Can the government fix the ‘confusing’ careers landscape?

The skills white paper sets the lofty ambition of a “clear, all-age careers system”. Will a former academic be the man to deliver it? Jess Staufenberg reports

In 2013 Michael Gove had something of an outburst in an education select committee hearing. He’d just axed Connexions, the national careers advice service for young people aged 13 to 19, and retorted in the face of criticism there was “a lot of garbage talked about careers”.

Poor career opportunities for students, the then education secretary thundered, “comes down to our failure to ensure that they are literate, numerate and confident in subjects like science – not that we have had an insufficient number of well-paid careers advisers.”

Wind forward to 2021 and it would be tempting to say the government is now eating those words. In the recent Skills for Jobs white paper, the Department for Education admits “there is no single place you can go to get government-backed, comprehensive careers information”, adding the careers landscape can be “confusing, fragmented and unclear”.

It would seem to suggest the National Careers Service, set up by Gove the year he axed Connexions, might not be working as a single source of support as intended, and that perhaps the DfE’s careers strategy, published after much delay in 2017 as an “ambitious plan”, is struggling too.

It’s all something of a vindication for Robert Halfon, the education select committee chair, who has claimed “careers support is still far too fragmented” with a “confused mish-mash of offerings” and “wasteful spending and duplication” of services.

‘Challenges to alignment’

Now the skills paper sets the lofty ambition of a “clear, all-age careers system”. A sentence outlines the main strategy towards this: “We will improve both local and national alignment between The Careers & Enterprise Company (CEC) and the National Careers Service (NCS)”.

Set up by Nicky Morgan in 2015, and with a new chief executive Oli de Botton at the helm since February, the CEC deploys volunteer “enterprise advisers” (often local employers) and helps “careers hubs” of schools and colleges support each other. On the other hand, the National Careers Service (NCS) works through subcontractors, who target specific cohorts of adults that worry the government – such as the long-term unemployed – while providing only phone and web services to those aged 13 to 19. Matching the two up sounds a daunting task.

 The man appointed to crack it is Professor Sir John Holman, a chemist at the University of York and now an “independent strategic adviser on careers guidance” to Gavin Williamson. Holman himself came up with the eight Gatsby benchmarks for good careers guidance that the Careers & Enterprise Company encourages schools and colleges to meet. But can he do it?

careers
Prof Sir John Holman

 “They’re trying to line up two things that are completely separate and different,” says Jan Ellis, the chief executive of the Career Development Institute, a professional body for careers educators. “The Careers & Enterprise Company is an arms-length company of the government, there to help manage careers guidance. The National Careers Service is completely different, it’s a contracted-out organisation. Managing contractors is expensive, so it’s really difficult to say how you would join these up.”

Her words are echoed by Janet Colledge, a careers education consultant on the Quality in Careers Standards Board. “It’s going to be interesting to see how Holman sees the CEC and NCS working together, because until now the NCS has basically been trying to get people into jobs. It has a very limited remit with young people”.

Holman does give some hints as to what might be in store, expanding on the white paper’s mysterious claim that the DfE has developed “four principles for increasing alignment”. FE Week can reveal these are completing the national rollout of the careers infrastructure; developing an enhanced national careers service website; better collaboration at an area level; and complementary personal guidance for young people.

 His first hint relates to the almost 50 career hubs in the country, which are meant to share best practice and develop local careers strategy. About half of FE colleges (155) and 45 per cent of secondary schools (2,090) are in a careers hub, according to the CEC. “The NCS has area contractors, and the CEC has a growing network of careers hubs, and I’m quite sure we can look at how we can get collaboration happening systematically between those two,” Holman says. It’s not absolutely clear what this means, but it looks like career hub leads in schools and colleges might play a part in linking up with the National Careers Service.

Data should also be shared, he says. “Labour market information, which is all those statistics about different jobs, vacancy rates, opportunities – if we could use that consistently across the two organisations, that would be a big win.” It sounds sensible, but can the DfE easily gather that data from its NCS subcontractors?

When FE Week asked the DfE for the numbers of young people who use the NCS each year, it responded that such information was not published and was not something the department could easily access or provide. More worryingly, the same response was given when asked how much funding the NCS has had since it was formed. Aligning data across both bodies sounds an easier task than finding it in the first place.

If you’re starting off, you really need that one-to-one support

Holman would also like a “single source of government-assured information used consistently across schools and colleges […] so schools, colleges and the NCS are all speaking the same language”. If the NCS website proves highly inspiring to students, that sounds sensible too. Given there’s no available data on whether young people find it useful or not, it might be a good idea to get feedback on its design first. A schools expert has previously called the site “as dull as dishwater”. It has to be said, the civil service-format homepage isn’t exactly engaging.

 But as Halfon says, it’s a start. “This is a step forward and it’s a pretty big nod.” Yet he adds that “we need to radically reform careers advice”. He’s with the experts on that.

‘Lack of personal, professional advice’

Olly Newton, the executive director at the education research charity the Edge Foundation, similarly welcomes the “alignment”, but is clear the current ambition is too limited. “My worry about the connection between the services is making sure it focuses enough on face-to-face guidance. Lots of evidence suggests that telephones, the internet and self-help are OK for adults changing jobs. But if you’re starting off or thinking about a future career, you really need that one-to-one support”.

Here we arrive back at Gove’s original distaste for careers advisers. Deirdre Hughes, a careers policy adviser, points out that although Gatsby benchmark 8 says schools and colleges must make sure every student has “guidance interviews with a qualified careers adviser”, they have to buy this in themselves as qualified careers professionals have not been funded for schools since 2012. One helpful alignment would be for the NCS to offer its qualified advisers to students via schools and colleges, she says. At present “the model is to expect teachers to do more”.

careers
Deirdre Hughes

 It all puts the DfE under pressure to deliver. Worrying statistics are lining up: this week a survey of 10,000 primary school pupils by Education and Employers, a UK-based charity that “connects volunteers from the world of work with schools”, found the career aspirations of seven year-olds were “relatively unchanged” by age 18. UCAS has similarly found that 20 per cent of students said they couldn’t take the course that interested them because they didn’t have the relevant A-levels.

Clare Marchant, the chief executive at UCAS, says “the more we can do, earlier on, the better”, including year 6. Yet primary schools, and special needs schools and colleges, are not mentioned in the white paper.

 All the while, select committees will keep their eagle eyes on the funding spent on the current model: £29 million for CEC last year, up from £19 million the year before (despite Morgan pledging it would be self-funding long term) and undisclosed sums on the NCS. It’s less than the £230 million spent on Connexions, Hughes says, but it’s creeping up – while funded, professional careers advisers in schools and colleges remain nowhere in sight.

 In a last sentence, the skills white paper almost seems to guess a more wholescale approach might be needed. The “alignment” will take place over the next 18 months, it says – “as we work towards a longer-term review of the delivery system”. Will that “insufficient number of well-paid careers advisers” come to matter after all?

Ofqual VTQ consultation – what does this mean for the future of assessment?

Ofqual VTQ consultation – what does this mean for the future of assessment?

Stewart Foster, Chief Operating Officer and Responsible Officer at NCFE

The past 12 months have certainly brought about their fair share of challenges, and from an education point of view, especially as an awarding organisation, the challenge of how to adapt teaching and assessment has been the biggest by far.

Education firmly in the spotlight

Earlier in the year, Oqual launched a consultation on alternative arrangements for assessing and awarding vocational and technical qualifications (VTQs) which received a staggering number of responses. The volume of interest in the consultation drives home the importance of getting the assessment model right, both for this academic year and for years to come. People are realising the economic and societal impact of the pandemic and the huge part that education will play in building back our economy and closing vital skills gaps.

In anticipating the outcomes of the consultation, we knew how incredibly important it was to ensure that we were ready for whichever scenario unfolded. Having the knowledge of how quickly the sector had to adapt last year gave us insight into how both centres and learners needed to be guided through the process. Centres look to us to provide the support and guidance they need to get through times such as these so being ready to implement the changes to assessment models was incredibly important, and communicating those changes and adaptations as clearly as possible to our customers was and is paramount.

Embracing change and collaborative working

The changes which have been brought about by the pandemic have meant that as a sector, we’ve had to work together more than ever. We’ve been working with sector bodies, awarding organisations, centres, employers and government to ensure that our offer is aligned and the validity and robustness of assessment is at the forefront of all decision-making. It’s been a time of unification and collaboration that we should embrace and continue to nurture.

What we now need to look at is how learners progress through not only this year but also the years to come, having missed out on significant milestones and experiences. There will not only be motivational and engagement barriers to learning, but also significant mental health issues that we cannot afford to overlook. As a sector, and as a society, we need to do all we can to support our young people in emerging from what has been an incredibly unsettling and stressful year for so many.

Using technology to transform teaching and assessment

One significant leap forward in the sector is the amount we have had to embrace and embed technology as part of teaching and assessment. The flexibility of things like remote invigilation and online learning have revolutionised how we operate and provided a whole new way of working with learners and teachers. This is something that we need to further develop, keeping assessment aligned with technological advancements to create more streamlined and agile processes. More flexibility with assessment also means more inclusivity, ensuring that learners can undertake their assessments where and when they’re ready.

VTQs are practical for a reason

Assessing VTQs is completely different from assessing traditional academic subjects. In adapting assessment practices, we need to ensure not only that knowledge is assessed, but that capability to undertake the practical skills required for the job/field of work are accurately observed, especially when a learner is preparing for a role where they would handle or be responsible for tasks where safety is at stake. Standards for VTQs are very closely linked to jobs and real-life experience so the assessment also needs to reflect this.

Final thoughts

I think we need to take a long hard look at how we work to shape the system moving forward; it’s clear that we need to appreciate the scale of this and change can’t happen overnight but we have proved that we can make huge strides when we work together. It’s up to us to keep this momentum going.

Ultimately what we want and need for the future of education is a system built on success and progression, and that is fundamentally what we are trying to achieve.

For more information on NCFE’s response to the alternative arrangements for awarding in 2020-21, please visit our Covid response hub.

Ofsted summer inspection plans revealed

Full graded inspections of new providers, and monitoring visits to those rated grades three or four will resume in the summer term, Ofsted has announced.

The watchdog revealed earlier this month that full graded inspections to all education settings would not return until September, but they would bring in a “next step” as part of a phased approach.

Today, it was revealed for FE and skills providers specifically, the inspectorate would resume face-to-face monitoring visits for those rated ‘requires improvement’ or ‘inadequate’ from May 4.

Furthermore, full inspections of providers which have had a new provider monitoring visits will pick up again in the summer term.

It has already been announced new provider monitoring visits would resume from March 15.

All of this activity is being planned to take place face-to-face.

Ofsted has said it will continue to “conduct emergency monitoring visits or full inspections of providers where serious concerns are identified”.

A spokesperson said they are “committed to returning to carrying out face-to-face inspections of FE providers this summer.

“Our inspections have an important role to play: they look at the progress made in establishing high quality new provision, the quality of education and training provided to learners, and provide information to learners, employers, parents, and the government.

“Our feedback and reporting helps providers improve by identifying strengths and weaknesses in provision.”

The watchdog also announced today it will be making “lighter touch” on-site visits to schools in the summer term, to see how students are being educated and kept safe.

These inspections, which came about after “extensive” discussions with government and sector leaders, will not result in a grade.

A press release issued by the watchdog said schools could receive a full graded inspections if, during one of these light-touch visits, their current grade is no longer considered a fair reflection of its work. The full inspection could take immediately or later in the term.

FE Week has confirmed with Ofsted this will not apply for colleges and FE providers.

Inspection methods are also set for limited changes, to take account of the challenges caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.

An updated set of inspection handbooks with the full set of changes will be published after the Easter break, Ofsted has said. And it is working “closely” with education recovery commissioner Sir Kevan Collins on how its work “can support the longer-term education recovery”.

Ofsted had halted all inspection activity at the start of the coronavirus pandemic, but introduced interim visits to providers of all grades in the autumn term, and progress monitoring visits to poorly-graded providers this term – though these were cancelled earlier this month.

We must tackle the worrying trend in digital skills and qualifications

Our latest report reinforces findings that the digital skills gap is gendered and has regional biases, writes Emma Roberts

Essential, and in demand. This is the stark message from employers about the absolute necessity of high-quality digital skills. Yet a worrying trend is emerging. While employer demand for digital skills is set to continue to grow, participation in digital skills training has declined.

The number of young people taking IT subjects at GCSE has fallen by 40 per cent since 2015, with the number taking A-levels, further education courses and apprenticeships all declining.  

We partnered with the Learning and Work Institute and engineering sector support body Enginuity to better understand the supply and demand issues around the digital skills gap, from the point of view of young people and employers.  

Our research report, Disconnected: Exploring the Digital Skills Gap, shows three key findings.  

‘Work to do’

Firstly, there is a mismatch between supply and demand, with 60 per cent of employers interviewed stating that digital skills will become even more important to their business in the next five years.

However, analysis shows that the number of students training in digital skills is on a downward trend and only 18 per cent are very confident that they have the advanced digital skills that employers are looking for.

Secondly, the digital skills gap has a strong regional bias, with career opportunities overly concentrated in London. Yet analysis of our training programmes shows there are hotspots of digital skills being developed in South Wales, Glasgow, Manchester and many other places across the UK.  

Thirdly, and even more worryingly, there is a significant gender gap, with young women reporting they are both less confident and less interested in digital careers compared to young men.  

The findings are even more important when you look at how the UK compares to other countries.

We know from research from consultancy firm EY that when international investors are looking at where to invest, skills are one of the most important factors they consider.

Our international benchmarking also shows that we have some work to do. At the last three international WorldSkills events, the UK ranked ninth across the digital competitions out of 38 countries, with Singapore, China and Russia all ahead of us.

This shows that we need to go further to ensure more young women and men are motivated to take up digital careers and that they can access world-class training.

‘Showcase these in-demand skills’

Now we want to act on the outcomes of this research, and are committed to three key actions.

Our careers advocacy programmes will engage 50,000 young people from all backgrounds, over the next 12 months.

We will also introduce peer role models who use digital skills in their careers, ensuring at least half are female, in our social media campaigns.

Additionally, through a strategic review of our national competitions programme, we will identify how digital skills should be developed ahead of the 2022 competitions cycle.

Calling for digital skills to be embedded in the next global review of WorldSkills standards will help ensure that they are expected alongside exceptional technical and mindset skills.

Lastly, we will continue showcasing the most in-demand digital skills within our competition portfolio, nationally and internationally.

By striving to achieve ever-higher standards in areas such as cyber security, building information modelling and 3D game art, we will aim for a top five place in the global finals of the digital skills competitions in WorldSkills Lyon in 2024.

We also expect significant progress to be made towards that target at WorldSkills Shanghai in 2022.

We want to reverse the downward trend in digital education and training, by working with our partners to show that digital careers are for everyone and driving up standards in digital training.

We want to inspire more young people to take up digital skills courses at college and digital apprenticeships as routes to real success in work and life. This can help young women and men prosper and ensure employers access the high-quality employees they need.

 

Why are numeracy skills in adults still so low?

Despite interventions and investment, maths ‘phobia’ continues to hold learners back, writes Dipa Ganguli

Are you a parent, or do you know any, who dreads having to help with maths homework? In a restaurant, do you hate having to calculate the tip on a bill? Does understanding your mortgage interest payments seem like an insurmountable task?  

If so, you are definitely not alone. 

A few years ago while teaching percentages in my level 2 functional skills maths class, a learner simply got up and left the class.

Naturally concerned, I followed and found her crying outside. 

The learner told me that she worked at a travel agency. Her tears were tears of joy as she realised that, for the first time, she would be able to calculate her commission because she now understood percentages. 

At level 2, which requires the application of two or more steps involving calculation, learners would be expected, for example, to work out “25 minus 2 x 32 or write 3/5 as a decimal”. 

You think most adults would be able to answer such questions.  

However, here in the UK in 2021 government statistics suggest that 17 million adults – 49 per cent of the working-age population of England – have the numeracy level that we expect of primary school children. 

Maths is part of everyday life. Yet the idea that you are either innately good or bad at maths persists in western countries. 

Indeed, it seems to be socially acceptable to be bad at maths. We do not hear adults bragging about being someone who can’t spell or read well, but we do hear people happily assert that maths is “not my thing”. 

‘Change attitudes first’

In response to Lord Moser’s 1999 review into adult basic education, New Labour launched the Skills for Life strategy in 2001 with stretching targets.

It was reasonably successful, with more than 14 million adults supported over a ten-year period to improve their skills. The Skills for Life strategy and subsequent interventions were seeking to address the issue of low-skilled adults. 

Now, the question is why are we not seeing an increase in UK numeracy levels, despite so much intervention and focus?

What lessons can we learn from our experiences to ensure outcomes for future generations are more positive? 

We do not hear adults bragging about being someone who can’t spell or read well

Perhaps an improvement in the numeracy skills of adults can only be brought about if we firstly work to change people’s attitude towards mathematics. We could explore their feelings towards the subject, identifying their phobias and developing strategies to overcome those barriers. 

If we can create a learning-oriented environment – where individual improvements, not grades, become the benchmark of success – instead of the performance-oriented environment we currently have, then maybe we will start to see maths-associated anxiety levels fall. In turn, skill levels could rise. 

People’s introduction to maths and how it is “sold” to them is paramount. In an important study, researchers found that when mothers told their daughters they were not good at maths in school, their daughter’s achievement declined almost immediately.  

There is a notion that parents’ perception of their role in relation to their child’s schooling is influenced by their own experiences of schooling. It is this cycle that needs to be broken.  

‘Use maths in the everyday’

The diverse nature of primary school teaching also needs to be addressed.

It is not uncommon to hear primary teachers admit (off the record) to not liking maths or not putting it in their top three subjects, even though they spend a good portion of their working lives teaching it. Perhaps there is scope for greater involvement of maths specialists.  

We should also think about the role of family learning in supporting intergenerational maths education out of school. 

This could improve students’ understanding of how maths can be used in everyday situations, to improve attitudes and develop appreciation of the value and relevance of maths in a variety of contexts. 

This in turn will create a generation who will be confident in the use of numbers. 

We in FE need to foster positive attitudes towards life-long maths learning, promoting socio-economic resilience and challenging educational disadvantage.

 

Mixed response to restated public sector apprenticeship target

The government’s single-year extension to the public sector apprenticeship target has received mixed reaction from in-scope bodies.

It was announced last Friday that the target of having apprentices make up 2.3 per cent of new public sector employees would be restated from April 1, 2021 to March 31, 2022.

Most sectors of the public workforce have struggled to meet the target in its original timeframe, of April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2021, with an overall average of just 1.7 per cent by the end of March 2020.

The police have performed worst so far, with official Department for Education statistics from earlier this year showing England’s forces managed just 0.7 per cent.

Schools, which only came in-scope for the target in March 2019, performed second-worst with one per cent.

After facing high financial and time costs recruiting and training apprentice teachers, school leaders have reacted strongly to extending the target, set under the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009.

Sara Ford, deputy director of policy for the Association of School and College Leaders, called it an “unwelcome and unnecessary distraction” when schools are “trying to resume in-school education for all pupils after a year of unprecedented disruption” caused by Covid-19.

She said the bureaucracy behind the target, which applies to schools but not FE colleges, “is enough to make one’s head spin”.

“Managing the off-the-job training and support elements mean taking on new apprentices is a tricky proposition for many schools, where time is precious.”

Instead of an “unrealistic and complicated” target, she suggested the government “get the nuts and bolts of a properly resourced and funded apprenticeship programme, which works for all schools and colleges, in place”.

Existing staff being developed through apprenticeship funding could also be counted towards the target, Ford proposed.

NHS welcomes new target 

Despite it achieving just 1.5 per cent over the past three years, extending the target has been welcomed by the NHS, according to Laura Roberts, director of skills development and participation for the service’s training overseers, Health Education England.

This is because their apprentices “make a huge contribution to the delivery of essential services across the NHS in frontline clinical and non-clinical roles”.

The College of Policing, which sets standards for professional development in law enforcement, said it was “very supportive of apprenticeships” and was working on entry routes for new officers to start on the police constable degree apprenticeship.

After local councils achieved just 1.3 per cent towards the target, their representative body the Local Government Association said it “remains committed to supporting councils to provide these opportunities to people in their communities”.

They are also “keen” to work with the government on “how more local flexibilities in using the levy could open up even more opportunities”.

The best-performing sector – the armed forces – was the only one to meet the 2.3 per cent target, managing 7.9 per cent.

Public bodies must still publish progress

The guidance from the DfE which revealed the target extension also confirmed relevant public bodies would be still expected to publish their progress towards the target to the department.

The bodies will also have to publish their progress publicly, to “enable the government, the public and wider stakeholders to understand each body’s headcount and the number of apprentices they employ”.

This information must be “easily accessible to the public, for example, on the internal and external facing website of a public sector body in scope,” the guidance reads, as previous guidance on the target has said.

FE Week uncovered last October how scores of multi-academy trusts, councils and hospital trusts had failed to publicise what percentage of their staff had started an apprenticeship in 2019/20 on their websites by the September deadline.

At the time, the DfE appeared to be letting off mandating bodies to publish their guidance, saying it was simply “good practice” to do so.

Under this new guidance, public bodies have six months after the end of the target period to send their data to the DfE and make it public.

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 348

Your weekly guide to who’s new and who’s leaving.

Judy Ling Wong

Chair, Green Apprenticeships Advisory Panel, Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education

Start date: March 2021

Concurrent job: Honorary president, Black Environment Network

Interesting fact: Vanity Fair recently gave her a ‘Challenger’ award as part of International Women’s Day for her work campaigning for multicultural participation in the climate debate.

Carole Carson

Executive chair, SCL Education Group

Start date: March 2021

Previous job: Chair, Innovative Alliance

Interesting fact: She once took part in hosting TV’s Comic Relief.

Simon Crick

Vice principal for finance and resources, Coventry College

Start date: February 2021

Previous job: Chief financial officer, University of Warwick Medical School

Interesting fact: He has been a volunteer community football club coach and treasurer for 14 years.

 

Treasury to blame for adult education clawback plans

The Treasury has demanded that the Department for Education claw back millions in adult education funding from colleges, FE Week has learned.

College leaders were riled this week when the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) announced it would apply a 90 per cent tolerance threshold for adult education allocations in 2020/21.

Colleges have told FE Week that they now face handing back millions of pounds as they expect to miss that target by some way because of the disruption and lockdowns following Covid-19.

Decision surprised ESFA officials

The ESFA claimed this new threshold, much higher than the 68 per cent set for last year, is a “fair representation of grant funded providers’ average delivery” in 2020/21.

But FE Week understands it was the Treasury that successfully lobbied for the higher threshold by arguing that colleges have had enough time to reorientate provision and run courses online where needed.

FE Week also understands the decision surprised senior ESFA officials. The agency has so far stayed silent on whether colleges will be able to submit business cases if they do not reach the 90 per cent target.

The Treasury declined to comment.

Clawback ‘tremendously disappointing’

Leicester College, which has been in lockdown with the rest of the city since March, forecasts it will only be able to spend 53 per cent of its allocation this year. 

adult education
Leicester College

This would mean having to hand back more than £4 million. It will be “unlikely to be able to make up the remaining allocation in the final term of the year,” a spokesperson says, as many adult learners are “unwilling” to sign-up until the vaccine programme is completed.

While it is “not clear” what the full implications of this year’s clawback would be, it is “clear” there will be consequences for its capital programmes.

Derby College Group has forecast it will only be able to make it to 65 per cent of its £7.1 million allocation – meaning it will be handing back nearly £1.8 million.

“Not only is this announcement later than expected, it is tremendously disappointing,” a spokesperson said.

The group believes the clawback could hurt its ESOL and basic skills programmes, but is unable to detail how as FE Week went to press.

“We would appeal to DfE to reconsider this position in light of the financial impact this will have on our sector,” the spokesperson added.

The Association of Colleges has predicted most of its members will deliver between 75 to 85 per cent of their allocations, which would mean a total clawback of between £22 million and £62 million.

The decision is also troubling councils with AEB allocations, with Leicestershire County Council – which has a £4.1 million allocation – saying the 90 per cent threshold will “certainly be challenging”.

Kent County Council, which has the largest allocation of any council this year with £8.7 million, said it expects to spend the full amount, but it is “difficult to understand why” the threshold has been set at 90 per cent.

London providers receiving 10 per cent adult education uplift

While the DfE has called the 90 per cent a “fair representation” of grant-funded providers’ average delivery, other adult education commissioners have moved to comfort providers.

For instance, the Greater London Authority has applied a 10 per cent “London Factor” funding uplift for its AEB providers, affecting the base rate of all AEB-fundable qualifications up to and including level 2.

The authority also previously announced it would apply a 90 per cent threshold this year.

But even colleges who expect to hit the threshold have complained it is unfair.

Luminate Education Group, formerly Leeds City College, says it can reach the 90 per cent, but that is dependent on whether it can recruit enough learners in the summer term.

The Yorkshire group’s vice-principal for curriculum and adults Ann-Marie Spry says the threshold is “quite a stretch for us and there is no wriggle room”.

She believes an 85 per cent threshold would have been “better” as it would encourage innovation while “recognising the mood among the adult population”.

College group NCG expects to use in excess of 90 per cent of its allocation, but has also seen “some” reduction in enrolment to new provision.

Chris Payne, its deputy chief executive, says that “given the uncertainty around recruitment at the moment, we would have welcomed a lower target”.

The DfE is planning on publishing further details by the end of March.

Atkins exit interview: ‘Do I think we’ve got most of it right? Yes – I do’

In his final interview as FE Commissioner, Richard Atkins speaks candidly about his time in office and why he makes “no apology” for his intervention approach.

Atkins spent 21 years as a college principal before taking on the lead intervention role in 2016, during which time his team visited and publicly reported on dozens of colleges in financial peril, with two becoming the first to be taken through the new insolvency regime.

 

Q: Your college visits, which have often been swiftly followed by the departure of principals and chairs, have divided the sector’s opinion over your no-nonsense approach. While some have welcomed your intervention, others have been critical of the public focus on leadership failures. How do you respond to that criticism?

A: It is good preparation being a principal for 21 years because you can’t be universally popular all the time, so I had some general preparation for needing to have a thick skin. I always try and put the interest of learners and employers and their parents at the forefront whenever there is very difficult work to do.

In an ideal world there wouldn’t be a need for an intervention regime but I haven’t heard from anyone in the sector that in the cases we have intervened that those cases didn’t need to happen.

If we hadn’t put in the appropriate support and challenge, what would have happened to those learners in those colleges? In my view, the quality of teaching and learning would have deteriorated and the sustainability of the college would have got worse.

For those communities and those learners, I make no apology for what we have done. I and my team make mistakes, nobody is infallible, but if you ask me of the 59 intervention assessments, 95 diagnostic assessments and more than 60 mergers during these four years, do I think we’ve got most of it right, most of the time? The answer from my judgment is yes.

At the end of the day, if an institution is failing and the governance and leadership does not have the capacity and capability to ensure its sustainability and improve its quality, then it isn’t fair on the learners that there isn’t intervention.

I believe that where public taxpayer money is spent, there has to be a high level of scrutiny and accountability.

I think our judgment calls are far more often right than wrong. The ones that attract the most interest are the very serious failures of governance and leadership ̶ we haven’t had that very many of those, but where there have been, I have recommended prompt and direct intervention because that is what employers and parents expect and that is what those are funding the sector expect.

 

Q: Where do you stand on the issue of “naming and shaming” colleges in difficulty? Some in the sector believe your detailed FE Commissioner reports on individual colleges should be kept confidential instead of being placed in the public domain. Do you agree or disagree?

A: One of the things I introduced when I took on the role was diagnostic assessments. They’re unpublished and private and I think they can be very effective. That is my favoured approach to every intervention.

However, when a college is seriously failing and there has been a serious failure in governance and leadership and/or they become financially insolvent, I do believe that the level of accountability should lead to some form of report. Not just to be published for the sake of feeding the media, but they are also a useful learning point.

There are over 100 FE Commissioner reports now on the DfE website and I have numerous chair and governors saying to me they have looked at a few and find them very helpful. A number of the issues colleges need to address are the same issues and therefore they do provide a really helpful resource. Therefore, do I think there should be a “let’s keep it all private and push it in a corner” approach? No, I do not. But do I think there should be excessive publication of reports, or any attempt whatsoever to name and shame individual people? I do not.

I find that the colleges most concerned about the issues you raise are the ones that have never had any interaction with the FE Commissioner. I often find the college leaders and governors that have gone through our intervention are complimentary.

I don’t produce reports that are salacious or that are meant to entertain.

Ofsted does a great job, and I think it would be extraordinary if we could publish their reports but not FE Commissioner reports ̶ that would be very strange. Why shouldn’t the local community be able to see whether the governance and leadership has the necessary capacity and capability to improve when they’re having difficulties?”

 

Q: What was your lowest point as commissioner?

A: My lowest moment was at about 10.55am at Hadlow and West Kent and Ashford College on day one when we started to begin to put the jigsaw together that led to their insolvency. That was a very dispiriting moment.

The complex network of governance and leadership arrangements between these two colleges, which were legally independent FE corporations, were incredibly complex and dysfunctional. They had failed to hold any of the right people to account and, as a result, the colleges had failed to keep their eyes close enough to quality across the board, and in particular, had engaged in a range of initiatives and other developments that were inappropriate and led ultimately to their financial collapse. Buying a mining museum, a long way away, and the transfer of assets between the two colleges, were inappropriate.

I was saddened that insolvency needed to happen, but I was incredibly grateful to the interim board and principal, who strengthened the focus on teaching and learning throughout the process.

 

Q: We have reported on numerous colleges selling off campuses to balance the books in recent years, which has often been controversial with the local community and MPs. Many of the sales have been recommended in FE Commissioner reports. From your perspective, why has this become a common theme for colleges?

A: Being on top of your costs as a college is good practice. It is right and proper that any college knows the costs of running each site and campus and what contribution the site makes to overheads. When a college finds that a particular site is a loss maker and is draining the mothership, then difficult decisions have to be taken.

At the end of the day, are you going to close the small, possibly distant, campus to sustain the large college, or are you going to allow the small one to drain you?

I regret that colleges are faced with that decision, but the reason they are is the core funding will not always enable them to sustain the number of campuses they had two or three years ago.

Good, well-run colleges regularly assess the viability of their sites and all of their provision and take the necessary steps to make sure the college is sustainable and successful for the highest number of learners possible.

We have advised a number of colleges on doing this and each situation is very difficult for the local community and MPs, but I believe they have been well handled by the college in an appropriate way.

The only thing that would make a difference would be a further significant improvement in core funding. It is the contribution level that is key, and to do that you have got to have a good average class size, a good number of learners and apprentices that you can run efficiently. When those are not evident in a site it is very difficult, and good governing bodies and management teams make sure of this year-on-year.

Clearly they shouldn’t make hasty judgments, clearly they should judge these things over a period of years and not rush in and vacate. Sometimes they do have to make very difficult decisions in the face of considerable public noise and upset about what is going on, but I’m not going to sit here and say colleges should keep open unviable sites.

I have not been involved in a case where a college is closing a site in a frivolous or short-sighted way, I have seen it based on real evidence and a real desire to protect the current and future learners as far as possible. I don’t underestimate the impact on students and staff. It is a last resort.

 

Q: During your time in post FE Week has reported on a number of ESFA investigations into independent training providers (ITPs). Do you wish you could have also intervened in ITPs, which also receive millions of pounds in public funding? Should they be subject to the same scrutiny as colleges?  

A: I think to have a role similar to the FE Commissioner for ITPs might well be a good idea. With my college background, it would have been inappropriate for me to do it. A conversation was had with me four years ago about that, but we do not have the skillset or capacity to do that work.

It is not a decision for me, but if the ESFA deemed it helpful to have a team of ITP experts doing this sort of work, I would understand.

 

Q: What are you planning to do next? Full retirement or other work, perhaps still in the FE sector?

A: Apart from continuing at Exeter University as a board member and being on the government’s Higher Education Advisory Group, I’m hoping to watch a bit more sport and take a bit more exercise.

I don’t see myself as ever being an interim principal. I was jumping on trains and planes three or four days a week in this role. I don’t want to go back to a four- or five-days-a-week job.