DfE permanently scraps annual FE learner and employer satisfaction surveys

The annual FE choices learner satisfaction survey has been permanently axed, the Department for Education announced today.

The survey, which is usually taken by hundreds of thousands of students and has been running for most of the past decade, was paused in 2019/20 and 2020/21 due to the coronavirus outbreak.

In 2018/19, over 345,000 students and apprentices responded to questions about the quality of teaching, whether their support needs were met and whether they would recommend their college or training provider.

Announcing the decision to cancel the survey going forward, DfE chief statistician Neil McIvor said: “DfE does not intend to run the satisfaction survey again in its current form. DfE will instead be considering the most useful information to collect from learners that best supports the proposals laid out in last year’s public consultation document [Skills for Jobs: a new further education funding and accountability system] – taking into account the responses to that consultation.”

The funding and accountability framework consultation closed in October but the response has still not been released. It is therefore unclear exactly how learner feedback will be gathered and used in the future.

However, the consultation did propose introducing a new publicly available “performance dashboard”, which would provide a “performance snapshot of individual colleges for all interested parties and public scrutiny, as well as an overview of how well the local and national FE system is performing”.

The dashboard, if given the go ahead, would include a list of performance indicators that “reflect what excellent delivery looks like”, consisting of “student outcomes, employers’ and students’ experience, and how well a provider is engaging with meeting local skills needs”.

The FE choices employer satisfaction survey, which was also paused in 2019/20 due to Covid, has also been permanently canned, the DfE confirmed.

Today’s announcement comes a week after the DfE launched a new apprentice feedback tool, which followed a similar employer feedback tool that was introduced in 2019.

This is what I really said about social mobility

Social mobility is complex, as FE providers know. The Telegraph’s headline about my speech was the opposite of the truth, writes Katharine Birbalsingh

You may have read that last week we launched the “fresh approach” which we want the Social Mobility Commission to take over the next few years.

The Commission has a statutory duty to report to Parliament on social mobility and can make recommendations about areas to improve.

It has the potential to influence policy, and has done some excellent work in the past. We want to make it more effective and we want to shift the focus. 

The headline which dominated on the day was the Telegraph’s rather odd spin, that “Working class people should aim ‘lower’ than Oxford” (the headline has since been changed).

This was not what was said or implied (you can see my speech here). In fact, quite the opposite.

You only have to look at the institutions my deputy chair and college principal Alun Francis and I both lead to see how high we encourage our students to aim.

We want them to be the very best they can be, and want to live in a world where no-one is held back by their background.

And we acknowledge that there is a lot of very important work going on, in schools, colleges and universities, and among employers, to improve the opportunities for people from disadvantaged backgrounds to excel.

It is fantastic that this is happening. But what we’re saying is… it is not enough. 

Social mobility is a very complex term. People have their own ideas of what it means for them, but in sociology and economics, where much of the measurement work goes on, the definitions and data are complex. 

And in policy terms, the problem of social mobility is usually framed in a particular way. 

It tends to focus on a very small group of very talented people making huge leaps from the ‘bottom’ to the ‘top.’

Of course we should strive for this to happen as much as possible – and indeed my own sixth form is all about getting disadvantaged kids into Oxbridge and Russell Group Universities. 

But there’s also brilliant work being done in the FE sector with young people who are achieving other things and who have different talents.

Not everyone can or wants to be a rich banker in the City

Well done to the FE providers supporting those 16 year olds who leave school without brilliant GCSES, who want to find something they are good at, and want to build a decent life in the place where they grew up – but either can’t or do not want to go to university! 

And well done to those supporting adults returning to learning, who want to improve their literacy and numeracy or other basic skills, or their vocational competence.

These are precisely the people that further education is devoted to.

But while many working in FE have the best of intentions when it comes to social mobility, on the current measures, most of their efforts – and more importantly, most of what the learners achieve – do not show up in the measurements.

Their progress only gets counted as social mobility if they are among the exceptional few, who leap from the bottom to the top – usually through extremely high academic achievement.  

The focus we want to bring to the Social Mobility Commission is how opportunities are being improved for everyone – but especially those who are often overlooked and ignored. 

Some may want to say this is lowering expectations. But that’s not what we’re saying at all. High expectations are the foundation of great learning. 

Aspiration matters too. Of course we want to celebrate those who go to Oxbridge or become top lawyers.

But we also want to celebrate those who don’t follow those routes. Life isn’t just about becoming a top banker in the City – we should celebrate that fact, and recognise that there are great achievements to be had in other careers and other parts of the country too. 

Not everyone can or wants to be a rich banker in the City – but they still want opportunities. 

And while we want to encourage and inspire everyone to be their best, we also need to avoid prejudiced views about occupational hierarchies and places – what a “good” job is or where you should aspire to live.

It really is great to see those who break from the circumstances in which they were born, to become stand out superstars in their chosen field. 

But this isn’t only about the few who are academically excellent – it has to be about the wider range of talents which FE typically discovers.  

AELP National Conference 2022 – Book your place now!

Taking place on Monday 27 and Tuesday 28 June, the 2022 AELP National Conference will be held at the Novotel London West. Kindly sponsored by The Skills Network, this flagship event in the calendar is a must-attend conference for anybody within the skills and employability sector.

We are delighted that this year’s conference will be chaired by Martine Croxall. Martine is a presenter with the BBC News and BBC World News TV channels.

She joined BBC News in May 2001 and began her broadcasting career in BBC local radio and regional TV where she worked in various roles. She now trains new TV presenters for the BBC’s Academy.

The conference is open to both AELP Members and Non-Members and you can book your place on our dedicated event website.

Updates and discussions will include key topical areas such as:

  • The apprenticeship levy under review – is the apprenticeship levy system and the levy itself meeting the needs of the economy, employers and apprentices?
  • A deep dive into what’s next after the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 – the implementation of Local Skills Improvement Plans, the list of post-16 education or training providers, new responsibilities for the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education and much more.
  • Qualification Reforms at level 3 and below – understanding the changes to the qualifications  landscape and what that means for learners, employers and providers.

As ever, AELP National Conference has a great line-up of keynote speakers covering some of the most interesting and important issues facing the sector. You can find out more about some of our speakers below.

Alex Burghart MP, Minister for Skills

Alex was elected as Conservative MP for Brentwood and Ongar on 8 June 2017. He served as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Prime Minister between 2019 and 2021 before being appointed as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Education in September 2021.

Tracy Brabin, West Yorkshire Mayor

Tracy Brabin was elected as the first Mayor of West Yorkshire, and the first ever woman Metro Mayor in England, in May 2021. During her campaign, Tracy pledged to create 1,000 skilled jobs for young people and lead a ‘Creative New Deal’ for the region. Born in Batley, West Yorkshire, Tracy was an actor and screenwriter prior to entering politics, appearing in several British soap operas and writing for several television series.

Kirsty Evans Deputy Director of Department for Education.

Kirsty has 25 years’ experience working in the post 16 education and skills system and is currently the Director of Post 16 Regions and FE Provider Oversight in the Department for Education. In that role she is responsible for effective oversight of the FE sector and FE providers, as well as the delivery of key place facing policy programmes such as Local Skills Improvement Plans and Institutes of Technology.

Jo Saxton Chief Regulator of Ofqual

Dr Jo Saxton became the Chief Regulator of Ofqual in September 2021 bringing a decade of experience in school leadership to the role. She has previously been a government advisor and was formerly an academic.

Anthony Impey MBE Chair of the Apprenticeship Ambassador Network.

Anthony Impey is the Chief Executive of Be the Business, a not-for-profit organisation that is working to transform the British economy by supporting small businesses boost their productivity. He also chairs the Department of Education’s Apprenticeship Ambassador Network and the City & Guilds Industry Skills Board.

Toby Perkins MP, Shadow Minister for Skills.

Toby Perkins has been the Labour Member of Parliament for Chesterfield since 2010. He has served in a number of frontbench roles and was appointed Shadow Minister for Apprenticeships and Lifelong Learning in 2020.

Workshops

Part of what makes AELP National Conference so special is our innovative and thought-provoking workshops hosted by leading sector experts. These workshops are a fantastic opportunity to network, hear vital updates and get involved in topical discussions affecting the Skills and Employability sector.

This year there will be a terrific selection of 50 workshops to choose from over the two days of the conference. All of these will share best practice and knowledge, with the opportunity to discuss the topic and ask pertinent questions about the issue at hand.

Gala Evening

Following Day One of the AELP National Conference, there will be a pre-dinner drinks reception and Gala Dinner. This provides excellent networking opportunities in a relaxed atmosphere and is well attended by both delegates and other conference attendees/exhibitors.  

This year, the Gala Evening is open to conference delegates and non-attendees. The price includes the drinks reception, 3-course dinner, and live entertainment. All delegates should book their Gala Evening tickets at the time of booking conference places. Tickets for the Gala Dinner are not included with any complimentary conference places and therefore must be paid for separately.

AELP members can book a place for the Gala Evening only here, and non-members can book here.

We’re confident that our National Conference this year will be the best yet, so don’t delay – book your place today!

Why parents are the barrier to apprenticeship uptake

The challenge to apprenticeship uptake is the stigma of the route for parents, writes Ben Hansford

In the UK, university is still broadly viewed as the default path for school leavers. A university degree is seen as the most respected route for young jobseekers which, in the eyes of many, guarantees them a ‘successful’ job.

This is despite the fact that there has been a government focus on apprenticeships and other vocational routes into the workforce over the past few years as these have opened up to include a variety of skills, including technological and digital training.

However, even with a slowdown in apprenticeship starts through the pandemic, the programme has proved itself robust, and early indications show that apprenticeships are back on the rise and proving more popular than ever.

In 2019/20 alone, there were 719,000 people enrolled on an apprenticeship across England, with 322,500 apprenticeship starts and 146,900 apprenticeship achievements (the number of those who passed the end-point assessment).

Over 4.75 million apprenticeships were started over the past decade from May 2010 to January 2021. However, in 2020/21, 47 per cent of apprentices dropped out.

So it’s encouraging that employers such as Lloyds, HSBC and Asda offer apprenticeship programmes as a route into long careers.

But one of the main barriers to apprenticeship uptake in the UK is parents.

Ever since apprenticeships were reinvigorated ten years ago, the challenge has always been to remove the stigma of this route with parents. Parents remain the number one barrier to exponential growth in a proven route into a career.

Outdated views are stopping many school leavers from looking toward apprenticeships as a viable path into the workforce.

More than 60 per cent of parents of children aged 13 to 18 said they were concerned their child would be stuck ‘making the tea’ if they were to choose an apprenticeship, according to a 2020 survey by parent website Mumsnet.

Parents are still worried learners will be stuck making the tea

Parents need to be further informed and educated on the benefits of apprenticeships, the different types and exactly how they are run.

While government initiatives such as National Apprenticeship Week are great at raising awareness of apprenticeships among young people, without parental buy-in, young people may not get involved.

In fact research undertaken by the Association of Accounting Technicians in 2019 found that students feel they are being pushed down the route of going to university. Six out of ten students said their parents wanted them to pick that option.

The government and FE providers need to urgently rethink their apprenticeship strategies to target parents. This will help to combat the lack of information parents have regarding this route into work and relieve the stresses around whether a young adult is ready to take on a work or study programme.

To do so, here are the steps to take:

  1. Widen the marketing strategy to target not only school leavers but parents too.
  2. Lead with the fact that alongside more hands-on trade apprenticeships, there are professional and degree apprenticeships that span a variety of skills and sectors. Many parents don’t realise this.
  3. The costs of university versus apprenticeships should be included. This is even more relevant given the news that students will now be paying 12 per cent interest on their university loans.
  4. FE providers should hold discussions about after-school options with both students and their parents.
  5. Invite past students who have gone on to do an apprenticeship to talk about their experience. This is also a helpful way of bringing the apprenticeship experience to life.

Apprenticeships offer people the opportunity to earn a route into a profession, a degree, gain invaluable workforce experience and sometimes, have a job at the end of their programme, all at a lower cost than a university degree.

We must make sure parents are absolutely clear about this, and see apprenticeships as a competitive opportunity.

Shadowing should be embedded in apprenticeship standards

Shadowing is highly effective CPD and also helps to build relationships within organisations, writes Priya Patel

I’m a former digital marketing apprentice at an independent training provider, and now I hold a full-time role there. It means I have first-hand experience of reaping the opportunities of an apprenticeship programme.

The most impactful opportunity I had was shadowing – something that perhaps we don’t discuss very often in the FE space.

Shadowing is the activity of working alongside another member of the business that you work for, who has a different role to you. This is so you can build upon your transferrable skills while also networking in other parts of the organisation at the same time.

The whole process helps an organisation to achieve business goals through better relationships. 

When I worked with different members of the business, I found it very useful because it put into perspective how no working day is the same.

We learnt valuable knowledge from one another which enabled us to work better together in the future.

This shows how shadowing helps not only the learner, but the business and business members to work more efficiently. It set a higher standard of work for all of us involved.

It’s important to note that shadowing is different from other aspects of an apprenticeship.

This is because it’s a practice that is changeable, depending upon the different people you’re shadowing.

It means that learners can build up their skills in line with their needs, as well as the business’s needs. Shadowing helps to close skills gaps by facilitating learning first hand, in the shoes of colleagues. 

If there’s a particular skills gap in your team, pinpointing another business member to learn from could be the way to upskill apprentices further. Also, it allows a business to do this without having to employ another team member.

Similarly, if the business has connections with another business, a way for these businesses to build connections is by allowing employees from each business to work alongside one another.

This shows how shadowing can allow your team to branch outward to other businesses in a way that will provide value to one another, as well as for apprentices. They’ll get the opportunity to network in a new streamline.

Suggesting shadowing can also, of course, be an effective strategy to deploy substantial continued professional development for your team.

Within any business, shadowing should be available to apprentices if they ask or if the business recommends it.

Shadowing in apprenticeship standards would help model good leadership

But it’s important to stress that shadowing is not in the apprenticeship standards.

If shadowing was in the standard, then more talent could be brought out on programmes and more individual apprentices could be stretched and developed.

If shadowing was embedded in all apprenticeships, we could create a new generation of apprentices who are leaders of their own learning.

By incorporating shadowing into the apprenticeship standard, this will help model good leadership. It would show learners that leaders exist at different stages of the career ladder, not just at ‘the top’ of it.

This in turn would emphasise the need to assist colleagues to gain the skills for these different stages of the career ladder. In turn, this would allow apprentices to experience a learning curve that represents the kind of leader they want to be. 

For apprentices to reach their potential, they need to be given the independence to learn in different situations. But they also need the support and encouragement to do so.

When I was an apprentice, encouragement from my peers was the key to see me through the pathway of the apprenticeship.

It gave me confidence to learn as best I could on the apprenticeship programme. This has meant that on completion of my apprenticeship, I am able to continually guide my own learning as I’ve developed that habit from the get-go.

With shadowing in the apprenticeship standard, we would have the power to pass on the torch of brilliant learning, and keep it burning bright.

What can we learn from the history of policymaking in FE?

A top-down approach has left a confused legacy of abandoned institutions, qualifications and a lack of consistent funding streams, writes Bart Shaw

Bringing young people on the margins of education policy into the centre is what my organisation strongly believes is the most pressing policy change.

All policymaking should start with the question “how does this benefit the chances of those who do least well?”

This is where the hundreds of FE colleges in England come in.

They support almost a million young people at a time. These students are disproportionately those from lower-income or non-white backgrounds, and those with higher levels of learning needs.

Yet policy making (and research) marginalises young people in FE.

One way in which policymaking undermines and underfunds young people in FE is through high levels of ‘churn’ in funding and policy decisions.

This year I read the Edge Foundation’s excellent review of the last 30 years of FE policy, by Oxford University professor Ewart Keep, thinktank founder Tom Richmond and former college principal Ruth Silver. I highly recommend a read: it’s called ‘Honourable Histories’.

High levels of policy churn undermines FE

The overall message is clear: the FE sector in England has been characterised by frequent and significant changes in policy direction.

That’s especially the case in comparison to other countries, where the pace of change is more incremental.

England’s hyperactivity when it comes to FE policy has generally been problematic.

The report notes:

“Rather than seeking to establish and build up durable institutional arrangements we have a tendency to periodically raze them to the ground, scatter the rubble and start all over again with the erection of new, ultimately equally temporary edifices.”

In other countries, change is often built on consensus, with leaders of FE institutions, unions or representative groups, regional and local government and employers. But in England change is often centrally and swiftly imposed.

Coupled with frequent changes in direction, this top-down approach has left a confused legacy of abandoned institutions and qualifications and a lack of consistent funding streams.

Even when government rhetoric prioritises the FE sector, the relative funding, accountability structures, recruitment drives and celebration of achievement remains weighted heavily in favour of schools and the push for ever-improving academic attainment.

What, then, can current and future education ministers (for whom ‘skills’ is a stated top priority) learn from the failures of FE policymaking in the past?

I have three tentative suggestions. These are made in the spirit of slow policy change and not aiming to solve all problems in one go, but rather to lay a foundation for future reform.

1.Real terms funding to at least match 2010

Whilst the capital funding promised in the levelling up white paper is useful, the universal refrain from within the sector is about the continued shortfall in revenue funding. At the very least, real terms funding for colleges should match 2010, with longer (five year?) funding horizons to enable sustainable staffing and planning.

2. Put those with the highest need first

For the Department for Education, this means resourcing the FE sector to at least the same extent at schools. Funding, recruitment and strategic position within the department has been marginalised for too long.

Focus on young people whose learning needs are more complex and less likely to fit what is already happening. Forty-five per cent of young people aged 16 plus with an identified SEND are in FE colleges compared to 12 per cent in school sixth forms.

Ensure that every new decision is made with these young people in mind first.

3. Stick with the current portfolio of qualifications

Give T Levels a chance to bed in. In the meantime, rather than imagining that the system will need streamlining, and BTECs should make way for T Levels, allow both to sit alongside each other and spend time observing, measuring and testing solutions before radically re-landscaping.

Let’s not keep repeating the cycles of the past.

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 392

Katy Quinn

Principal & CEO,
City of Portsmouth
College

Start date: Summer term

Previous Job: Principal & CEO,
Strode College

Interesting fact: In her younger years, Katy played County netball for Somerset.

Gary Potts

Principal, Northumberland College, Education Partnership North East

Start date: August 2022

Previous Job: Group Vice Principal – Business, Innovation and Partnerships,
Education Training Collective

Interesting fact: Gary began his career as a design engineer following a five-year apprenticeship in toolmaking design and programming electric discharge machines.

IFS: Spending on adult education and apprenticeships will be 25% below 2010 levels by 2025

Total spending on adult education and apprenticeships will be 25 per cent lower in 2024/2025 compared with 2010/2011 according to new analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.  

Researchers found that total spending on adult education and apprenticeships fell by 38 per cent in real-terms between 2010–11 and 2020–21. Looking at classroom based learning on its own, the IFS found that spending has plummeted by 50 per cent over ten years. 

While the 2021 spending review provided an additional £900 million for adult education by 2024–25, total spending on adult education and apprenticeships will still be 25 per cent lower in 2024/25 compared to 2010/11. 

Sector leaders were quick to criticise the government’s spending review promises on adult education at the time.

The IFS has said today this will make it harder to achieve the government’s high ambitions to improve technical education and adult skills in order to level up poorer areas of the country.

“As part of efforts to level up poorer areas of the country, the government has announced an additional £900m in extra spending on adult education by 2024-25,” said Imran Tahir, IFS Research Economist and author. 

“However, due to significant cuts over the past decade, government spending will still be 25% lower in 2024–25 than 2010–11.”

Tahir explained that taken together, the government’s adult education reform plans will provide extra help to those who left schools with good GCSEs or equivalent qualifications. 

“Yet the main plans set out for helping adults with few qualifications – skills bootcamps and the new “Multiply” programme –  are relatively untested and are unlikely to lead to formal qualifications. 

“Providing effective support and training for this group is a significant challenge that will be key to levelling-up poorer areas of the country,” he added. 

Stephen Evans, chief executive of Learning and Work Institute said that the research echoed their findings that the “welcome increases” in funding would still leave budgets far short of 2010 levels. 

“With employers investing just half the EU average per employee on training, it’s clear we need to up our game. 

“Critically that means learning at all levels, with our research showing a 63% fall in adults improving their literacy and numeracy. This is a slow motion disaster, limiting people’s life chances and business access to skills. It’s a short-term saving with a long-term cost,” he said. 

Learner numbers have dropped just as drastically as funding. 

The IFS says there’s been a 50 per cent fall in adults taking qualifications at Level 2 and below, and a 33 per cent fall in the number of adults taking Level 3 qualifications. 

Researchers noted that such falls will partly reflect cuts in public funding for such courses and the introduction of advanced learning loans under the coalition government.

Toby Perkins MP, Labour’s shadow minister for Further Education and Skills, said the government’s “neglect of further education is plain to see” in shrinking opportunities and falling numbers of adults taking part in training and reskilling.

“Together with the lowest level of workplace learning in over a generation, it is clear that the Conservatives do not have a plan to tackle skills shortages across our economy” he added. 

Apprenticeships growth focused at advanced and higher levels

The IFS also found that apprenticeships were more focused at advanced and higher levels. 

After 2010, the number of adult apprenticeship starts initially increased to about 350-400,000 per year. 

However, researchers found that apprenticeship starts have dropped off to about 250,000 per year since the introduction of the Apprenticeship Levy in April 2017. 

“At the same time, there has been [a] shift in the type of apprenticeships taken by adults. In 2020, fewer than 50,000 adults began the lowest level of apprenticeships (intermediate apprenticeships) compared to 200,000 a decade earlier,” the IFS said in a statement.  

“The number of higher apprenticeships (which include degree apprenticeships) has rocketed from a few hundred starts in 2010 to almost 100,000 starts in 2020”.  

The research found that whilst increasing numbers of higher and advanced apprenticeships is welcome, the number of apprenticeship opportunities at lower levels has been drying up.

“Both the economic downturn and the changing nature of the labour market are likely to increase demand for adult education and apprenticeships,” said Josh Hillman, education director at the Nuffield Foundation. 

“To ensure that adults from a wide range of backgrounds from across the UK are able to gain the skills required by employers, it is essential that the further education system is adequately funded.”

The DfE told FE Week: “We are targeting support where it is needed most, investing in high quality training that is delivering the skilled workforce employers need to grow, while plugging skills gaps in our economy and helping more people into jobs.

“This includes making £2.7 billion available by 2025 to support business of all sizes to create more apprenticeships, in addition to investing over £260 million in the last year to expand popular adult training schemes, such as Skills Bootcamps and Free Courses for Jobs.

“This approach is working. It is great to see the number of people starting apprenticeships across England so far this year bouncing back to pre-pandemic levels, and thousands of people have already taken advantage of the opportunity to upskill or retrain for free through one of our adult skills courses.”

Is it time to let go of the failures and ego of incorporation?

The colleges sector can only challenge the problems of incorporation if it takes the uncomfortable step of building a united political stance, writes Stuart Rimmer

With the announcement last month that the Office for National Statistics was reviewing the classifications of colleges, there was an immediate flurry among the FE Twitterati.

Did it signal the shift back to pre-incorporation? Might colleges struggle to access to bank loans and financing?

Both concerns at this stage are false dawns.

Colleges have been under various classifications over the years (in 1993, 2010 and 2012) with little impact.

A classification change would affect how colleges report to government and borrow (with requests coming to colleges this week) but are unlikely to be too dramatic.

For me, the sector can use this moment to consider whether we should be lobbying to go back into the public sector and undo some of the legacy of incorporation.

To have this debate would require the setting aside of egos and a cold, hard look at the position of the sector and how it has fared since 1993.

What we currently have is very much the worst of both worlds.

Policies around the area-based review and, latterly, local skills improvement plans are in many ways an attempt to control curriculum.

What we currently have is the worst of both worlds

When combined with funding rules and defunding rules (look at T Levels or adult funding) then curriculum is already restricted under a national banner.

It is an illusion to think colleges have wide choice.

Advice and guidance has often been found lacking in schools and colleges, with confused and duplicated local offers supported by what Oxford University professor Ewart Keep would describe as ‘quasi-markets’.

Colleges are obsessed with growth, damaging their neighbours, to keep pace with rising costs rather than nationally seeking settlements on the funding required.

We individually negotiate staff contracts and pay rather than have a national settlement. We know school teachers are paid at significantly higher rates.

National shortages plague college departments, weakening provision or prompting staff to be poached.

Nationalisation would allow college lecturers security and stronger national bargaining through unions.

In this parliament we have seen increasing control via both the Department for Education through the skills for jobs white paper, and the Treasury through recent capital funding, which is channelled through DfE rather than through the ESFA or college “bailouts”.

Colleges could also get the financial benefits of VAT, of lower cost borrowing direct from government rather than at commercial rates (which takes away from students).

Large capital projects, and the generation of public assets, could be delivered direct from government with risks sitting centrally, rather than with individual colleges.

A postcode lottery of inherited building stock or debt at incorporation hampers colleges’ ability to spend to this day.

Colleges could move away from perverse incentives to protect cash and restrict resources to keep regulators at bay – and focus on student experience and curriculum.

Since 1993, are colleges funded better or worse comparatively?

Are we more focused on educational mission or more conflicted? Do colleges feel more or less stable?

Do staff feel more or less recognised? Have colleges had the capital investment required to meet 21st century industry needs?

Has curriculum kept pace pace with European counterparts? Is there better local collaboration?

Taking all this into account: has incorporation been a success?

To discuss, colleges would need to do some very uncomfortable things:

  1. Adopt a strong and clearer collective political position. In my experience the sector has been very reluctant, or fearful, of doing this: scared of upsetting paymasters or the market. We do lack the coherence of political thinking generated through debate.
  2. Set aside our egos, as any nationalisation would lead to a giving up of individual and institutional power for the collective good. This would be undesirable for many and no doubt come with painful unintended consequences.
  3. Accept a recalibration of curriculum within localities, and of college finances nationally (losing both debt and reserves).
  4. Seize the opportunities from centrally planned responses to HE collaboration and issues such as sustainability or energy.

I may, as ever, just be politically daydreaming. But the debate is worth having.