A college which “shocked” the skills minister this week after it blocked FE Week’s website from its internet servers has been reported to the information commissioner’s office for hiding corporate expense claims.

The repeated refusal by Highbury College to release the material, which was requested by this newspaper under the freedom of information act, is “skirting with a possible criminal offence”, according to an FOI expert.

FE Week requested the expense claims for the period covering 2014/15 to 2017/18 from the college 64 working days ago at the time of going to press.

A person who blocks any record with the intention of preventing disclosure of information commits a criminal offence

The FOI law states that responses should take no longer than 20 working days, or 40 working days if the organisation needs to apply the public interest test.

After confirming it had the information, the college told FE Week that it was applying the public interest test because the material may be subject to four qualified exemptions: law enforcement, health and safety, personal data and commercial interests.

The college has not provided a response to FE Week since this communication on November 13, despite numerous requests.

Maurice Frankel, the director of the UK Campaign for Freedom of Information, said the exemptions “sound pretty far-fetched”.

“I can’t think how they could argue that disclosing the expenses claims would lead to a risk to somebody’s health and safety, and even if it would the answer would be to delete the particular line in question,” added.

“I can’t see how the law-enforcement exemption would apply and personal data is not a qualified exemption.

“If they are deliberately delaying the response as a reprisal for stories you have published that they do not like then they are skirting with a possible criminal offence.”

He added: “A person who alters, defaces, blocks, erases, destroys or conceals any record with the intention of preventing disclosure of information that the applicant would be entitled to commits a criminal offence under section 77 of the FOI act.”

FE Week made the request for Highbury’s corporate expense claims after a whistleblower came to us with concerns over the college’s spending.

From a previous FOI, it was revealed that the college’s principal, Stella Mbubaegbu (pictured), used college cash to pay for a first-class return flight from London to Dallas at a cost of £4,132. The college has refused to say whether or not this flight was work-related.

A spokesperson for Highbury said: “We look forward to having a positive conversation with the information commissioner’s office about the vexatious nature of your FOI request.”

The referral to the ICO comes in the same week that Highbury College took the unprecedented move of blocking FE Week’s website from its internal computer servers.

This came days after this newspaper revealed that the college was locked in a £1.4 million legal battle with the Nigerian state.

“That is terrible, absolutely shocking,”said skills minister Anne Milton when she learnt about the college’s action.

An awarding organisation has been left with a bill of over £100,000 from Ofqual – which includes the exams regulator’s highest ever costs for an enforcement action – after dropping its lengthy appeal against a fine.

But Industry Qualifications could have been forced to cough up even more, had Ofqual decided not to waive more than £30,000 of its almost £85,000 legal and investigation costs.

Paul Mills, chair of IQ, declined to comment on the appeal or the money it now has to pay – even though Ofqual blamed the awarding organisation’s approach to the case for its huge charges.

Mr Mills told FE Week that IQ had “taken actions to address Ofqual’s concerns” and was “looking forward to concluding this matter and moving forward in 2019”.

The fine related to IQ’s handling of a high-profile case of alleged qualifications fraud in 2015 involving a private training provider in Essex, which was the subject of a BBC investigation.

Ofqual first announced its intention to impose a £50,000 fine on the awarding organisation in February 2017, at which time IQ told FE Week it would appeal.

In September 2018 Ofqual confirmed its decision to impose this “monetary penalty”, plus costs of £50,000.

An update to this decision notice, published on Monday, revealed that IQ had abandoned its appeal on November 26, shortly before it would have been heard by its tribunal.

The appeal added a further £7,000 on top of the £100,000 Ofqual had previously said it must pay.

This is the sixth time that the exams regulator has issued a fine, but the first in which the awarding organisation will not have to pay all of its costs.

However, in the other five instances Ofqual’s expenses were substantially lower – ranging from £5,842 in a case involving OCR in April 2018 to £11,855 in a case also involving OCR in July last year.

According to Ofqual’s notice of costs recovery, published in September, a “significant proportion” of its costs – which amounted to £84,119 – were “attributable to evaluating representations made by IQ which were voluminous and repetitive in nature”.

“In substantial part, the magnitude of the costs reflects the way in which the awarding organisation chose to make its case,” the notice said.

It would not be “unreasonable” to require IQ to pay the regulator’s full costs – and furthermore the regulator had “not seen any evidence that IQ would be unable” to do so.

But while “combined financial orders of £100,000 would not put at risk IQ’s viability”, it was “possible” that making the body pay the full costs “may put at risk” its “ability to operate as an awarding organisation, by depriving it of investment funds”.

For this reason, “Ofqual has decided to exercise its discretion to require IQ to pay Ofqual’s costs in part only”.

IQ, which offers qualifications in a range of sectors including security, fire safety and business and administration, made an “operating loss for the year to 31 December 2017 of £425,621”, according to its most recent accounts.

This included a “provision of £75,000 for fines from regulators and associated legal costs”.

FE Week reported in May 2015 that IQ revoked 251 level two and three door-supervision and CCTV surveillance qualifications it certificated for learners at Ashley Commerce College in Ilford, after the college was exposed for allegedly allowing students to gain the qualifications illegally.

But Ofqual’s notice of intention to fine, in February 2017, said that IQ had breached its conditions of recognition “in relation to its approval and management of a college, the investigation of suspected malpractice at the college and the actions it took in respect of persons alleged to have been concerned in such malpractice”.

Its monitoring of the college and its investigation into the incident were both branded “defective”, and it was criticised for having failed to “identify the potential for conflicts of interest to arise” or to manage any such conflicts.

The principal of a college group who stepped down with immediate effect last year after concluding he was no longer the “right person” to lead it received a payment of £150,000 when he left.

The “emolument” to John Connolly, who led the RNN Group until his resignation in mid-October, was “in lieu of notice, entitled holiday pay and early access to pension funds,” according to the group’s recently published 2017/18 accounts.

However, the group denied that this amounted to a payoff.

“The RNN Group in reaching amutual agreement to accept John Connolly’s request to step down, fulfilled its contractual obligation in respect of his terms of employment,” a spokesperson said.

The payment represented around a year’s salary for Mr Connolly, who received a pay package worth £161,000 in 2017/18, including pension costs of £19,000, according to the accounts.

The group has yet to recruit a permanent replacement for him, with Jason Austin, the group’s vice principal, currently filling the role on an interim basis.

A spokesperson said at the time that Mr Connolly had “considered for sometime whether he is the right person to take the RNN Group on to the next stage of the group’s journey”.

The decision to step down with immediate effect followed “discussion with the board” and was “by mutual agreement”.

The group was formed through the merger of Rotherham and North Nottinghamshire colleges in 2016, with Dearne Valley College joining in 2017.

As a merged college it doesn’t have an Ofsted grade yet, but the most recent inspection of Rotherham College in 2013 resulted in a ‘good’ rating.

However, an early monitoring visit carried out last February warned it was making ‘insufficient progress’ in managing subcontracted provision effectively.

According to its accounts, the group was assessed as having ‘good’ financial health for 2017/18 by the Education and Skills Funding Agency, and is predicting an improvement to ‘outstanding’ by 2020/21.

It made an operating deficit of almost £2.5 million, which it said was “exacerbated by merger activities and costs”, on an income of £45.5 million.

However its borrowing levels were “low” and its balance sheet was “also a strong financial measure for the group”, according to the accounts.

Mr Connolly led North Nottinghamshire College until the merger in 2016, when he took over leadership of the group.

Over eight college leaders, including Mr Connolly, stepped down with little or no notice in the last few months of 2018.

Ten large academy trusts flouting the Baker clause will soon be issued letters from the skills minister to “remind them of their legal duty”.

The announcement comes just a day after secretary of state Damian Hinds said writing to schools who prevent FE providers from talking to students about technical education wouldn’t be “done lightly” and said the sending of letters was a “rare thing to do”.

Anne Milton, the skills minister, has been warning since August that the government would directly intervene where schools were flouting rules, but it is believed that no intervention has yet taken place.

Despite the announcement she will write to the 10 largest multi-academy trusts who are not complying with the clause to remind them of their duties, the Department for Education said her letters are being classed as a “reminder” rather than an intervention.

The press release accompanying the announcement said the government will “take appropriate action” if there is further evidence of a school failing to provide their students with a full range of information.

Just yesterday, secretary of state Damian Hinds used his appearance before the education select committee to insist he would not be “heavy handed” with schools with regards to the clause.

He told the committee: “Ultimately, if there’s total intransigence – and this isn’t something we wouldn’t do lightly – there’s the option for the minister to write to the school to remind them of their duties to ensure compliance. But the intention of this is not that we’re going to be getting into sending direction letters to schools, that’s not the idea at all.”

Asked by Ben Bradley if the way to ensure compliance was really just a “strongly worded letter”, Mr Hinds said: “In this line of work that is quite a rare thing to do”.

The controversial Baker clause requires schools to publish a policy statement online to show how they ensure education and training providers can access pupils to talk about technical education and apprenticeships.

Schools must also publish details about the careers programmes they offer, how the success of these programmes are measured and when the published information will be reviewed.

However, a report from the Institute for Public Policy Research last week found that two thirds of secondary schools were failing to follow the rules, with providers voicing concerns about a “lack of any real consequences”.

An FE Week investigation in September found that the 10 biggest multi-academy trusts in England had failed to comply fully with the requirements.

The government has launched the ‘Fire it Up’ campaign today, Thursday, to promote the huge variety of apprenticeship options available.

The campaign, which you can read more about here, will include national TV and social media adverts, as well as a new website providing advice, information and access to thousands of apprenticeship opportunities across the country.

A petition to increase college funding will get its day in the sun with a debate in the House of Commons.

On January 21, MPs, led by Daniel Zeichner, will debate the topic after a student petition reached 69,000 signatures.

It reads: “Funding for colleges has been cut by almost 30 per cent from 2009 to 2019.

“A decade of almost continuous cuts and constant reforms have led to a significant reduction in the resources available for teaching and support for sixth formers in schools and colleges; potentially restricted course choice; fewer adults in learning; pressures on staff pay and workload, a growing population that is not able to acquire the skills the UK needs to secure prosperity post-Brexit.

“We call on the Government to urgently increase college funding to sustainable levels, including immediate parity with recent increases to schools funding.”

News of the debate has been welcomed by many across the FE sector this morning.

 

Excellent news – great to hear that fair funding for FE will be discussed in Parliament next week. About time! Well done Brockenhurst students for making it happen. https://t.co/C3jfwrZzua

— Peter Mayhew-Smith (@Pmayhewsmith) January 17, 2019

 

Well done @brockcollege students for making this very important parliamentary FE funding debate happen #LoveOurColleges @AoC_info #UKfechat @AoCDavidH https://t.co/Namkr1oUS2

— Paul McKean (@EdtechMcKean) January 17, 2019

 

The petition was started in October last year by students at Brockenhurst College, in line with the Love Our Colleges campaign.

One of those students, Charlotte Jones, told FE Week: “Our teacher has talked to us previously about the way in which we are funded as students, and we decided as a group we wanted to do something about the inequality.

“All we want is equality, and I think that’s fair to ask.

“If we all had equal funding it would be a fair playing field, and everyone would be on the same level.”

The announcement of a debate follows a formal response by the government on the topic of the petition in November.

The response read: “We are funding priorities in further education including new T-Levels, and looking at the needs of colleges ahead of the Spending Review.

“However, colleges are not in scope for school pay arrangements.

“Therefore, we are considering the needs of FE providers separately.”

To see the petition, visit petition.parliament.uk/petitions/229744

Kensington and Chelsea College is considering a fresh merger attempt as it runs down its reserves created by the controversial sale of a campus after years of being in deficit.

The latest set of accounts for the embattled institution, which received its fifth consecutive grade three report from Ofsted this week, reveal more than £10 million deficit in the past three years, having accumulated “significant” reserves of £34.6 million.

The cash, which is quickly shrinking, was built up mostly by the sale of KCC’s Wornington Road campus, sold to the local council for £25.3 million in 2016 despite local opposition.

A spokesperson said that while it does have healthy reserves, the college has been running operational deficits for several years, “which in the long term are unsustainable”.

In 2015/16, KCC had an operating deficit of £1.2 million; in 2016/17 it was £5.2 million; and in 2017/18 it was £3.9 million.

To tackle its financial difficulties the college attempted to merge with Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College last year.

The proposal was however canned by the FE commissioner Richard Atkins following a backlash from a local campaign group.

But it appears a different merger may now be on the cards.

KCC told FE Week it is considering two options as part of its structure and prospects appraisal with Mr Atkins’ team. One is a merger with Morley College.

The second option is to remain a stand-alone college, a route which is being developed with the help of the Save Wornington College campaign, which opposed the selling of KCC’s Wornington Road campus.

Campaign member Sam Batra said: “The Save Wornington College campaign has been influential in driving the standalone bid for KCC.

“Thanks to community activism there is a committed team in place currently working on the stand-alone vision for this venerable college.

“It’s probably the first time that a campaign group has been so involved in recruiting the right people to steer the course of such a project.

“Grassroots action is vital and nowhere less so than in North Kensington.”

A KCC spokesperson said the college had experienced operating losses and resulting financial pressures for “a number of years” prior to the proposed merger with EHWLC.

“These pressures were behind the sale and lease-back agreement of the Wornington Road campus,” he explained.

“After the merger proposal was provisionally agreed in 2017, EHWLC took over some of KCC’s services.

“The merger was then put on hold two weeks before the proposed completion date in January 2018 and then cancelled shortly afterwards.

“As a result, KCC then had to incur the costs of recruiting a new senior management team and restoring capacity in some key back-office functions.”

He continued: “At the recommendation of the FE commissioner, the college then re-entered the structure and prospects appraisal process which has associated costs.

“KCC also commissioned the Kroll report into the aforementioned campus sale.

“It is therefore the case that KCC’s financial problems were not caused by the failed merger, but some additional costs were incurred as a result.”

The Kroll report was published last October and found the sale of the Wornington Road campus was “plainly wrong” and was not in the interests of the community.

The chair of KCC’s board, Ian Valvona, who replaced Mary Curnock Cook last year, apologised on the college’s behalf for the “shameful” behaviour of the previous management team.

The sale of the Wornington site was led by former principal Mark Brickley in the face of falling income.

In 2012 the college’s income sat at £27.5 million but had fallen to just £9.25 million by 2016.

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea bought the site and outlined proposals to demolish the building and replace it with housing, which became controversial when the fire at nearby Grenfell Tower in June 2017 killed 72 people.

A new government campaign that aims to “shift deeply held views” on apprenticeships has been launched today.

The ‘Fire It Up’ campaign will promote the benefits of apprenticeships to young people, parents and employers through a series of adverts on national TV and social media, featuring real-life apprentices.

A new website will provide advice and guidance, as well as access to a wide variety of apprenticeships options for all ages and backgrounds.

“We are seeing the apprenticeship system in this country come of age, with leading employers waking up to the benefits apprenticeships can bring,” said education secretary Damian Hinds.

“Outdated and snobby attitudes” were are “still putting people off apprenticeships” – meaning they’re “missing out on great jobs and higher salaries.

“It’s vital that we challenge people’s thinking about apprenticeships which is why the government’s new ‘Fire It Up’ campaign will aim to shift deeply held views and drive more people towards an apprenticeship.”

“Young people like me are thinking about their options,” said Alim Jalloh, a former social media apprentice with Channel 4, and one of the stars of the campaign.

University “wasn’t for me” because “I didn’t feel it was preparing me for the job I really wanted”, he added.

“My apprenticeship was an amazing combination of world-class on-the-job learning, hyper relevant qualifications, with a clear potential career ahead of me. All while earning a salary.”

Today’s announcement cited a number of benefits to doing an apprenticeship, including access to “high-quality training” and the “range of exciting career options” on offer – including aerospace engineering, nuclear science, teaching, nursing, digital marketing, fashion and law.

It quoted figures, first published by the Department for Education in December, that showed the amount of time that apprentices are spending in off-the-job training has increased – from an average of 560 in 2016/17, to 700 in 2017/18.

The announcement also highlighted a range of evidence that it said was “proof” that employers and young people were starting to see the benefits of apprenticeships.

These included DfE outcomes data, learner and apprentice surveys, employer evaluations, and reports by the Sutton Trust.

The campaign is also focusing on ensuring that young people are made aware of apprenticeships.

Mr Hinds wants “parents, schools and colleges to make sure apprenticeships are being promoted alongside more traditional academic routes”, it said.

The DfE also said today that skills minister Anne Milton will soon write to 10 large multi academy trusts who are flouting the Baker clause to “remind them of their legal duty”.