continue face to face talks in June to build upon the offer. We have also made a commitment to strengthen recommendations regarding the Living Wage and to workload.”
