FE Commissioner 2019/20 annual report: 6 things we learned

The FE Commissioner’s 2019/20 annual report has been published this morning – the last before Richard Atkins steps down from the role next March.

Here are six things we learned.

 

1. Number of colleges entering formal intervention stayed the same

Thirteen colleges were referred for FE Commissioner intervention during 2019/20 – same number as 2018/19.

Meanwhile, three local authorities also entered formal intervention.

Of the 13 colleges entering last year, 11 received their first assessment visit during 2019/20. The other two colleges were subject to FE Commissioner intervention in previous reporting periods and were “re-referred”.

The majority (eight) of the 11 to receive their first visit entered intervention due to financial triggers.

A further three colleges were subject to a “refreshed intervention during this period” due to having been in “intervention measures for an extended period of time”.

 

2. Colleges in intervention hits 35

As of 31 July 2020, a total of 35 colleges and other institutions, such as local authorities, were subject to FE Commissioner intervention – a 50 per cent increase on the 23 in intervention at the end of 2018/19.

This number included 19 colleges that remained in intervention from 2018/19, three of which were subject to “refreshed intervention”. It also included the 13 colleges and three local authorities that received their first assessment or were re-referred into FE Commissioner intervention in 2019/20.

Five colleges left FE Commissioner intervention last year, two as a result of mergers, two as a result of the lifting of financial health notices and one where the college had “put in place the necessary improvements” and no longer met the criteria for intervention.

 

3. Fifty principals are being supported by national leaders

The commissioner has a team of “national leaders” of further education (NLFEs) who are serving college leaders that have a “strong track record of delivering improvement”.

Atkins also has a team of national leaders of governance (NLGs) who are “experienced college governors and clerks with a strong record of supporting college improvement”. Both NLFEs and NLGs provide “strategic mentoring” to other colleges that need to improve.

As of November 2020, NLFEs and NLGs are currently supporting 50 principals, chief executives and governing bodies. 

During the 2019/2020 academic year, an additional five NLFEs and four NLGs were recruited, taking the total number offering support to colleges to 19 – ten NLFEs and nine NLGs.

 

4. Lockdown ‘support’ given to 54 colleges

Formal commissioner visits to colleges paused as a result of the lockdown in March 2020, which led to Atkins’ team moving to a “new programme of direct support work for colleges, offered remotely”.

This support included reviewing finance forecasts and advice on staff restructuring as a result of the restrictions put in place due to the outbreak of Covid-19. 

In total, 54 colleges “benefited” from this support during the lockdown period. Today’s report says the amount of time offered ranged from one to three days.

 

5. One out of 11 diagnostic assessments led to formal intervention

Diagnostic assessments occur at the request of individual colleges and involve the commissioner’s team looking at improvement plans and deciding whether those plans are fit for purpose or need strengthening. The goal is to prevent major problems from arising.

If the commissioner’s team find areas of concern, the college can be moved to undertake a structure and prospects review, or lead to formal FE Commissioner intervention.

The FE Commissioner’s team conducted 11 diagnostic assessments in 2019/20, of which one led to formal intervention.

“This means that 10 colleges were supported to improve earlier than would have been the case before the introduction of diagnostic assessments, helping to save money and protect learners,” the report reads.

 

6. Five mergers completed last year following structural reviews

During the 2019/20 academic year, seven structural review were started and are due to complete next year, subject to negotiations between the colleges and Department for Education.

Meanwhile, the outcomes of five past structural reviews were “successfully implemented” last year, which resulted in three college mergers and two colleges joining multi-academy trusts.

According to the report, structural reviews are undertaken when a “change to the structure of a college or provision may be needed to maintain financial sustainability and high-quality opportunities for learners”.

Yes, but… no, but… Stop dithering – we need detail on the summer assessments

The Department for Education can’t delay any longer – contingencies and adaptations for next summer’s exams must be published immediately, writes Bill Watkin

We are getting uncomfortably accustomed to a diet of divided opinion, it seems. Brexit, Trump, even wearing masks and lockdown, have all split views and raised the temperature in homes across the country.

And, of course, there are next summer’s examinations. There are passionate advocates of exams and hardened opponents, both sides now battle-scarred by their experiences last summer.

So, should exams take place, or shouldn’t they?

It’s not a straightforward question, and for many, the conversation ends up taking the form of a yes, but… no, but… discussion.

On the one hand, exams are widely acknowledged to be the simplest, apparently most objective, and certainly the most accepted method of terminal assessment.

Yes, but (I argue with myself) exams are unreliable at the best of times! There is evidence to suggest that the grade you were awarded could easily have been one higher or one lower if the wind had been blowing in a different direction.

Even if exams can take place – and they almost certainly will – they would be inherently unfair. Young people won’t have the same learning opportunities this year.

No, but the alternative to exams last summer was something of a disaster. Some centres are still embroiled in legal challenges from disappointed students, there was grade inflation, some students reached aspirational destinations with potentially inadequate preparation.

Yes, but we have learned the lessons: right from the start, Ofqual said we should rely on teachers’ professional judgement. We know now that we mustn’t worry excessively about grade inflation.

No, but employers, universities and colleges need to be clear about what a young person knows and can do! Only an exam can provide that objective benchmark that allows us to feel confident about that.

Yes, but sixth-form colleges and universities can put on foundation years to get young people up to standard. Except that the third year of sixth-form funding is 17.5 per cent lower than an already low rate. And university students will balk at paying £3,000 more in tuition fees.

Yes, but we can still deliver a grading system without exams – we just need to agree some contingencies and adaptations. We can’t afford to rush to a decision.

No, but we are already well into the school year. We could reduce the content to be tested and say in advance which topics might be in the exams. And we could compensate students for lost learning by allowing aids in the exam, such as set texts and formula sheets.

Yes, but this can be counter-productive – the more material there is, the greater the danger of cognitive overload. It won’t help those who need it most.

No, but Ofqual could also use comparable outcomes to ensure that this year’s students would be treated as “generously” as candidates in 2020.

Yes, but that applies to all students and does nothing to level the playing field and compensate those who have had a tougher time of it this year. And some students will be ill or self-isolating in the summer and won’t be able to take all of the exams.

As we can see, the Holy Grail that is “fairness” is proving elusive

No, but if the timetable allows for a time gap between the different papers in each subject, and if there is an extra chance to take the exam later, it is very unlikely that a student would be unavailable for every window.

Yes, but even one young person missing an exam means we need a back-up plan. We can’t just rely on exams.

No, but we can bring back ranking. Not all students, just those who have not done any papers.

Phew. As we can see, the Holy Grail that is “fairness” is proving elusive, and the opinion divide is not surprising.

But now is the time for the Department for Education to decide once and for all what contingencies and adaptations will be introduced this summer.

Teachers and students need to know what they are preparing for and how to prepare for it. We are almost at the end of term one and every lesson counts.

What colleges need to know about clinically extremely vulnerable staff

Colleges need to think about how they will deal with staff who won’t return to work because they’re worried about their safety, writes Helen Dyke

The national lockdown will end on December 2 and be replaced by a new system of tiers. That means that everyone who can work from home is expected to do so across all three tiers.

However, the advice to people who are clinically extremely vulnerable will change, and colleges need to know what this means for any staff who fall into this category.

There are two ways a member of staff is classed as clinically extremely vulnerable. Either they have one or more conditions listed in the government guidance, or have been added to the shielded patients list by a medical professional.

During lockdown they were advised not to go to work if they couldn’t work from home.

But, from 2 December, the shielding programme will pause again for most people and they can return to work.

There are two exceptions to this. Shielding may be reintroduced in the worse affected local areas for a short period. 

Updated guidance suggests that this will apply to some tier 3 areas – but only if the chief medical officer deems this necessary.

Some, particularly vulnerable, people will also receive a new shielding notice.

Anyone who is explicitly told to shield should, therefore, remain at home if they can’t work from home. 

We don’t yet know how many people in this group will be asked to shield. However, if most clinically extremely vulnerable employees are not told to shield, many colleges will have to think about how they will deal with anyone who won’t return because they are worried about their safety.

Until a vaccine is rolled out, many vulnerable members of staff will be extremely nervous about venturing out – particularly if they live in an area where the infection rate is still extremely high, or their college is located somewhere with a particularly high rate. 

Employees are protected if their workplace poses a serious and imminent threat to their health.

Under sections 44 and 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, employees are protected from being subjected to a detriment (such as being suspended or having their pay deducted) or being dismissed for exercising their right to leave their workplace.

To be protected, the employee must have a ‘reasonable belief’ that their workplace poses a serious and imminent threat to them, or to others – including members of the public and their own families.

Anyone who has one of the medical conditions that makes them extremely vulnerable to becoming seriously ill or dying from coronavirus is likely to be able to establish a reasonable belief – particularly if the college they work in has had a number of outbreaks.

Therefore, even if college leaders are convinced that your workplace is safe, you should listen to concerns raised and try and agree a way forward.

If an employee claims they can’t work from home, colleges will need to look into the reasons for this. For example, they may say that working in isolation at home adversely affects their mental health, or that they aren’t properly set up for home working.

If they are working from their sofa on a laptop, colleges will need to ask whether they have a table they can work from (or space for one) and may in some cases need to loan them equipment.

If the issue is mental health, colleges need to look at making reasonable adjustments. For example, colleges may have to consider allowing clinically extremely vulnerable employees to come into work if they are willing to do so, including because of the risk to their mental health.

However, this requires careful consideration. The college must comply with the “Covid secure” guidelines for learning environments. The college should first of all undertake a specific risk assessment for each member of staff to ascertain the risk to their health of performing their usual duties and put in place steps to minimise these.

College leaders should then discuss their findings with the member of staff and consider whether they can take any additional measures, such as moving where they work so they have minimal exposure to other people or students, or amending their working hours.

It’s sensible to make an accurate minute of the meeting and ask the employee to sign this. This means it’s on record that the college has been through the risks with the member of staff and they themselves have expressed their preference to return to work – despite the very clear message from the government that they should remain at home.

It’s sensible to make an accurate minute of the meeting and ask the employee to sign this

If a member of staff cannot perform their role from home, the college may also be able to furlough them. Just remember ̶ they must have been on the payroll on or before October 30, 2020.

However, there are important restrictions around organisations with public funding. The guidance says: “If you have staff costs that are publicly funded (even if you’re not in the public sector), you should use that money to continue paying your staff, and not furlough your staff.

“Organisations can use the scheme if they are not fully funded by public grants and they should contact their sponsor department or respective administration for further guidance.”

Take advice if you’re not sure whether your college qualifies for the furlough grant.

Staff may also be eligible for statutory sick pay, employment support allowance or universal credit.

If employees are in roles that cannot be done from home and they refuse to be furloughed, they may be entitled to remain at home on full pay. Again, take legal advice if you’re not sure.

Another key point to remember is that many clinically extremely vulnerable employees with underlying conditions are likely to meet the definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010.

Colleges must not treat these employees less favourably and should make reasonable adjustments, which could include transferring them to another role in a lower-risk area.

Good communication with staff is key. Ultimately, colleges must speak to staff individually and agree specific arrangements.

Here are two top tips for MPs looking into prison education

Changing legislation so prisoners can do apprenticeships would be transformative, writes Sally Alexander

While there has been a lot of media focus on school pupils missing learning because of the coronavirus, there has been less attention on further education learners missing out – and particularly, learners behind bars in prison.

That’s why, as a provider with 30 years’ experience delivering prison education, I was particularly interested to hear the influential House of Commons education select committee is launching an inquiry into the challenges facing prison education.

The announcement last week by Robert Halfon MP, the committee’s chair, acknowledges that teaching provision has been “significantly impacted for those in custody” because of the pandemic.

It certainly has. Our team has been working around the clock preparing paper-based packages of learning which prisoners can then complete, to continue developing their skills for when we all return to normal.

While this ensures that learners are able to continue to access their learning, we know that nothing can substitute for face-to-face learning, which is designed to replicate an FE college. This is particularly important since learners currently spend so much time in their cells.

In March we were able to flip students on Milton Keynes’ College campus into virtual learners overnight. However, prison IT infrastructure meant this just wasn’t possible.

So first of all we would like to call on MPs to consider how we can better extend education services into cells, so learners can continue learning outside the classroom.

If an iPad- or Chromebook-style device is available in cells for a greater number of prisoners, they can access courses, modules, homework, a research portal and more, and be much better prepared for release.

This would improve their skills for the digital world, which is good news for rehabilitation. According to a joint report by the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Education, prisoners involved in any sort of education have a significantly lower reoffending rate on release compared with their peers.

We don’t know how long this pandemic will continue and it is important that we make positive innovations now. It’s a win-win for everyone – learners and society.

In a possibly even more exciting area, we would encourage MPs to look closely at the current restrictions on prisoners doing apprenticeships with employers. This could be potentially ground-breaking.

At the moment, the existing legislation doesn’t allow us to offer apprenticeships to learners in prison because they are unable to have a contract of employment.

If parliament changed that legislation, prisons would be able to explore commissioning the Prison Education Providers, such as Milton Keynes College, to develop apprenticeship pathways. This would link prisoners up with employers and set them on a path to employment on release.

We know how transformative apprenticeships can be. A change in legislation would be a great first step towards convincing employers to take on former offenders, with companies like The Timpson Group already showing what can be achieved.

Meanwhile, having digital devices in cells would allow them to do the off-the-job training element of the apprenticeship smoothly too. That’s why it’s important these two changes are considered hand-in-hand.

Encouragingly, it looks like Robert Halfon MP and his team are already thinking about this. The committee’s announcement asks whether “apprenticeships could form an integral part of the rehabilitation process, acting as a bridge from prison to working life on the outside, while simultaneously helping the country address its skills gaps”.

Yes, they could. We would be delighted to see this introduced.

My final plea to MPs would be to talk to us. For instance, the committee raises other important questions, including whether special educational needs and disabilities are being properly met.

Actually, I think prisons have developed innovative solutions already in this area that could be shared more widely with the FE community.

Meanwhile, if MPs can begin with those two areas – apprenticeships for prisoners and access to a digital device inside cells – they will have made an encouraging start.

College adult education budget under delivery revealed

One in five colleges will be allowed to keep close to one-third of their allocated adult education budget despite failing to deliver any courses for the funding last year, FE Week can reveal.

Figures shared by the Education and Skills Funding Agency show that 33 colleges missed a generous 68 per cent funding performance threshold, introduced in response to the impact of Covid.

Of the 33 colleges, 27 face a maximum clawback valued at the gap between their actual delivery and the 68 per cent threshold. For example, if a college’s performance was 60 per cent then the agency will consider recovering only eight per cent of the allocation.

The remaining six colleges have submitted a business case in the hope of being allowed to further reduce or simply cancel any clawback.

All colleges that reached 68 per cent of the allocation have retained 100 per cent of their 2019/20 adult education budget funding allocation.

ESFA chief executive Eileen Milner said during a Public Accounts Committee hearing on Thursday that no clawback had yet been taken and that they are offering the opportunity for colleges to submit a business case to show why funding shouldn’t be repaid – insisting they are not simply “seizing” the money.

While the agency would not name the six, Shaun Bailey, the MP for West Bromwich West who sits on the PAC committee, revealed during Thursday’s hearing that Sandwell College is concerned about the possibility of AEB clawback.

Milner said she was in “very close contact” with Sandwell’s principal, Graham Pennington, about the issue. She added that the college does “absolutely excellent work to support students, particularly the most disadvantaged and have done so throughout the pandemic” and she wants to “celebrate what they are doing at the most difficult of times”.

After the hearing, Pennington would not be drawn on how much funding clawback Sandwell College currently faces but told FE Week that colleges “need all the funding they have available in order to support their students in these difficult times”.

The ESFA first told the sector in March that they would not force repayment of AEB funds this year owing to Covid-19. But officials changed their mind in July and announced that colleges would retain their full 2019/20 allocation only if they delivered 80 per cent of activity in the whole year.

Following a sector backlash, the ESFA withdrew these plans one week later. But then, in September, the agency backtracked again and said it would “consider reconciling any under delivery up to 68 per cent” unless the provider can justify why they shouldn’t by submitting a business case.

Speaking at a PAC hearing, Milner revealed that when the agency proposed to not take clawback they had “quite a lot of correspondence from colleges who felt it was unfair and a disincentive in fact to not take money back for underperformance”.

“We are walking a tight line between understanding the particular circumstances and at the same time being able to fulfil that reasonable test of spending public money,” she said.

Milner told the committee that the agency is currently looking “carefully” at a “very small number of colleges” that have so far flagged they want to put a business case in to keep their full allocation despite underperformance, and it is “only then that we will consider taking money back”.

She added that the agency is doing this through “conversation and opportunity, not by bureaucratic approach to seizing money from people”.

Data published on Thursday by the ESFA showed that the number of enrolments on to adult education courses in the months following lockdown dropped by half compared to the same period last year.

There were 208,790 starts on adult programmes between March 23 and July 31, 2020 compared to 420,910 in that period in 2018/19.

Poor performing new provider hoping for apprenticeships lifeline

A new apprenticeship provider blames the impact of Covid for a second poor Ofsted report and is hoping to be given a rare lifeline by the government.

Doncaster Conferences, Catering and Events Limited (DCCE) could be kicked off the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers (RoATP) after the inspectorate found it had made ‘insufficient progress’ in consecutive monitoring visits between February and October 2020.

But the provider contests that the restrictions placed on the hospitality industry due to the coronavirus pandemic “hampered” its ability to deliver the progress required.

When asked whether DCCE would be removed, the ESFA equivocated by saying that, while it “will always take action to protect apprentices if a training provider is not fit for purpose”, they were “currently assessing Ofsted’s findings” and would contact the provider to set out what actions they will take “in due course”.

In DCCE’s latest report, published on Monday, inspectors pulled the provider up on how: “Almost all the apprentices that remain on their programme are beyond their planned end date and are making slow progress towards achieving their apprenticeship.”

The report says DCCE had 20 apprentices at the time of writing, all of whom were employed by the charity that owns the provider, Doncaster Culture & Leisure Trust, which runs several leisure facilities in the town.

At the time of the visit, ten apprentices were studying a customer service practitioner programme at level 2, six were studying a level 3 leisure duty manager or team leader/supervisor programme, and four were on a level 5 operations/departmental manager apprenticeship.

A “great majority” of them, the report reads, “have not acquired substantial new skills or knowledge since the previous monitoring visit”.

Furthermore, DCCE’s staff had not ensured apprentices receive their entitlement to off-the-job training, so the provider’s delivery “still does not meet the principles of an apprenticeship”.

Apprentices who were beyond the end date for their apprenticeship are “yet to be provided with any work” to prepare them for their assessments in English and maths, the report continues.

The apprentices were put on furlough following the UK’s first lockdown in March, and inspectors found once they returned, tutors had been “too slow” to make contact with them, limiting the progress the apprentices have made.

DCCE has protested that when the apprentices returned to work in July or August, their position had changed “significantly” due to the changes put upon the leisure and hospitality industry because of Covid-19.

A spokesperson told FE Week: “It is fair to say the lockdown period and then the restrictions placed on our industry have undoubtedly hampered our ability to deliver the progress required at this point.”

DCCE has since moved to improve its apprenticeship programme, saying it has already completed a structural review of teaching, and recruited a trustee with school governor experience.

There was also a further review to ensure its programme is “fit for purpose”. 

Providers who receive ‘insufficient progress’ ratings at two consecutive monitoring visits are “normally” pulled from the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers, according to ESFA rules.

This means that, although the provider can continue to deliver to its existing apprentices, it cannot start any new apprentices and must wait at least 18 months from the date of the monitoring visit report that judged them to have made ‘insufficient progress’ before reapplying to the register.

Revealed: The FE winners honoured in the 2020 Pearson Teaching Awards

A college leader has scooped a prestigious lifetime achievement award at the Pearson Teaching Awards for his transformational work.

The “inspirational” teachers and school and college staff to win the awards have been revealed throughout this week on the BBC’s The One Show.

Now in its 22nd year, the awards celebrate the best teaching across the UK and thousands of nominations were received for the gold award winners in what has been a challenging year for the sector. 

Ten schools and school teachers have also been awarded, as covered by our sister paper FE Week.

Here are this year’s winners…

 

Lifetime achievement award

Dr Paul Phillips CBE – Weston College, Weston-super-Mare

Paul is described as having “transformed” Weston College into “one of the finest schools in the country”.  He was appointed as principal in 2001 and in 2017 he was recognised as one of the National Leaders of Further Education.

Aside from his own students, he leads prisoner education in 19 prisons across the country involving 11,000 learners and has built positive mental health partnerships with the Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire NHS Trusts.

 

FE lecturer of the year

Phil Brookes – Dudley College of Technology

Phil is described as having spent his career achieving some of the best results in the country with some of its most deprived students.

Aside from the academic, he has arranged placements in Berlin, Spain, Italy and India for his students, has set up live magazine photoshoots so his students can work with renowned industry professionals, and leads on the regional ‘Living Memory’ project to promote Black Country art and history.

His work has been exhibited at the New Art Gallery in Walsall, as well as published in his own book 60 Degrees North.

 

 

FE team of the year

ETC Prince’s Trust – Stockton Riverside College, Teeside

The team was nominated for their “exemplary” work helping young people, many of whom were facing significant challenges in their personal lives.

They also work with a number of military veterans, turning around their lives helping them find a new purpose through their outstanding partnerships with employers and training organisations.

 

 

Digital innovator of the year

Stefanie Campbell – South Eastern Regional College, Northern Ireland

Stefanie is recognised as a “force of nature” at her school for her drive to use technology to enhance learning at all levels.

She has created 1 minute CPD sessions for all staff to learn new skills and better teachers, and has a constant supply of digital innovations to support her colleagues.

This groundwork was essential when the college moved to online teaching in March due to Covid-19, with no delays in learning, and some departments even reporting better engagement online than they had previously had in person.

DfE offer further help to cash-strapped colleges this term

New funding to help colleges with a poor cash position to cover the costs of staff absences incurred between November and the Christmas holidays has been announced.

The Department for Education said the ‘Covid workforce fund’, announced this afternoon, will be backdated to 1 November, and colleges’ eligibility will be based on their cash position in their November financial statement.

“It is designed for schools and colleges facing significant funding pressure, and will cover the costs of high levels of staff absences over a minimum threshold, to help ensure schools and colleges can remain open,” the department said.

However, it has not said how much funding will be available.

Education secretary Gavin Williamson said: “Keeping schools and colleges open is a national priority, which is why I am launching the Covid workforce fund, to support schools and colleges facing significant budget pressures and staff absences.”

Colleges must be experiencing a short-term teacher absence rate at or above 20 per cent, as well as or instead of a lower long-term teacher absence rate at or above 10 per cent.

Costs, which include bringing in supply teachers and paying additional hours for part-time teaching staff, can only be claimed when incurred above this rate.

The department has said claims for support staff absences will be “on an exceptional only basis”, where they are necessary to keep colleges open.

Detailed guidance will be published “shortly,” the department added. 

Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said that while the additional funding is “welcome” it comes with “many caveats and will not fully address the severe financial pressure on schools and colleges caused by the Covid pandemic”.

“It provides only for staffing cover in the current half term, and does not take account of the fact that schools and colleges have been plugging staffing gaps since reopening in September,” he added.

“Neither does it address the enormous costs involving in implementing and managing Covid safety measures.”

The extra funding for colleges in a poor cash position comes after the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s top officials revealed to the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee yesterday they had identified 64 colleges at risk of running out of cash.

The agency predicts £70 million will be spent this year on emergency funding for colleges, which is above their previous predictions.

The DfE has told colleges today if they need additional support on top of the funding and advice already available, they should contact their ESFA territorial teams

ESFA director wants ‘more power’ as college ownership battle rages

Top civil servants have inadvertently exposed a rift at the top of the Department for Education over the future of college independence, ahead of a delayed FE white paper.

In a Public Accounts Committee meeting on Thursday the Education and Skills Funding Agency director, Matthew Atkinson, told MPs he would “definitely like more power” to intervene in the running of colleges.

He had already told the influential committee the Hadlow College and West Kent and Ashford College insolvencies would probably cost the taxpayer over £60 million – and £6 million had already gone towards paying administrators their hourly fees.

Meanwhile 64 colleges are at risk of running out of cash, said Atkinson, who also revealed the government would spend around £70 million on emergency funding for colleges this year, “more than we thought” would be needed.

However, he was quickly forced to backtrack on his call for more powers after his more senior fellow panellist Susan Acland-Hood, permanent secretary of the Department for Education, disagreed with him.

Susan Acland-Hood

Quipping that she “appreciated Matt’s desire for ultimate power”, Acland-Hood urged caution in “increasing DfE powers to intervene and act, as opposed to trying to support good-quality college capacity, and build it up”.

“I’m not sure I would frame it in terms of the independence of the sector being a barrier to its health and sustainability.

“I think it’s really important, given the amount of public money going in, where there are real difficulties and failures, we can both support and intervene.”

She said the “most powerful thing” the government had done was supporting “really good” college leaders to take on and bring forward improvements in colleges. 

“My starting point wouldn’t be that we should focus on continually adding powers as the solution to all of these challenges.”

Atkinson then attempted to downplay his own comments as “slightly flippant,” saying: “It is not actually necessary to have more powers. 

“It is helpful to have the insolvency regime as an absolute fall back because it tends to make people behave a bit better.”

Yet their exchange has inadvertently lifted the lid on a tug of war going on between the department and its agency about whether colleges should be stripped of some of their independence. 

Speaking to FE Week after the hearing, committee member Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, the Conservative MP for The Cotswolds, said it was a revealing exchange as: “It exposed the fact the government obviously don’t think the system is working properly.

“I mean, he wouldn’t have said that unless he felt he needed more powers.” 

FE Week was first to report in May that the DfE was working on a plan to bring colleges back under public ownership, as part of the FE white paper.

The third civil servant giving evidence to the PAC was the chief executive of the ESFA, Eileen Milner, who under repeated questioning appeared to confirm a likely delay to the publication of the white paper, which she now hoped would be published before April 2021.

The FE Commissioner’s annual report for 2018-19, released last February, detailed how the number of colleges entering formal intervention had risen by two-thirds on the previous year, mostly as a result of leaders’ and governors’ “weak decision-making”.

Two influential reports from former local government boss Dame Mary Ney and the National Audit Office censured the government for how it intervened with struggling colleges.

Ney’s report, commissioned by the DfE, and released in July, said a “lack of a sector-wide strategy” and cuts to the ESFA’s staffing and resources had created a relationship between government and colleges that is “largely contractual” and “focused on financial failure, which inhibits colleges being transparent with government”.

She recommended ESFA staff become “active participants in nurturing college development” and called for a “long-term consideration” of a “new regulatory regime”.

The NAO report from September, which revealed the government was intervening in 48 per cent of colleges as of last February, recommended an evaluation and improvement of the effectiveness of the DfE’s intervention regime.

The FE sector has attempted to pre-empt a grab by the government on its independence, with the Association of Colleges-backed Independent Commission on the College of the Future proposing earlier this month that colleges ought to create their own networks which would have powers over the funding and accountability of individual colleges. 

The association’s chief executive, David Hughes, said colleges were keen on the proposal and the commission had reached “a consensus with employers, government, students and colleges about the system needed to get the most out of colleges over the coming years”.