AoC delays pay recommendation until September

The Association of Colleges has delayed making a pay recommendation to its college members due to “late decisions” on funding this year.

The college membership body met for the second time with the National Joint Forum (NJF) trade unions today to discuss its 2025/26 FE pay claim. 

Unions wanted a 10 per cent pay rise and national workload agreements.

They were told colleges should not expect to receive a “firm” non-binding pay recommendation until the week beginning September 15.

Last month, the government accepted the independent school teachers’ review body (STRB) recommendation of a 4 per cent pay rise for school teachers in 2025/26.

The same day, it also announced £160 million for 16 to 19 FE providers, delivered through a boost to per-student 16 to 19 funding rates.

AoC chief executive David Hughes said the timing of the funding boost, as well as the extra £155 million to cover national insurance hikes, was the reason for the delay in its pay recommendation.

“There’s been lots of late decisions on funding this year,” he said, adding that most colleges received updated 16 to 19 allocations this week.

He added that more time was needed to understand the “moving parts” of the national insurance funding covering between 50 to 85 per cent of colleges extra costs, plus the lack of clarity on in-year student growth in September. 

Hughes added: “Colleges just haven’t had enough time to work with their boards to set the budgets. We all know that these aren’t just one-year decisions. If you make a big pay award now, and you get an extra 300 students in September and you take them on, can you afford to do both?”

He told FE Week that AoC was expected to match 4 per cent pay rise, but it needed to work with colleges who had low 16 to 19 numbers on their affordability of such a pay rise.

There are a reported 35 colleges with over 20 per cent of income from adult education funding, as well as colleges with large apprenticeship funding. 

Governing boards of these colleges will need to go to the drawing board to “really understand the implications of quite a few moving parts”.

This summer, the AoC said it is inviting the unions to be involved in its campaign on adult education funding.

“I don’t think we’ve done that piece of work well enough now to convince Treasury. So that’s where we are,” he said.

Last year, the AoC did not make a recommendation until October, offering up a “disappointing” 2.5 per cent pay rise for 2024/25 after the government refused to include colleges in the £1.2 billion public sector pay award.

Unions ‘disappointed’

Hughes added that the unions were “very disappointed” that the AoC was not able to make a recommendation today.

“In my view, we had a reasonable discussion,” he said.

But UNISON national officer for education Leigh Powell told FE Week: “Leaving staff without any certainty about pay with further delays is extremely disappointing. The Association of Colleges had already been given more time.

“It beggars belief the association has only just realised the complex arrangements for further education have led to pay disparities between colleges. Unions have been telling them for years.

“The extra money put into further education over the past two years, hasn’t been reflected in staff pay packets. That must change.”

The FE pay claim for 2025/26 made by the unions also urged the AoC to call for a “better” bargaining system that would align with the STRB. 

The government has made no suggestion that an FE pay review body would be on the cards in the future, though its employment bill will introduce new pay review bodies for school support staff and adult social care workers.

Hughes said the college membership body has repeatedly offered to do research with the unions on the true cost of matching school pay with college staff pay.

The pay claim also demanded more resources for college admin staff, a national policy on delivering guided learning hours and a set of agreed workload and wellbeing protocols.

Hughes said it will carry on with the workload working groups with the unions but said he pushed back at representatives for “frankly” not putting “as much energy” into college workload issues as they do in schools.

Today, the University and College Union also presented the results of its FE consultative ballot at negotiations, which found 86 per cent of members said they would be prepared to take strike action to secure an “above inflation pay rise, binding national bargaining and a national workload agreement.

UCU did not provide FE Week the breakdown of the results, including turnout rates and raw votes. Its FE committee will consider the results and decide on the next steps at a meeting on July 4.

UCU general secretary Jo Grady said: “It is disappointing that even after delaying negotiations until today, the AoC was unable to come to the table with any pay recommendation whatsoever.

“The skills minister has already made clear that additional funding confirmed by the spending review should be used to raise pay.

“Likewise, our consultative ballot gained an overwhelming 86 per cent yes vote in support of strike action. It is imperative that the AoC now comes back tot he table in September with a serious pay recommendation to help close the earnings gap between college teachers and those in schools and avoid potential strike action.

“It is clear the current bargaining framework is not delivering for college workers, causing a recruitment crisis, which in turn is harming student learning. Staff and students urgently need a new deal for FE, centred on higher pay, binding national bargaining and action on workloads.”

The unions were contacted for comment.

Northcoders bags full stack of top grades in first inspection

A coding skills bootcamp provider has been rated ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted for “skilfully” teaching recruits.

In its first full inspection, Manchester-based Northcoders received the highest grade in all inspection areas.

The company runs 13-week skills bootcamps focusing on data in the cloud and software engineering, training about 200 students via online courses.

A team of four inspectors found an “extremely engaging and stimulating curriculum” delivered by staff who had their students’ “best interests at heart”.

Almost all students “swiftly” gain work in the digital industry after learning to tackle complex coding challenges with “persistence, patience and determination”.

Northcoders’ CEO Chris Hill said the company is “incredibly proud” of the Ofsted grade – a “clear validation” of the quality staff strive for and the “life-changing impact” the skills bootcamps have on learners’ lives.

He added: “This result significantly strengthens our position in the competitive tendering landscape, particularly with government and regional funding bodies which we are currently navigating.

“It enhances our credibility, bolsters our bid-winning capability, and positions us as a leading provider of high-quality digital skills training at a time when confidence and rigour in provider selection has never been more critical”.

The company, which specialises in coding training, began delivering bootcamps in 2016. It advertises working with employers including the BBC, the Office for National Statistics, Debenhams and Wren Kitchens.

According to its 2023-24 accounts, it won an 18-month, £10 million Department for Education contract to deliver skills bootcamps in January 2024.

The company had a revenue of £8.8 million that financial year, enrolling 1,144 students and netting a profit after tax of £388,855.

Inspectors found Northcoders has cultivated “very strong links” with an “extensive range” of employer partners to produce an “extremely ambitious, current, and industry-informed curriculum”.

Inspectors were particularly impressed with the company’s teaching using Structured Query Language instead of MongoDB and teaching about complex coding using React instead of jQuery.

Teachers make “extremely good use” of information about students’ starting points to ensure teaching meets their needs and “skilfully” deliver training with precise explanations that learners “consistently” recall.

They follow lectures with well-planned activities and projects and provide “very effective feedback” on students’ performance.

Inspectors also praised Northcoders’ careers support, which includes a variety of useful tutorials and a high proportion of employers offering guaranteed interviews, a key feature of skills bootcamps.

Ofsted pledges specialist inspectors for most visits from November

Ofsted has committed to enlisting “at least” one inspector with “specific” sector experience in “most” of its inspection teams from November.

Today’s announcement on inspection team structures will come into effect when the watchdog’s proposed inspections overhaul is rolled out later this year.

The revamp comes after Ofsted heard during its Big Listen consultation that its inspectors do not always have the necessary expertise of particular types of provision, such as special schools or apprenticeship providers.

The watchdog said it will “make the best use” of Ofsted inspectors’ (OIs) current sector knowledge to deploy them onto visits of providers that match their expertise to “specific” types of provision.

Chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver said: “All inspection teams will have the right blend of inspection expertise and current sector insight.

“This will help us better understand the context of the schools and colleges we inspect, to provide a fair and accurate report for parents”.

Oliver also announced that inspectors employed as His Majesty’s Inspectors (HMIs) will only be able to lead visits from November in a bid to “draw on expertise” and keep “consistency” across the country.

This means only HMIs, or contracted Ofsted inspectors (OIs) with HMI experience, will lead inspection teams.

An Ofsted spokesperson said around two-thirds to three-quarters of all inspections are currently led by HMIs.

Inspections led by OIs with recent HMI experience (currently within the last three years) will be decided on a case-by-case basis.

“We want to make sure our inspections are as consistent as possible, from Cornwall to Northumberland,” Oliver said.

He added: “We have already put stronger quality assurance measures in place, and utilising the expertise of our workforce as effectively as we can is another significant step forward.”

Oliver encouraged delegates at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) conference this week to join Ofsted as an inspector.

An Ofsted spokesperson told FE Week that it currently had around 2,000 people registered as interested in becoming an OI.

Oliver said at the conference: “You can help us even more by contributing your skills and becoming an Ofsted inspector. The more of you that join, the better I can build a peer-led inspectorate, and I better can match inspector expertise to the providers out there. So get involved. Please be part of the system.”

Leadership unions this week warned they will ask their members to quit as inspectors if Ofsted did not delay the rollout of new inspections until September 2026.

The industrial strategy is quietly remaking skills policy

One year into the new government and skills policy is being reshaped. Not by legislation, but by the return of industrial strategy as an engine of reform.

When the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills was closed in 2016, responsibility for further and higher education moved to the Department for Education, marking a shift towards a more education-led approach.

Now the pendulum is swinging back: the new industrial strategy, published this week by the Department for Business and Trade, is shaping where investment flows and is fast becoming an organising framework for skills policy.  
 
Here are five things we’ve learned from this week’s publication.

The industrial strategy is now a major force driving choices in skills policy 

The so-called ‘IS-8’ sectors it identifies are now at the head of the queue for most new skills initiatives, such as the lifelong learning entitlement, foundation apprenticeships and short courses funded by the growth and skills levy.

This focus on key sectors is something we should get used to. The strategy has buy-in from across government, including the Treasury for which it is a helpful mechanism to force spending choices. 

It is deliberately focused on the long term, and this government is both more stable and more ideologically committed to an industrial strategy than the last government to develop one in 2017, so the approach is likely to be in place for the rest of this parliament.

But its sectoral approach is uneven

Looking across the individual sector plans published so far, we see different approaches.  
Advanced manufacturing and defence sectors are to benefit from specific investment and new programmes, building on an existing skills package for construction, whilst others do not.

This shows the government is thinking sectorally: responding to those who can make a compelling case for their skills needs and, crucially, are able to be a partner in meeting them.

For other sectors to benefit from similar attention they will need to develop their own proposals; the workforce strategies due to be developed – starting with one for clean energy – are a crucial opportunity for this.

More growth and skills levy flexibility, but this may be it for now

Plans to allow the levy to fund short courses in IS-8 sectors are the first meaningful example of the flexibility many employers and training providers have been calling for.

The strategy’s reference to these being rolled out in ‘waves’ from next spring suggests it will be phased in over several years, potentially linked to the slow growth in levy receipts over the parliament.

But it is difficult to see where funding for any significant further flexibility will come from in the medium term; the £1.2 billion for skills announced in the spending review will mostly be spent on a rise in 16-19 learners and other pressures, and much of the forecast rise in the apprenticeship budget will go towards reforms already announced. 

Short courses are a welcome change, but confirm the new levy is falling a long way short of the kind of flexibility Labour promised before the election.

Skills England is just one voice in the system

The industrial strategy includes many references to Skills England but these typically refer to convening stakeholders, and informing and implementing policy rather than deciding it. For example, Skills England is tasked with feeding into new workforce strategies for IS-8 sectors but these will be coordinated and published by relevant departments which will be listening to others too. 

Skills England certainly matters. But for all the focus it has received over recent months, it will be just one voice influencing government decisions. Real power over system-wide changes to skills policy continues to lie with the Department for Education and Treasury.

Skills policy is having its moment 

Stepping back, it is striking to see how much more the industrial strategy and various sector plans focus on vocational and technical education than higher education.

There were some warm words for universities, but almost no policy.

This reflects the importance the government attaches to building a stronger and more diverse skills pipeline for the high-growth sectors, but also the political benefits of focusing on skills, given that investment in apprenticeships and other forms of training is far more popular than more money for higher education.   
 

Think tank calls for FE-style franchising crackdown in HE

A new higher education think tank has called on the government to replicate its crackdown on subcontracting in further education to address a “franchising crisis” in universities.

The Post-18 Project, launched in May promising “practical ideas, helpful research and big thoughts” on post-18 education, set out an aggresive package of regulatory reforms it says could be implemented “within months” to stop fraud, protect students and avoid a repeat of the scandals that plagued the FE sector in the 2010s. 

Its report, titled The Cashpoint Campus Comeback, warns that over 200,000 students are estimated to enrol through franchised arrangements by the time the government’s current reforms kick in in 2028.

Over this “leisurely timeline”, over £2 billion “will flow to unregistered providers” and losses worth “hundreds of millions” in loans going to students who don’t complete their courses.

The report authors accuse the Department for Education of “institutional amnesia” and challenges it to immediately adapt reforms introduced in the FE sector for adult education and apprenticeships subcontracting in 2020. Those reforms, including caps on volumes, geographic restrictions and enhanced oversight and transparency requirements, are credited with cutting out poor-quality provision in FE. 

Mark Leach, chair of the Post-18 Project and editor-in-chief of Wonkhe, said: “This is not the DfE’s first fraud rodeo. While the overlap with FE franchising problems is not total, the actions taken by ESFA provide a number of off-the-peg solutions to facets of the current crisis.”

Franchising in higher education allows universities to subcontract the delivery of courses to private providers. But unregistered providers and underdeveloped oversight by universities has led to fraudulent claims on tuition fee and student maintenance loans. 

The DfE unveiled plans to “crack down on rogue operators” in January following a damning investigation by the National Audit Office that found £2.2 million of the £4.1 million in detected student finance fraud in 2022/23 related to franchised provision. Yet, only 6.5 per cent of student loan funded students are on franchised courses.

DfE’s reform package includes mandatory Office for Students (OfS) registration and oversight for providers with franchised volumes over 300 students or more from the 2028-29 academic year. A consultation on its proposals closed in April and DfE is currently analysing responses.

Leach’s report describes the timeline as “inexcusable” and the 300 threshold as “too high”.

“A provider teaching 250 students at a 66 per cent continuation rate still represents 85 failed students annually. FE learned this lesson – even smaller providers can cause significant damage when operating at scale across multiple partnerships,” the report said.

DfE’s proposals are “regulatory negligence” and make “no operational sense” given the scale of the problem. 

Instead, The Post-18 Project demands a freeze on new franchising partnerships for more than 50 students, immediate OfS investigations into existing partnerships with continuation rates of below 70 per cent, emergency intervention powers for cases of suspected fraud and a universal monthly data submission on student recruitment, attendance and early progression indicators. And agencies that are paid commissions to recruit students should be banned. 

University governing bodies should approve and review franchise arrangements against a strict “education rationale” which should replicate the ESFA’s “one hour by car” rule as a measure to limit geographical reach. 

The report states: “The proliferation of London-based providers serving students registered at universities hundreds of miles away makes a mockery of place-based education. Prior approval for distant provision – already operational in FE – would end the fiction that educational oversight can be effectively maintained from Canterbury to Canary Wharf.”

It also recommends franchised provision is capped initially at 25 per cent of a university’s total student numbers, reduced to 15 per cent by 2029, mirroring the 25 per cent cap in place for FE subcontracting. 

The report concludes: “The evidence is overwhelming – franchise abuses in higher education mirror those previously seen in further education. The solutions are proven – ESFA’s reforms successfully addressed identical problems. The only question is whether we will apply these lessons – enhanced by implementation experience – or repeat history.

“The tools exist, the evidence compels, and the solutions await.”

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “Any misuse of student loans is an insult to hard-working students striving for better opportunities as well as taxpayers, and we have already taken action to cut off funding to providers where there are concerns about abuses of public money.

“Our Plan for Change will restore trust in our Higher Education sector. The Public Sector Fraud Authority is coordinating a cross-government response, a series of investigations are already underway, and the Office for Students is clamping down on franchising.

“Where misuse or fraud is found we have powers to claw back payments – and we won’t hesitate to use them.

“We will bring in tough new laws to ensure the OfS can quickly stop bad actors gaming the system once and for all.”

FE inquiry: MPs grill Smith on pay, cuts and careers

Teacher pay rises in FE should “keep up” with schools over the next few years, the skills minister told MPs today.  

In a wide-ranging final session of the education committee’s inquiry into FE and skills this morning, Baroness Jacqui Smith also revealed that the Careers and Enterprise Company (CEC) would be “mapping” schools’ compliance with the Baker clause next year.

Smith said she had listened to the inquiry’s evidence sessions “with interest” and that the government’s “plan for change” missions would be impossible without the contribution of the sector.

Five committee members, including the chair, attended the hearing, all of them were Labour MPs.

Here are six things we learned from the session:

Teacher pay

Smith said she “can’t really see a justification” for the pay difference between college and school teachers, which she admitted is “part of the reason” for high vacancy rates in FE colleges.

The minister said funding confirmed in the recent spending review aimed to ensure that college teacher pay at least “keeps up” with schools.

Unlike in schools, college teachers do not receive a nationally agreed pay rise each year. Instead, individual colleges decide their own pay awards. 

In recent years, the DfE has released extra cash to colleges through the 16-19 funding formula, with advice to spend it on staff pay. 

Several MPs today raised the growing gap between school teachers and college teachers believed to be harming colleges’ ability to recruit and retain staff. 

Smith’s comments hint that the DfE will be continuing to provide extra cash to colleges to go towards pay.

Smith outlined other ways the government hopes to support recruitment, such as retention incentives, professional development and funding premiums for high priority courses, but was pushed again by Hayes on the “fairly basic problem” of pay parity between schools and colleges.

Smith replied: “I didn’t want to sit here and say that we could achieve something in this spending review period that we don’t currently have the funding to be able to do. 

“But what I did want to do was to spell out the considerably increased efforts that we’re making in order to get FE pay, recruitment and retention nearer to where it should be”.

Baker clause compliance

School compliance with the so-called ‘Baker clause’, which requires them to give pupils a set number of “meaningful encounters” with apprenticeship and technical education providers, will be “mapped” for the first time next year. 

Responding to a question about parity of esteem between academic and technical education routes, Smith revealed that the CEC will “map” compliance to reassure ministers that pupils are getting informed about technical training options at school. 

Smith said: “One of things we’re going to do next year is, with the Career and Enterprise Company who are running much of the careers provision, to ask them to map the compliance with that particular requirement so that we can be confident that students are getting the ability to be able to see what the options are for them”.

The legislative requirement for schools to provide at least six “encounters” with further education providers came into force in January 2023. Guidance at the time said schools could be subject to a “ladder of support and intervention” if they didn’t comply. 

Four mayoral combined authorities and the CEC will also pilot a work experience programme that will be part of Labour’s young guarantee election pledge.

Average school compliance with the wider Gatsby benchmarks currently scores 5.8 out of 8, Kinniburgh said.

Adult education cuts

Reduced adult education funding has been focused on providers that can deliver “the biggest bang for the smaller amount of buck that I’m afraid there has to be for adult skills funding” Smith said.

The minister was quizzed by MP Amanda Martin, who said the committee has heard that “cuts to adult education directly threaten the government’s ability to complete and achieve its five missions.”

“What assessment have you made of the impact these cuts will have on the government’s missions?” Martin asked. 

Smith said the government “ideally wouldn’t have made 3 per cent cuts in the adult skills fund” blaming the “financial position that we inherited”.

Mayors were told in February their devolved adult skills funds will be reduced by around 3 per cent for the year 2025-26. Meanwhile non-devolved allocations were subject to a 6 per cent “affordability” reduction, though Smith confirmed “not every provider got the same cut”.

“What we’ve also tried to do is to make sure that we focused the money through the changes that we’ve made to funding rates and other elements of it on those which are likely to deliver the biggest bang for the smaller amount of buck that I’m afraid there has to be for adult skills funding”. 

College VAT impasse

Hayes wanted to know why colleges’ VAT liabilities hadn’t been addressed by the government since colleges were reclassified as public sector organisations in November 2022. 

On a recent visit to City College Norwich, Hayes heard their £1.2 million VAT bill was enough to have raised staff pay by 1.2 per cent. 

“It seems completely unjustifiable that they’re still in this anomalous position where they’re having to pay VAT and are not able to claim it back,” Hayes said.

Smith replied: “I do understand the situation well. I think it’s obvious that, whilst we have discussed it with the Treasury, we haven’t yet come to a conclusion that would be satisfactory for colleges like Norwich”.

SEND transport

Smith was asked if the government could bolster local authorities’ statutory responsibilities so post-16 SEND students could continue to receive transport to college. 

MP Mark Sewards raised the issue at the committee this morning. 

“There’s no legal requirement for local authorities to provide free school transport to students with SEND who are aged between 16 and 19 .

“We’ve heard evidence as a committee that local authorities, as they retreat into their statutory obligations because of funding restrictions, are now choosing to restrict these free transport programmes or even limit their criteria very strictly, so that special educational needs students can’t get into FE. 

“Will you consider extending the statutory duty to provide free transport for special educational needs students so that they can access FE?”

FE Week has reported on numerous cases where local authorities have introduced charges for families pay for transport for post 16 SEND students. 

Local authority transport cost savings have even led to significant safeguarding issues for specialist college students, and delayed the start of the year for some learners. 

Responding to concerns that transport for SEND students is no longer free once they turn 16, Smith said the government has no plans to change the age of legal entitlement.

Answering Sewards, Smith said “we’re not committing to that at this moment”.

The minister added that local authorities do have to publish statements which tell students know what is available to them, and pointed to the 16-19 bursary fund which colleges can spend on transport. 

Disadvantage gap

Smith was also asked what measures the government is taking to support disadvantaged young people who achieve poorer grades than their peers in FE.

She said education secretary Bridget Phillipson has been “very clear” about the disadvantage gap around the lowest performing group, “white, working class boys” and has “committed the department to doing far more work” on the issue.

Extra funding for disadvantaged students is already part of the funding formula, Smith explained, which will increase in the next academic year.

Smith said the government has “committed” to 30,000 foundation apprenticeships which will be “particularly suitable” for young people not in education, employment or training.

The committee’s Liberal Democrat and Conservative members have told FE Week they were unable to attend due to other parliamentary commitments.

Ofsted: Unions consider asking leaders to quit as inspectors

Leaders’ unions will consider the “unprecedented step” of asking their members to quit as Ofsted inspectors unless the watchdog delays roll-out of new inspections and ditches plans for five grades.

In a letter to Sir Martyn Oliver and Bridget Phillipson (read the full letter below), two education unions said the action “underlines the strength of feeling about the proposed reforms”.

Proposed new report cards would see colleges and providers rated one of five grades across up to 20 areas.

‘Unfeasibly narrow window to prepare’

But ASCL and the NAHT said they “do not believe it will be possible” for inspectors to make “many finely balanced judgements during the course of a single inspection in a way that is reliable and consistent”.

They also repeated concerns over the timeframe to implement reforms.

Despite Ofsted delaying publication of its consultation response until September – which will confirm how report cards will work – the watchdog has insisted new inspections will be rolled out in November.

The unions said this leaves leaders with an “unfeasibly narrow window of time in which to prepare for a completely new, and radically different inspection framework”.

“It will significantly add to workload pressures, negatively affect leaders’ and teachers’ wellbeing and mental health, and further undermine trust in the proposed framework,” they added.

‘Unprecedented step’

Unless there are “changes to both the timeframe of implementation and to the five-point grading scale”, the unions will consider “encouraging members to withdraw their service as Ofsted inspectors in the autumn term”.

Many education leaders work part-time as Ofsted inspectors.

The letter adds: “This would be an unprecedented step for ASCL and NAHT and underlines the strength of feeling about the proposed reforms. We very much hope this is not an action we have to take.”

The unions want new report cards delayed until September 2026, and said they would accept a “three-plus” grading model. This would consist of three grades for each evaluation area – ‘causing concern’, ‘attention needed’ and ‘secure’ – with exemplary practice in any area optionally included as a narrative description.

Plans have ‘got worse’

Association of School and College Leaders general secretary Pepe Di’Iasio said despite “voicing concerns repeatedly” the “timetable for implementation has actually got worse rather than better, and there has been no indication so far of likely movement on the five-point grading scale”.

“It feels as though we have exhausted the potential for compromise through discussion, and that we have little option other than to consider this more direct form of action.”

Paul Whiteman, general secretary at school leaders’ union NAHT, added their proposed changes would “create the breathing space needed to ensure these flawed proposals are fundamentally reshaped in collaboration with the profession, as well as preventing a rushed rehash of the plans being dumped upon schools at unacceptably short notice, piling intolerable pressure upon schools and inspectors”.

The Headteachers’ Roundtable group launched a #PauseOfsted campaign in 2020 calling for leaders to step down as inspectors over concerns about the impact of inspections on schools.

This was backed by the National Education Union, but ASCL said at the time it was “not oue role to give unsolicited advice over professional decisions, and because we are not convinced that this action is the best way forward to create a better system”.

Ofsted said at the time the campaign led to few inspectors quitting.

Read the full letter:

Dear Bridget and Martyn,

Yesterday, we wrote jointly with the NASUWT and NEU expressing our collective concern about the decision to press ahead with Ofsted inspections under the new framework in November regardless of the delayed consultation response.

This decision will leave school and college leaders with an unfeasibly narrow window of time in which to prepare for a completely new, and radically different inspection framework.

We were already concerned about the timeframe when Ofsted was due to publish its response this term.

Given that we now won’t have a response until the autumn term, Ofsted and the DfE’s determination to start inspecting later that term is entirely unacceptable. 

It will significantly add to workload pressures, negatively affect leaders’ and teachers’ wellbeing and mental health, and further undermine trust in the proposed framework.

We have also previously set out, on several occasions, our significant concerns about the proposed five-point grading scale. 

We do not believe it will be possible for inspectors to make so many finely balanced judgements during the course of a single inspection in a way that is reliable and consistent.

Telling schools and colleges that ‘secure’ is not good enough and they must strive for ‘strong’ and ‘exemplary’ will add to the considerable workload and pressures they already face and will further impact recruitment and retention.

As we’ve previously discussed, our preferred approach is a binary model based on whether schools and colleges have or have not met statutory standards. However, we have also said we would be comfortable with a ‘three+’ grading model.

This approach would consist of three grades for each evaluation area – ‘causing concern’, ‘attention needed’ and ‘secure’ – with exemplary practice in any area optionally included as a narrative description.

We are writing to you further to our joint letter with NASUWT and NEU to inform you ASCL Council recently determined that unless there are changes to both the timeframe of implementation and to the five-point grading scale, then ASCL will consider encouraging its members to withdraw their service from Ofsted as OIs in the autumn term. 

At its meeting of 20 June the NAHT resolved to do the same.

This would be an unprecedented step for ASCL and NAHT and underlines the strength of feeling about the proposed reforms. 

We very much hope this is not an action we have to take. In the interest of transparency, we have shared these concerns with Dame Christine Gilbert, who we are pleased has been appointed as Chair of Ofsted’s Board from September. We are also sharing this letter with our members.

Questions remain over industrial strategy skills pledge

This week the government has published its long-awaited industrial strategy, setting out its ten year plan to promote business investment growth. Hailed by the Chancellor and Prime Minister as a new economic approach to backing the UK’s strengths, could it also represent the most significant policy shift for the FE sector in a generation?

While those working in FE may not yet have had time to fully digest the 160-page policy paper and accompanying five sector plans (566 pages in total!), the sector already understands that the success of the modern industrial strategy depends on the ability of industry to access skills and talents, and on the ability of individuals to access the training and support to move into the labour market and unlock high quality jobs. As the strategy rightly recognises, skills are critical to UK competitiveness and growth – indeed the word ‘skills’ appears 140 times in the document. Skills improve productivity, stimulate innovation and support tech adoption. Up and down the country, our colleges and training providers are already powering regional growth, supporting social mobility and contributing to our global competitiveness. The announcement of further investment in apprenticeships and technical training should turbocharge these efforts.

At Skills Federation – the voice of employer-led sector skills bodies – we welcome the sector-focused approach to the strategy. It provides an important mechanism for creating tailored and effective solutions to meet employer needs across our high growth sectors. And the additional £275 million investment, including sector packages for digital skills and AI, for engineering and for defence, is a positive step towards strengthening workforce capabilities in key growth sectors.

However, spread over four years – and in the context of a challenging financial context for FE overall – this funding remains relatively modest, and will need to be deployed strategically to deliver maximum impact. We would encourage government to work closely with sector skills bodies to identify priority areas where this investment can most effectively support the UK’s ambitions for sustainable economic growth.

The next few days and weeks will bring further analysis of the industrial strategy and its likely impact. On first reading, three things have stood out to me:

Firstly, while there is clearly a need for a targeted long-term plan to support our highest growth sectors, we must not forget that most businesses sit outside of these sectors and most people work elsewhere in the economy. The forthcoming post-16 skills strategy will need a dual focus on meeting the skills needs of both high-volume sectors in the everyday economy, as well as in high-growth sectors.

Secondly, alongside its sectoral focus, the strategy doubles down on the government’s commitment to place, setting out a key role for mayoral strategic authorities (MSAs) and reinforcing its commitment to further devolution. What is less clear is how the focus on sector and place will be brought together within a coherent national framework. This will be a key challenge for the local growth plans being developed by mayors; one which will benefit from effective collaboration with sector bodies. It will be vital too for colleges and training providers to work closely with MSAs to help shape regional approaches to meeting skills needs.

Thirdly, the commitment for Skills England to work with devolved governments to create a more coherent and accessible skills system across the UK is extremely welcome; we hear far too often that the complexity of the current system is holding too many employers back from engaging and investing in skills development. A critical first step in taking this forward should be to develop a UK-wide approach to competency standards, from which devolved policies and programmes can then be developed.

The centrality of skills to the government’s industrial strategy is to be celebrated. It sets out a critical role and a clear mandate for FE to transform the UK economy and deliver opportunities for its workers. But perhaps what is most clear is that the government’s decision to anchor our economic fortunes in high-growth sectors is likely to shape opportunities available for learners, communities and employers for at least the next decade.

Our role now is to ensure that this industrial strategy moves beyond aspiration to create lasting change. For the sake of our people, our places and our economy, we can’t afford to miss this opportunity.

Banter, firework emails and power ‘grab’ defended by ex-SFA chief in Marples trial

The former boss of the Skills Funding Agency took an “extraordinary interest” in the proposed sale of apprenticeship giant 3aaa – and “grabbed” a power he did not have, the High Court has heard.

Sir Peter Lauener was accused of “making it as hard as possible” for the training provider to advance an application for its government contracts to be taken over by Trilantic Capital Partners (TLP).

It was put to Sir Peter, which he strongly denied, that he “just did not care about the correct legal process” as he defended “banter” emails with colleagues.

Apprenticeships tycoon Peter Marples and his family are suing the Department for Education for “negligence and misfeasance in public office” over the refusal in December 2016, claiming the DfE’s Skills Funding Agency (SFA) “breached their duties” by “exercising a non-existent power to refuse a change of control”.

Witnesses for the claimants completed their evidence in the trial last week. This week, the court is hearing from witnesses from the defence.

Sir Peter, who was SFA chief executive at the time, gave evidence in the High Court on Monday and Tuesday. 

Buyer’s plan posed ‘threat’

He said he felt the business plan proposed by TLP was “unachievable” in light of an imminent change in the apprenticeship levy, due to come into effect from April 2017.

“I thought the business plan that was set out was completely unfeasible, I thought there was more protection in calling that out at this point and saying this gave us grave concerns and we would have to consider terminating the contract”, Sir Peter explained.

Due to TLP’s expectations around growth in non-levy apprenticeship funding, the business plan “was a red flag, posing a credible threat to the future stability of the business, and hence to the performance by 3aaa of its contract, potentially leaving the SFA to pick up the pieces”.

The court previously heard that the idea of seeking “approval” in a training provider sale served as a “shorthand for the process by which notice was given in order to seek an assurance that the SFA did not intend to exercise its right of termination”.

Sir Peter reiterated how this “loose language” was used.

‘Retrospective’ change of control power

Adam Solomon KC, for the claimants, raised that the SFA has never denied a change of control for a training provider before or after the 3aaa refusal. 

He told the court that the agency had even agreed to retrospective applications for change of ownership in two cases after the providers were sold – one for QA Ltd and another for GP Strategies.

Sir Peter said he was not personally involved in those retrospective changes of control and replied: “I would argue that [retrospective applications] was very bad form and something I would not expect to happen”.

Solomon showed the court an email from FE Week’s former editor, Nick Linford, to Sir Peter in September 2016, which informed the SFA of a potential sale of 3aaa. It said: “Just hearing these guys will buy 3aaa. Over £100 million. Guessing you’ll novate their £30 million contract…gutted”.

This was months after KPMG had investigated 3aaa. While KPMG did not find “any evidence of deliberate circumvention of funding rules”, they had raised “quite significant errors in the data, that left a shadow of doubt in my mind”, according to Sir Peter. The SFA clawed back £300,000 from 3aaa following KPMG’s report.

Solomon identified Linford as the person who also triggered the KPMG investigation, claiming he had “animus” for 3aaa. 

Marples’ KC then showed the court an email from Sir Peter which followed a conversation with 3aaa chair Derek Mapp about the potential sale and said: “He [Mapp] absolutely understood that they would need our agreement to going ahead with anything”.

Solomon said: “The truth is that you personally, and the SFA, have repeatedly told 3aaa they require your agreement in advance of the TLP deal”.

He asked: “Am I right that there is no example in which SFA ever said they will not consider retrospective application for change of control?”

Sir Peter said the answer is “no, as far as I’m aware”.

Solomon replied: “At this point, the contract could permit retrospective applications, as had happened with others?”

Sir Peter said: “I wanted that to be put into the contracts.”

Solomon hit back: “Even though you knew full well that your current contract had no such point, to demand no retrospective application and that you wanted this changed for the future, you wanted to grab that power now, that you did not have and apply it to 3aaa. You just did not care about what the correct legal process was, and you were making it as hard as possible.”

Sir Peter said that was “absolutely not” what he was trying to do.

Sir Peter told the court: “I am confident that I was fully aware at the time that the question I needed to address, under the contract, was whether, in my absolute discretion, I considered that the change in ownership would prejudice the provider’s ability to deliver the services. And it was on that basis that I decided to exercise what I had understood the SFA’s rights to be.

“I acted, at my discretion, in order to avert the threat posed by the prospective takeover of a major training provider by an investor who appeared to have unreasonable expectations as to the future performance of the business in which he intended to invest”.

Solomon showed Sir Peter evidence that his deputy director Sharon Forton had originally thought the 3aaa change of control should be accepted in the early days of discussion.

The KC asked Sir Peter whether, other than on this occasion, “had you ever previously countermanded a recommendation from the team dealing with change of control?”

Sir Peter replied: “No I hadn’t, in fact I had seen very few of them, most were entirely routine. I felt this [3aaa’s change of control] raised accounting officer issues because of a recent visit, the KPMG audit and precious value for money exercises”.

Unprecedented involvement

Solomon said Sir Peter had begun taking an “extraordinary interest”, “unprecedented involvement” and had begun “making demands of your colleagues which you had not made on any other change of control application”.

He showed emails where Sir Peter asked: “What do our rules say about this type of transaction.”

Solomon said this was a “curious question to ask” and suggested Sir Peter had “no idea” what the rules said about the transaction, contrary to the evidence he gave.

Sir Peter said he “couldn’t quite understand why” he asked this question at the time but assured the court he fully understood the rules.

Solomon put to him: “I am right, aren’t I, that the detail of your questions and the fact of your involvement was unprecedented for the SFA when dealing with a change of control application?”

Sir Peter said: “It was unprecedented in respect of change of control but the degree of contact I already had with 3aaa was unprecedented compared to any other provider apart from Learndirect. 

“This case raised completely unprecedented issues about the extent to which the future of the business would be impacted by the important changes to the levy. There were lots of unprecedented things.”

Banter

Solomon also pressed Sir Peter on an email from Mike Keoghan, who was the then deputy CEO of the Institute for Apprenticeships, that was first told to the court last week.

The email had the subject “how’s yer [sic] blood pressure?” and informed him of cash worth half a million pounds which Peter Marples and other co-founder Di McEvoy-Robinson each took out of 3aaa, other profit they and the business made, and that 3aaa described itself as “highly cash generative” in the same year the company nearly went into administration which forced Sir Peter into accelerating millions to the company.

Sir Peter replied: “My blood pressure is much higher now. Trilantic have renewed their interest in 3aaa. Not surprising when it is so cash generative.”

“Can you explain to the judge why the information he provided had indeed made your blood pressure higher?” Solomon asked. 

Sir Peter said: “I was responding with a bit of banter. It was probably a mistake to do so. A point I do recall is when I saw that I was associating it with the results of the KPMG audit. We had concerns about financial insolvency after we suspended payments and what this email suggested was cash had been taken out of the business just before we got to that point when we expedited payment.”

Fireworks email and pre-empting lawsuit

After the refusal letter was sent, Sir Peter wrote in a covering email: “Then we stand back and wait for the fireworks […] my private expectation is that Trilantic will ditch 3aaa at this point because they will feel they have been misled by them.”

Solomon said: “You knew full well that you would cause the deal to explode.”

Sir Peter said he “does not see it like that”. He told the court he did expect there would be a “stormy” reaction but he “genuinely left the door open” by saying to TLP he would reconsider change of control if he received an updated business plan that alleviated his non-levy concerns. 

He did think “we would get an adverse reaction from 3aaa”, potentially including a complaint to ministers and “maybe even legal action taken to challenge the decision there and then”.

“I expected it would be controversial so I thought there might be, as I described it ‘fireworks’. It was probably a more emotive term than I should have used but I did expect an adverse reaction,” he added.

Solomon claimed the “truth is that you knew full well that the deal was done. Your letter would cause Trilantic to ditch 3aaa. You wanted to stand back and watch the fireworks because that would give you pleasure”.

Sir Peter refuted this. “That is absolutely not the case. In hindsight it was a bad phrase to use but what I was saying was ‘let’s make sure we’re ready as there may be complaints, there may be legal action’”.

‘I did not resent the existence of private providers’

Solomon put to Sir Peter that he had been heard making “adverse comments about profit levels in the private training provider sector”.

Sir Peter denied having adverse views about profit being made, but added: “If I thought it was excessive, I would generally regard it as a failure of governance.”

Sir Peter told the court: “I have absolutely nothing against profits in the private training provider sector. I have worked for private training provider sector for 30 years. 

“I have for many years been supportive of private training providers. I know great private training providers and I know great colleges. I was a big supporter of the diversity of the whole further education and skills sector, both in the way providers worked and also in the case of learners the whole sector was serving.

“I actually spent more of my career working with private training providers”, Sir Peter said and praised the “flexibility, adaptability and innovation” of those providers.

Sir Peter said he had been awarded a lifetime achievement award by the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, adding: “I don’t think they would have done that if they thought I resented the existence of private training providers”.

The trial continues.