Milton slams lack of ‘joined-up thinking’ that led to college bailouts

A former skills minster has described the “nonsense” of her colleagues setting up schools that competed with the struggling colleges she was then forced to bailout.

Anne Milton has revealed the lack of joined-up policy decisions between ministers during her two-year stint in the Department for Education, which she says has “real problems”.

In an interview with FE Week, she said: “I was two years a minister, and we were able to give out grants and loans to colleges who were struggling financially, often associated with mergers and reconfigurations.

“Meanwhile in the schools department, they might have been approving the opening of a sixth form. So there was competition for students. I understand all the good reasons for a competitive environment, but it was a complete nonsense: we were giving cash to colleges while also increasing the number of providers chasing the same kids.”

Multi-million-pound college bailouts have been rife across the sector in recent years, including one of more than £50 million that went to Hull College.

Milton puts the situation down to a mix of underfunding over the past ten years for the sector and in a minority of cases, poor leadership.

It has got so severe that the DfE has had to introduce a new insolvency regime, which two colleges, Hadlow and West Kent and Ashford, are currently being put through.

Milton said it made no sense to continue handing out huge bailouts to colleges without joined up thinking with the schools side of the DfE, which caused “very expensive competition”.

“I saw that with my own eyes. We were giving with one hand, and making it even more difficult to attract the students with the other.”

The former minister made the comments while speaking to FE Week about the DfE’s plan to bring colleges back under government control – an option that is being explored as part of an upcoming White Paper, as revealed by this newspaper earlier this month.

She urged caution over the idea, believing it would be a “step too forward”, as central government is “clumsy, not agile, and slow to respond”.

Milton added that there are “real problems” specifically within the DfE.

“It’s not necessarily a good idea, public ownership. It’s been ticking around for a long time. It’s expensive. The government doesn’t always run things very well. If you look at some of the innovation that’s gone on very well, a lot of that has not been driven by government.

“I would be very nervous about saying, ‘because some colleges have got into trouble, therefore the government should take them back into ownership’.”

Milton admitted that other than insolvency, there are “very few tools the government has to interfere, and it does need to be able to step in” but “now is not the time” for them to take back ownership of colleges.

Asked for his view on government ownership of colleges, Robert Halfon, another former skills minister and current chair of the education select committee, said: “My instinct is always for autonomy and I have always believed that small is beautiful.

“However, I would want to hear the views of colleges, the Association of Colleges, lecturers and unions before deciding on the best course of action both during and in the aftermath of the coronavirus crisis.”

Free recording: Latest FE policy response and requirements to Covid-19 outbreak

The latest webcast in FE Week’s series – further education sector’s response and requirements to the coronavirus pandemic – was broadcast yesterday.

On the agenda was Shane Mann, managing director of FE Week’s publisher Lsect, in conversation with Association of Employment and Learning Providers boss Mark Dawe and three leaders of private providers – Brenda McLeish from Learning Curve Group, Sean Williams from Corndel, and Dominic Gill from Intequal.

Sandy Henderson then talked through his worth with FETL on leading and listening, before Ben Blackledge from WorldSkills UK presented the latest work on his organisation’s new centre of excellence.

Lastly, FE Week editor Nick Linford gave an overview of the latest Ofqual guidance on grading vocational and technical qualifications this summer, and was joined by Cindy Rampersaud of Pearson, David Phillips of City & Guilds, David Gallagher of NCFE, and Fiona Summer of YMCA Awards and the Federation of Awarding Bodies.

You can watch it back for free by clicking here.

Another webcast will take place next Monday at 14:00-15:30. Register here.

Boris reveals college face-to-face plans must be delayed until 15 June at earliest

The prime minister has unexpectedly announced a two week delay to when colleges can begin their wider reopening of campuses to students.

Speaking during the government’s daily coronavirus briefing today, Boris Johnson said: “We intend from 15 June for secondary schools to provide some contact for year 10 and year 12 students to help them to prepare for their exams next year with up to a quarter of these students in at any point.”

Colleges had been preparing to welcome back first year learners, who are equivalent to year 12s in schools, on all two-year vocational study programmes, GCSEs and A-levels from 1 June, in line with government guidance.

Shortly after today’s briefing, the Department for Education released a statement that confirmed their new “expected” plan is for sixth forms and colleges to provide face-to-face contact for year 12 and equivalent 16 to 19 further education students “from 15 June, with around a quarter of these students in at any point”.

FE Week asked the DfE if this means that colleges strictly cannot begin their wider reopening to these students from 1 June.

A spokesperson said: “We have always been clear that any reopening of colleges would be subject to our updated assessment of the scientific advice, and the overall approach to the phasing of the relaxation of lockdown restrictions.

“Colleges continue to be encouraged to open to support vulnerable learners, including those at risk of becoming NEET and the dependents of key workers. We are now clear that a broader expansion of on-site delivery to 16-19 learners beyond those groups will take place from the 15 June.

“We know that colleges are in any case planning to phase returns, and to blend online delivery with on-site delivery, prioritised towards groups that need it most.

“Colleges should continue their on-site support for vulnerable learners – which include those at risk of becoming NEET – and the dependents of key workers. A broader offer to 16-19 will now take place from 15 June.

“A more cautious approach is being taken for FE, as for secondary students relative to primary. This reflects that these groups are more likely to travel longer distances to college and to use public transport – and once in colleges they will mix more with other groups.”

The department’s statement said that it remains the case that schools and colleges will only reopen to more students children if the government’s “five tests” are met by 28 May.

The five tests are:

    Protect the NHS’s ability to cope. We must be confident that we are able to provide sufficient critical care and specialist treatment right across the UK

    See a sustained and consistent fall in the daily death rates from COVID-19 so we are confident that we have moved beyond the peak

    Reliable data from SAGE showing that the rate of infection is decreasing to manageable levels across the board

    Be confident that the range of operational challenges, including testing capacity and PPE, are in hand, with supply able to meet future demand

    Be confident that any adjustments to the current measures will not risk a second peak of infections that overwhelms the NHS

Education secretary Gavin Williamson said: “Our priority is the education and welfare of all children and young people across the country. That is why we want to start a phased wider opening of nurseries, school and colleges is informed by the best possible scientific and medical advice.

“We will continue to work with the sector to support them to prepare for wider opening and ensure all children and young people can continue to receive the best care, education and training possible.”

Providers are taking the blame for a broken apprenticeships system

The government’s numbers on apprenticeships don’t add up. Worse still, they lead to blaming the wrong people and make necessary reforms less likely, writes John Hyde

For all the finger-pointing at apprenticeship providers about the substantial drop in the ESFA’s Apprenticeship Achievement Rate (AAR), the truth is that it neither gives a true picture of the quality of provision, nor an accurate reflection of apprentices’ achievements.

Some 87 per cent of those who complete their apprenticeships remain in employment with the same employer, over 40 per cent gain promotion, and one-third progress to a higher apprenticeship. If employers were not satisfied with apprentices’ training they wouldn’t continue to employ them, let alone increase their pay. In fact, the ESFA’s own annual survey shows most providers score in the high eighties and nineties for both learner and employer satisfaction. And since the introduction of apprenticeship standards there has no outcry about culinary apprentices poisoning their customers, or construction apprentices causing buildings to collapse.

Over 90 per cent of apprentices who reach gateway succeed in their end-point assessments (EPAs). At HIT Training, it is 97 per cent. If there is a problem then, the reasonable conclusion is that it must lie with the apprentice journey and the data the ESFA collects along that journey to produce AAR.

When Matt Hancock introduced apprenticeship standards and EPA, and when Nick Bowles implemented them, they promised there would be initial pilots and evaluations. These never took place, and many apprentices started towards the new standards without knowing how they would be assessed, or who by. Such major changes to curriculum, assessment and funding – implemented without trials, modelling or pilots – were destined to cause difficulties.

“The statistics can’t possibly offer a true picture”

Worse still, government has always funded FE staff development and training, especially to implement new policies and curriculum, since the 1994 introduction of modern apprenticeships. Yet when it came to these most fundamental changes, the DfE discontinued that funding without consultation or explanation, leaving providers to retrain their staff without support, guidance or financial assistance.

The rationale for introducing employer-led standards and EPA was to improve the quality of apprenticeships. Raising the bar, by default, meant achievement rates would drop, and this doesn’t appear to have even factored in considerations of acceptable minimum completion rates. Reform was always going to take time to embed, and without pilots or guidance, it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that early-adopting providers and “guinea-pig” apprentices have been disadvantaged. With some adopting the new standards while others remain with frameworks, and some using both, the statistics can’t possibly offer a true picture.

The major problem appears to be that over one-third of apprentices are failing to attain the EPA Gateway, but historically around 20 per cent have consistently left during their minimum one-year journey, for a variety of reasons. The question should be why this has doubled since the introduction of the levy.

Current skills minister Gillian Keegan was right when she noted recently that achievement rates decreased when the levy was introduced, but it’s probably not for the reasons she thought. Prior to these changes, enduring government policy was that “the funding follows the learner”. Now, it follows the employer. A subtle change, but it has had many unintended consequences and a host of these are employers’ responsibility. They can’t be blamed on the provider, yet it is the provider that the system penalises. Employers recruit and place employees on apprenticeships. They select, brief and oversee providers. They provide workplace mentors and on-site skills training. And at any time, it is they who can change provider or remove apprentices.

The ESFA’s statistical data should take into account the reasons apprentices are taken off their programmes and recognise that this is a combination of commercial factors driven by employers (largely evidenced by the proportion of apprentices reaching EPA) and the quality of providers’ delivery (largely evidenced by the proportion of learners reaching EPA who complete successfully).

Providers should be judged on the elements that they alone can influence. That would give government confidence in the quality of provision, and allow the ESFA to better understand the actions of employers and amend their policies accordingly. For the training provider to carry responsibility for the entire success rate with so much outside their control is simply unsustainable.

Union blasts college redundancy plans during coronavirus crisis as “unnecessary and unfair”

A large general FE college has announced its seventh round of job cuts in six years.

Blackburn College has put 29 jobs at risk, with 11 posts (6.98 full-time equivalent positions) expected to be cut.

Affected staff members were informed of the redundancy consultation via video chat yesterday, in a move which union officials do not believe is “legitimate” and feel “fails to consider the wellbeing of members at this time of national crisis”.

Principal Dr Fazal Dad said: “We are living through challenging and unprecedented times but we also need to ensure the continued efficiency of college operations.

 “We are confident that as a result of current proposed efficiencies no student or employer in the region will notice a change in the level of service they receive from the college at any time throughout this process.

“We face some very difficult decisions over staffing but these reductions in staffing represent only a very small part of the overall workforce.”

He added that the college will “do all it can” to prevent any compulsory redundancies.

The University and College Union (UCU) said the decision was “another blow” to the college and that the latest round of job losses are part of the seventh redundancy exercise since October 2014.

UCU regional official Martyn Moss said: “We are in unprecedented and difficult times as we all try to deal with the current crisis.

“Sacking staff at a time when there simply is not work available elsewhere is unnecessary and unfair.”

He added the college needs to recognise commitments made by employees in dealing with the coronavirus pandemic and work with the union to protect jobs.

According to the latest college accounts, Blackburn employs 688 full time equivalent staff, of whom 396 are teachers.

The college generated a deficit of £1,215,000 in 2018/19, compared to a £943,000 surplus in 2017/18.

Its 2018/19 financial statements also said it has seen a decrease in its net assets from £18.5m the previous year to £11.8m, which was “mainly a result of increases in the pension liability from £10.5m to £17.9m”.

Blackburn College fell two grades from ‘outstanding’ to ‘requires improvement’ in 2017 after not being inspected for ten years.

It has since received a second grade three from Ofsted in 2018 but, most recently, a monitoring visit at the start of this year found Blackburn College to be making ‘reasonable progress’ in the two assessed areas.

It has approximately 11,000 students.

In a time of uncertainty, here are some predictions for the sector

The skills system has done an amazing job during the corona crisis and will be critical as the UK economy tries to get back on its feet, says David Marsh

Most people will be pretty clear – the biggest challenge has been uncertainty. Everything has changed so much in the past two months that many would struggle to remember everything that we have been through. Government has moved quickly, but it has still led to much uncertainty and confusion for employers, learners and providers. This has made dealing with the situation difficult – not knowing whether employers would place learners on breaks, whether learners could learn on furlough, eligibility for financial support from government, and so on.

How have we reacted?

Our vision at Babington is developing better futures. We have really focused on that vision and the opportunity we saw to make a difference. We knew that the first thing was for us to ensure we remained stable and viable for the future – as otherwise we weren’t going to be able to develop anyone’s future! We have had an absolute focus on three things during this really difficult time.

Firstly, staff: we have been open and transparent. We have discussed the challenges and the solutions with the whole business wherever possible and talked about how we are all in it and will get through it together. We have been as visible as we can be and if anything, have got even closer to the business. We started holding daily “Coffee and Chat” sessions with the business to update them on what we know. In these times the main question people want answered is “Is my job safe?”, and we have done everything we can to reassure. Our aim was to treat everyone as fairly as possible.

Secondly, learners: we have worked hard to keep them informed and communicated with. We believed the best thing was to keep them on programme, motivated and supported and in the main we have been able to do this. Our teams have been able to support learners through much of this difficult time and give support with the many challenges they face, including mental health. We have quickly increased the amount of virtual training that we deliver and this has been received incredibly positively.

“The key things we will keep doing are communicating and being agile”

Thirdly, customers: our diversity in sectors and programmes has really allowed us to be flexible and react to market needs and requirements. We have seen some sectors and programmes more significantly affected than others. Particularly hard hit has been our new-entrant programmes where we saw a reduction of nearly 80 per cent, but there are other areas and sectors that have actually delivered more learners than ever before.

What are employers saying?

Many employers state that they will significantly reduce their new recruits but still want to utilise their apprenticeship levy and hence are looking at the opportunity to develop current employees – especially if they furloughed. Productivity and new skills will become even more important in the near future and employers will be looking for new and different skills to meet the challenges they face. We are looking to focus on these areas and also to look at how we can support the sectors that will likely sustain and grow.

There will also be a lot of people who are unfortunately left unemployed and they will need support and re-skilling to get back on the employment ladder, so we have maintained our employability team and infrastructure even though we have seen very little activity.

What is the outlook for training providers?

It is difficult to predict exactly how things will work out, how the economy will recover and what the outlook for different sectors will be. The key things that we will keep doing are to communicate and be agile.

There are two main challenges coming down the road that will potentially affect the quality, brand and capacity of the apprenticeship system and impact learners. These are both around the effect of the current crisis on the stability of providers in the medium term.

• The reduction in the number of new apprenticeship starts from employers will impact for the next two years when those learners would be on programme.

• The increased amount of time and support that learners will need to achieve their programmes will lead to a very large number going out of funding, meaning providers will not have funding coming in and hence will struggle to keep supporting these learners.

The skills system will be critical to the future of the UK economy – getting people re-skilled and driving productivity. It has done an amazing job during this crisis to support learners both academically and pastorally – this shouldn’t be ignored. Officials will need our support and ideas to create solutions to continue to make the system sustainable and fit for purpose for the future.

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 318

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

Sally Gibbs, Group Director of Strategy and Growth, Seetec Group

Start date: May 2020

Previous job: Head of Business Development, Shaw Trust

Interesting fact: Outside of work you’re most likely to find Sally in a dance studio, she attends several classes a week

Elaine McMahon, Interim Principal, Richmond upon Thames College

Start date: September 2020

Previous job: Interim Chief Executive, Cornwall College Group

Interesting fact: Her first career choice was to work in the theatre. Some of the most memorable plays she has seen have been produced and acted by students in FE colleges

Deborah Bhebhe, Head of Apprenticeships, Mercuri International (UK) Ltd

Start date: April 2020

Previous job: Apprenticeships lead, Birmingham Metropolitan College

Interesting fact: When she was a teenager Deborah wanted to learn another language, so she learnt British sign language

Ofqual publish final plans for exam alternatives this summer

This afternoon, as promised, Ofqual has published final details for their “exceptional arrangements for awarding qualifications this summer”.

Click here to read the announcement and download the accompanying documents.

Sally Collier, Chief Regulator, Ofqual, said: “In the unprecedented circumstances we face this summer, these exceptional arrangements are the fairest way of making sure students have the grades they need in time to progress to further study or employment.

“It is important that students; their parents, carers and teachers; and others who rely on these qualifications, such as universities and employers, have had an opportunity to feed back views. I would like to thank everyone who has taken the time to respond.”

Exam boards seeking more than £16 million from DfE for Covid flexibility costs

A “formal” request for more than £16 million to be “reimbursed”  has been submitted by awarding organisations (AOs) to the Department for Education to pay for extra resources needed to implement an alternative to summer exams, FE Week can reveal.

The Federation of Awarding Bodies (FAB), which represents over 100 AOs, has written to the DfE director of professional and technical education with estimates of the “additional costs associated with implementing two of the Secretary of State’s directions to Ofqual, issued on 31 March (general qualifications) and 9 April (vocational technical qualifications) respectively”.

The letter ,seen by FE Week, is from the FAB chief executive Tom Bewick (pictured above) and argues an “additional resource requirement of £16.3 million averaged across the regulated community is a realistic estimate of what awarding organisations have spent to adapt their qualifications to the demands of the extraordinary regulatory regime (ERF)”.

Ofqual, which regulates AOs, is due to publish the final details of their ERF at 1pm today, which will include final details on how some qualification grades will be estimated.

In the letter, Bewick says the FAB “is formally requesting that the Secretary of State make a grant fund available to the regulated AOs affected by his two directions; and to disperse these funds on an evidenced claimed basis from the Department”.

An accompanying document describes and calculates additional costs for up to 162 active AOs, and says one, that is unnamed, has “reported a £3 million loss in income and £500,000 of additional expenditure as a result of the coronavirus crisis”.

Costs incurred are said by Bewick to be significant “in terms of staff time and technological adaptations”, and will need to include “procurement of external resource”.

The £16.3 million estimate is made up of £1.1 million for up to 57 small AOs, £9.1 million for up to 89 medium sized AOs and £6.1 million for up to 16 larger awarding organisations.

Bewick adds that “FAB understands that the additional spend illustrated in this proposal is significant and that the Department may wish to consider carefully which additional costs are reimbursable”.

The DfE has been approached for comment.