Profile: Emma Hardy

Jess Staufenberg meets the shadow minister for further education – once a teacher – whose father and grandfather were both sacked for unionising

When shadow minister for further education Emma Hardy was in sixth form college she was told by her formidable history teacher, Mrs Mauer, “You’re a radical Emma, and people are going to read about you in the future.”

The young Hardy was making the case for a nationalised health service to the class. “I didn’t win. But I did convert the most people. We won the argument!” she adds with a guffaw, playfully referencing the Labour leadership’s stoic response to its catastrophic defeat in the December general election. Mrs Mauer’s words stuck with Hardy. “No pressure, then, I thought.”

At parents’ evenings, the young Hardy steered her mum and dad between teachers who “loved her” and those for whom she was “too opinionated”. These days, during a turbulent time for her party, the 40-year-old has to navigate a similarly careful course without alienating anyone too much. While weighing her words so as to not come across as too partisan, the former primary school teacher lets her stories and feelings tumble out with surprising openness.

“I would describe myself as Team Labour”

It’s a habit that has most likely endeared her to shadow education secretary, Angela Rayner, and which landed her the further and higher education brief on January 7. Hardy calls her approach “Team Labour.”

“I don’t get involved in all of that,” she says when I ask how she has survived party factionalism and powerful voices in Momentum. We’re having a cup of tea at her office in 1 Parliament Street, and Hardy is sitting attentively opposite me, her phone on the table with a picture of one of her two daughters under the screen cover. Hardy voted for Andy Burnham in the leadership election won by Jeremy Corbyn, and is now supporting Keir Starmer for the leadership (rather than the more Corbynite Rebecca Long-Bailey) and Rayner for deputy.

“I would describe myself as Team Labour. But I’ve also always said whoever is democratically elected as leader is leader.” Hardy rejects the idea that most Labour MPs belong in one camp or another. “If you actually sat down and tried to say who was definitely pro- or anti-Corbyn, you’d only be able to identify a few. Most people just get on with it.”

While regarded as a young radical among her classmates, Hardy says the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) sees her as “predictable”, a fact which has served her well. “The way I see it, the Labour Party is bigger than all of us. When Jeremy is gone and I’ve gone and Keir is gone, it will still be here. If you believe that, then the factionalism doesn’t matter.”

At home in Newbold aged 6

Hardy’s appeal to overarching values rather than internal politics may have its roots in her childhood. She was surrounded by influential people who gave her principles to believe in, but who never demanded loyalty to a particular party. Instead, she has been taught through stories. “My granddad used to tell us how he’d have to line up for work each day. Because he was nearly six feet tall, he’d often get work, but other people didn’t.”

Among the places he worked was Tetley’s tea, though after he told the company’s joint-founder Joseph Tetley that he was going to set up a union not for long. “He lost his job,” says Hardy, dark eyebrows raised.

Her own father worked for WH Smith, though he was sacked after being the only employee to carry out a scheduled strike. “Dad always told me, if you’re going to go on strike, make sure you’re not the only one who does it!” Hardy laughs.

Her father then enrolled at a further education college and went on to train as a teacher, eventually becoming headteacher at Hardy’s own school.

“That’s probably why I also ended up being a bit left-wing. On Friday afternoons, he used to take all of the school for singing, and we did Bob Dylan, The Beatles and protest songs.”

But Hardy’s biggest smile is reserved for her 92-year-old nanny. “She was a single mother with five children in a council house. She used to tell me about families moving in with no furniture, and say ‘they’re forgetting their roots’. She was always passionate about not forgetting where you came from.”

Her nanny is her firm supporter. “She’s got a picture of me in the house and if anyone comes around, she says ‘that’s who I support’!”

Hardy’s laugh is infectious, and I hoot as she goes on to describe her nan as “old-school trolling” less convinced family members. “She cuts out articles from the Mirror and sends them saying ‘have you seen what your lot have done now?’”

At home aged 11

Hardy describes her 13-year-old self feeling “quite sick” at the 1992 Conservative win, and by the age of 17 she was a Labour member – though still too young to vote in the 1997 election in which Labour won a landslide.

Meanwhile, she was doing her A-levels. After switching subjects halfway through, it took her three years rather than two to get them, and she almost didn’t make it to Liverpool University. Once there, she didn’t get involved in student politics, and the same held true at Leeds University, where she studied for her PGCE. It was only as a primary school teacher that she joined the NUT, which she deeply praises for “encouraging and developing” her.

Soon her stance on testing put her at odds with the school leadership, and she left to join the NUT as an organiser. Later she was in touch with the then MP for Hull West and Hessle, Alan Johnson. A few years later, Johnson made the surprise announcement he would not be standing in the 2017 election, and Hardy decided to go for the candidacy. Her interview was at Labour HQ at Southside in London.

“I was so nervous. [Then NUT general secretary] Kevin Courtney saw me beforehand and gave me a big hug and wished me luck,” says Hardy. She was up against six other hopefuls, some of them – Sam Tarry, now MP for Ilford South, and senior Corbyn aide David Prescott – with rather more experience than she had. “The press wasn’t expecting me to win”, she says.

“I remember one of the interview questions: ‘If you’re on the doorstep and someone says ‘Labour can’t afford its policies’, how would you reply?”

Celebrating after winning the Kingston upon Hull West & Hessle seat in the 2019 General Election

You can imagine the teacher in Hardy tackling such tricky moments with aplomb. After the interview, she was taken for a pint by Karl Turner, MP for Kingston upon Hull East. It was in the pub that she got the phone call to tell her she’d been selected. “I was shocked. I remember saying I needed to get the train home and Karl saying, ‘Wait – you need to stay for another drink to celebrate!’.”

When I ask how being an MP compares with teaching Hardy reaches for her timetable. The hours look similar: 8am starts and 8pm finishes. Even with recess next week, she’s working Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. “You’re used to working really hard as a teacher. I’ve never done a 9 to 5, ever. The difference with this job is you create your own work – you can get involved as little or as much as you want.”

We need to upskill the country

Hardy has laid out her key foci for FE already – mainly increased funding and smoothing issues with the apprenticeship levy. But one of her notions is particularly striking. “I’m playing with the idea of a ‘right to learn’,” she says. 

The government has promised to enshrine workers’ rights in a new employment bill, and Hardy wants an amendment. “It would be that you as an individual have a legal right to learn, and you can ask your employer for time out so you can do that. It makes sense. We need to upskill the country.”

Hardy may not be as recognisable as some of her contemporaries – Jess Phillips, for instance – but ideas like this have got her noticed in the halls of Westminster, if not in the echo chambers of Twitter. As I leave, Hardy shows me a handwritten note from the outgoing Speaker of the House, John Bercow.

It reads: “You made a terrific impact in the 2017 Parliament and are a star in the future.”

Renewed calls for skills tax credits as budget looms

With the budget less than a month away, and the prime minister confirming the apprenticeship levy needs reform, there are signs that the government could quickly revisit the original tax credit recommendation from 2012.

Education select committee chair Robert Halfon has called for the policy to be introduced on numerous occasions over the past year.

He told an Annual Apprenticeship Awards parliamentary reception last week that he finds it “incredible” that if companies invest in research and development “they get a research tax credit, hundreds of millions of pounds a year”.

“Why on earth isn’t there such a thing as a skills credit where, if companies invest in skills and apprenticeships, they get a skills tax credit from the Treasury to incentivise businesses to do more, whether it is an apprenticeship, adult learning, or whatever it may be,” Halfon added.

It is an idea favoured by Baroness Alison Wolf, who now advises the prime minister Boris Johnson on skills three days a week.

In October 2019, during an education select committee hearing, Halfon asked Wolf: “Should there not be a skill or social justice tax credit for businesses if they genuinely reskill their employees?”

The baroness replied: “I think there should – if one can figure out a way of doing it that will not be open to massive fraud. It would be a very good idea.

“As you say, you have double tax credits for research. Why not have double tax credits for training? Off the top of my head I think it is a really good idea, but like so many of these things the question is whether it is actually doable without having either a massive amount of semi-fraud or a massive amount of expensive apparatus looking at it.

“I think it would be a really interesting thing to consider.”

The idea of skills tax credits was first mooted in the 2012 Richard Review of Apprentices, which was conducted by former Dragons’ Den star Doug Richard (pictured).

He called for employers to pay providers directly for apprenticeship training.

Richard said tax credits, or other forms of government incentives, should then be dished out to employers as the government pays its part of apprentice training.

“Instead of the money for providers coming from the government, they [providers] now have the more granular challenge of having to collect their money from employers,” he explained.

“The employers only get the credit if they show they’ve spent the money. It means if the employer wants it done, they can’t hold the money back from the provider.”

He added: “There are differences here, profound ones, but if you net out the whole system, a provider still largely ends up providing training and getting paid through a government subsidy. But now its customer — as always should have been the case — will be the employer, not the government or one of its agencies.

“It changes who the training provider has as their customer. The customer should have the money — it focuses the mind of the vendor. I feel strongly about this point, and I think it’s the heart of the review.”

Asked if they were considering skills tax credits in the run up to the budget, a Treasury spokesperson said: “We already provide tax relief for employee training through a 100 per cent corporation tax deduction. We keep all tax reliefs under review.”

They added that in order to consider more generous tax treatment, there must be a clear economic case made for government intervention, so that any measures are well-targeted and provide value for money for the tax-payer.

The next budget will be held on March 11.

WorldSkills bootcamp: what does it take to be a competitor?

As the run-up to WorldSkills 2021 picks up pace, FE Week reporter Fraser Whieldon went behind-the-scenes at a Squad UK bootcamp to find out how we train our competitors for the international stage

Nearly 120 skilled young people came from across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to Loughborough last weekend for their first bootcamp to prepare them for competing in either WorldSkills Shanghai in China next year or EuroSkills Gratz in Austria 2020.

Currently, they are known as Squad UK, a large group of potential competitors who will be whittled down to Team UK, the select few going to China and Austria.

“Training managers tested squad members’ commitment, motivation and reaction to criticism”

I joined them on Saturday morning, during introductions from Olympianturned-WorldSkills-performance coach Peter Bakare and WorldSkills UK deputy chief executive Ben Blackledge.

After which, the squad members split up into groups to take part in teambuilding activities, such as sorting themselves into an alphabetical line without speaking.

I took part with one of the groups when they had to pass each member through a hoop, which my team achieved by standing in a line and having a couple of them run up the line, passing the hoop over one person’s head, then up from the feet of the next person.

It was a fun icebreaker and a great way for the squad to gel as a possible team, but there was a serious purpose to it.

Training managers were using the bootcamp to measure each squad member’s so-called “soft skills”: their attitude, commitment, motivation and how they react to criticism.

Linzi Weare, the training manager for hairdressing, was looking to get her four-person squad of competitors down to three this week, so: “It’s possibly going to be a really quick journey for one person.”

FE Week Fraser Whieldon takes part in the bootcamp activities

 

The squad also took sessions on how to use social media, as from now on “they are ambassadors for Squad UK and for the vocational system,” says Blackledge.

He is responsible for the “always evolving” training programmes WorldSkills UK runs, and says this year they have looked at a more “data-driven” approach and analysed what factors helped competitors perform better before, such as the support they get during the process.

They are also looking at how they put in performance milestones and how they do pressure testing in a “more systemic way”, Blackledge explained.

I saw an example of this emphasis on data in a talk by WorldSkills performance coach Karl Bartlett, where he asked squad members to sign up for an app that allows him to monitor what they eat and tell them what they are missing out on.

Blackledge describes the new focus as “brilliant for Squad UK and eventually Team UK, but also it is vital for the mainstreaming of what we do”.

“How does this get taken back into the classroom and back into colleges and training providers to have that understanding that this is what makes the marginal difference or the big difference in performance?”

Towards the end of the day, squad members took turns signing a Union Jack and waited for their turn in a queue that stretched around the conference centre in which the bootcamp took place.

Isaac George, competitor in cyber security, signs the Union Jack

But the bootcamp is also about getting the training managers up to snuff: on the Friday, they met to share strategic and technical information and good practice.

Christian Notley from Chichester College, chief expert for cabinet making, told me he had been making sure managers “share their knowledge” as WorldSkills has “a huge wealth of skills and information which are applicable to other training managers”.

“It’s good to talk to new experts and I can learn to come up with new ideas and it’s a great way to really drive ourselves forwards and upwards,” he added.

Naomi Radbourne was one new training manager I met on the day; she has taken over hair and beauty from Jenna Wrathall Bailey MBE, who helped lead the UK to a string of gold medals at competitions including Sao Paulo in 2015, Abu Dhabi in 2017 and Kazan in 2019.

Squad members jot down what they think makes a successful competitor

Bearing that in mind, I asked Radbourne how she was going to keep up that level of quality: “It’s very much a strict training programme. It’s about having that openness with the competitors as well, making sure they’re getting exactly what they need, and we are pushing them as much as possible to be the best they can be through training and personal development.”

Formerly a competitor, Radbourne feels she is better acclimatised to a support role. When she was competing, her nickname was Mary Poppins because “I always pulled something out of the bag for other competitors and never for myself”, such as hairbrushes and facial mitts.

With that level of commitment, a fresh training regimen, and the wealth of experience behind them, things are looking bright for WorldSkills UK.

What makes you want to compete in WorldSkills?

FE Week spoke with a number of Squad UK members throughout the bootcamp to find out how and why they got involved in the elite tournament.

Lavanya Hemanth, Laboratory Technician competitor

For a lot of squad members, this would have been their first bootcamp. But not so for Lavanya, who says she has received a “golden ticket” to try again at competing in WorldSkills, after narrowly missing out on a place to go to Kazan.

Lavanya Hemanth

Although another competitor ended up representing the UK in the chemical laboratory technician competition at last year’s tournament, Lavanya was still within the age range, so WorldSkills UK let her rejoin Squad UK to take another shot.

The Middlesex University student is determined to compete in Shanghai, but wants to improve on her interactive skills: “I don’t really go along and talk to people. I’m not an extrovert, I’m an introvert. So I will probably try to work on communication and being part of the team.”

But the improvement she sees is not just while she’s competing: Lavanya has also noticed an improvement when she is working on her undergraduate project in the laboratory.

“This actually gives me the confidence to work on my own in the lab, as it’s the same technique in a different place.”

But her experience with WorldSkills also helps her work in tandem, for instance, with her supervisor: “I’m learning through this journey,” she believes.

She first found out about WorldSkills from her tutors and initially just went along to see what it was like, “but once I was into the competition and the spirit and the confidence it brings” she got very engaged. Having attended a bootcamp last year, she said she personally feels she “deserves it more” this time around.

Madeline Rowe, Fine Jewellery Making competitor

Madeline is another competitor looking to represent the UK internationally, but things could have been very different for her.

“I did A-levels and was planning to go to university to do photography. My grandfather heard something in the news that said the jewellery trade is finding it hard to recruit people.”

Madeline Rowe

Having always enjoyed design and technology at school, Madeline found a course with the Goldsmith’s Centre in London, deferred her place at university and now works for David Marshall at The London Art Works.

The support from her employer to compete has been “great”, she says, as they’re “totally up for anything I need to do and are happy to contribute towards anything.

“But of course, WorldSkills themselves have been great contributors, helping me get to and from these things.”

At the bootcamp, she was looking to get to know her squad mates: “I’ve always been difficult with the icebreaking, so I feel like, in terms to this morning, I’ve already gotten to know a couple of new faces, so that’s definitely helped a lot.”

She found the team-building activities of the morning useful because, if she is picked for Shanghai, “it’ll be nice to know a few more faces”.

Spending time with the other squad members was something Madeline used to help with the stress of competing in front of an audience at WorldSkills LIVE: “I’m not used to people staring at me all the time.”

But, with the other competitors, “we’re all in the same boat” and they went out together after LIVE, which she found to be a “nice place to make connections and get to know people and especially people from across the country who are doing the exact same thing as you”.

“It’s just a great little networking system.”

Cameron McKnight, Cyber Security competitor

Competitors take part in WorldSkills for many reasons. For Cameron, it was another chance to improve his skills in the area he obviously loves.

Cyber security, Cameron says, is under “constant threat… It’s evolving every day, with companies and enterprises across the world being attacked by cyber criminals. So my goal is to use the knowledge and skills I gain from WorldSkills and I’m excited to apply that to future careers.”

Cameron McKnight

He said it was an “absolute honour to participate in this first bootcamp”, which he described as “very, very good”, adding it would be a privilege to participate in future events as well.

He came third in the cyber security competition at the WorldSkills LIVE, and was looking forward to getting stuck in with training. He hopes to gain new skills and knowledge at the bootcamp, as well as meeting new people and collaborating with his squad mates.

Cameron feels they “definitely” need the support of their training providers to get through the process. His own support comes from Belfast Metropolitan College, where he is studying cyber security technician infrastructure.

Many of the competitors talk about the support of colleges in terms of giving them time to compete. Cameron also highlights how his lecturers’ knowledge backs up his training.

Competing while at Belfast has been “especially useful” as he has “lecturers who specialise or come from a line of industry”.

In fact, the majority of his tutors specialise in a wide range of areas which Cameron says are applicable to cyber security. 

 

Crisis hit HS2 college hires lawyers to gag Ofsted

The crisis hit National College for HS2 has hired a team of lawyers to stop Ofsted publishing a highly critical report, FE Week can reveal.

The government-backed flagship college launched in 2017 but has struggled to recruit learners and this time last year received close to £5 million in a bailout deal to keep the doors open.

In November, inspectors visited the college – renamed last year as the National College for Advanced Transport and Infrastructure (NCATI) – for the first time and found the quality of provision to be so poor they were set to award the lowest grade possible, a grade four.

“The inspection and report are the subject of litigation”

Governors were quick to instruct lawyers to block the publication by filing for a judicial review at the High Court. They have also voted to stop publishing board minutes, as well as delayed signing off the accounts.

The Department for Education was initially cautious of commenting during the legal proceedings, but have since confirmed they placed they college in formal intervention on December 6. A notice to improve and a Further Education Commissioner report will be published shortly.

It is understood that a court date for the judicial review is yet to be set.

Despite being handed a financial notice to improve – and being in receipt of a £4.55 million government bailout to sign off its 2017/18 accounts – the college did not need permission to use public funds on legal proceedings.

The DfE said the college is not required to seek approval for legal expenses following formal intervention – because as independent organisations governing bodies are subject to their own fiduciary responsibilities.

Chair of the college board is Alison Munro, chief executive of HS2 Ltd from January 2009 to September 2014, and subsequently managing director of HS2 Phase 2 until her retirement in August 2017, when she was awarded a CBE.

A DfE spokesperson did add that the board must act in the best interests of the college, as a charity.

As spokesperson for Ofsted told FE Week “The inspection and report are the subject of litigation. The report has not been published. In the circumstances, we are not able to say more.”

The college also said it could not comment on the Ofsted result as “there is a legal process taking place”.

The influential Public Accounts Committee is set to be reformed next month, and FE Week understands that – subject to members agreeing – its first evidence hearing will be an update on HS2 on March 4, which will likely include questions on the national college.

This is the second judicial review to be launched by an FE provider following a grade four Ofsted judgement in recent years. The country’s former largest training provider, Learndirect, lost its High Court battle with the education watchdog in 2017.

It led to a National Audit Office inquiry, a Public Accounts Committee hearing, and, ultimately, the government terminating the provider’s £100 million funding contracts.

The Ofsted report is not the only thing NCATI is keeping hidden from the public, as it confessed to FE Week it has temporarily suspended the publication of board minutes as of last month.

The decision was taken because of “exceptional circumstances in which the college was currently operating” – namely “so as to not prejudice an independent review taking place into HS2”, a spokesperson said.

Learners and stakeholders interested in how the college is being run will have to make do with corporation board minutes on NCATI’s website. These go up only to December 2018 and February last year for the audit committee, and none have ever been published for its search, governance and remuneration committee.

Suspending publication means the records of meetings taken during NCATI’s transition from the National College for High Speed Rail (NCHSR) will not be published until at least July 2020.

NCATI has also failed to sign off its 2018/19 accounts, a situation the college said the ESFA is “aware of, as we are working with their team to be in a position to finalise the statements”.

The National College for High Speed Rail rebranded as NCATI in 2019 and announced plans to expand its provision to cover transport areas other than the high-speed rail industry, to which it had been dedicated ever since it was opened by then education secretary Justine Greening.

It denied that the name change was related to the troubled HS2 project.

The college currently advertises rail-related apprenticeships between levels 3 and 6, as well as higher national certificates and higher national diplomas, foundation degrees, and full-time courses at either level 3 or 4.

Hopes were initially high for the college, with the likely construction of a high-speed rail line connecting London with the midlands and north, HS2, near to their campuses at Birmingham and Doncaster. Moreover, it is being led by Clair Mowbray, a former employee of the line’s builders, HS2 Ltd.

Clair Mowbray

Yet according to a recently-published government review of National Colleges, delays in announcing HS2 contractors meant employers were unable to commit to the apprenticeship volumes they had originally anticipated at the college.

In addition to this, and other factors such as a high-speed rail apprenticeship being granted a lower-than-expected funding band, the government review found NCHSR did not meet its learner targets for 2018/19, along with two other National Colleges.

The HS2 college had already received £40 million in capital funding from the ESFA to construct buildings and purchase equipment.

A further £12 million was provided by the Sheffield City Region combined authority, and the Greater Birmingham & Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership.

HS2 Ltd also loaned NCHSR £2,906,000 in 2018 and £2,804,000 in 2017.

The college signed up just 96 students when it first opened, even though it aims to be taking on 1,200 a year by 2022.

NCATI said it is confident the prime minister’s decision this week to give the greenlight for the construction of HS2 provides “the certainty the college, our partners, industry and learners have been seeking”.

When he made his announcement in the Commons this week, the prime minister confirmed HS2 would be an opportunity to embed skills, saying the project “will drive jobs and apprenticeships for young people for a generation to come”.

An ‘inadequate’ for NCATI would be the worst handed to any of the four open National Colleges: National College for Digital Skills, which opened in 2016, achieved a grade two in 2018; while National College Creative Industries, which also opened in 2016 before dissolving this year, received a grade three last year and has now set up as a limited company.

The National College for Nuclear is split across two hubs at Bridgwater and Taunton College in Somerset and Lakes College in Cumbria, both of which are grade two.

A fifth National College, for onshore oil and gas, is on hold by its overseers – United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG) – while “greater clarity and progress by way of timing and the scale of production activities is ascertained”.

College groups struggling to shine as Ofsted visits for first time

More than half of all young learners who enrolled in September at ungraded merged FE colleges now find themselves studying at Ofsted grade three providers.

FE Week analysed the performance of these mega-colleges ahead of the imminent publication of a grade three report for Capital City College Group (see here for full story).

In total, 13 college groups have been inspected for the first time since being formed and following the introduction of the Education Inspection Framework (EIF) in September.

According to Education and Skills Funding Agency data for 2019-20, these providers educate 52,293 young people aged 16 to 18, of whom 27,996 (54 per cent) are now at the six colleges who have been hit with grade threes.

Of the six, nine pre-merged colleges have now lost ‘good’ ratings, while four individual colleges failed to improve their grade threes.

Nottingham College, created after a merger between ‘good’ providers New College Nottingham and Central College Nottingham in 2017, is one group that now ‘requires improvement’.

Inspectors reported that governors, who do not have enough impact on the quality of education, had focused on “resolving the challenges created” by the merger.

United Colleges Group also lost the College of North West London’s and City of Westminster College’s ‘good’ ratings following its merger in 2017.

The education watchdog found that “a significant number of senior staff left” after this.

It added that there had been disruption to specific courses and the management of these was “not yet effective enough”.

However, the report did acknowledge that governors had taken effective action to set up a new leadership team following the merger.

In addition, Greater Brighton Metropolitan College, which formed in 2017 after the merger of Northbrook College and City College Brighton and Hove, both of which were rated ‘good’, received a grade three.

Grades received by general FE colleges under the new Education Inspection
Framework following their first inspections since mergers – click to enlarge

Moreover, both Coventry College and St Helens College failed to improve upon their pre-merger ratings.

Henley College Coventry and City College Coventry were both rated grade three before joining to become Coventry College in 2017.

Inspectors stated that, since the merger, governors “recognised quickly that leaders’ planned improvements were ineffective and took decisive steps with the leadership of the college” and the chair and chief executive had also appointed new governors with “a strong background in education to enhance the board’s effectiveness”.

Similarly, St Helens College was formed in 2017 after a merger between St Helens College and Knowsley Community College, which both had ‘requires improvement’.

Ofsted said the interim principal had begun to stabilise the college following the merger and extensive changes to staffing and college structures.

It added that while new senior leaders have a clear strategic direction, the appointment of a permanent principal had not been finalised and the lack of stability “has had a negative impact on the pace of improvement”.

There have been success stories for merged colleges under the new EIF.

Since it came into force, there has been one ‘outstanding’ rating and six grade twos for these colleges, which deliver provision to 24,297 16- to 18-year-old students in total.

College groups struggling to shine as Ofsted visits for first time Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group boosted its grade from pre-merger ratings of ‘good’ for Newcastleunder-Lyme College and ‘inadequate’ for Stafford College to ‘outstanding’ in November.

Inspectors praised its leaders and managers for “very effectively” bringing about the merger and “rapidly” integrating the two campuses.

In addition, six other merged colleges are now considered ‘good’.

Grade two provider South Cheshire College had merged with West Cheshire College, a grade three provider, to form Cheshire College – South & West in 2017.

Its governors were praised by the education watchdog for continuing to “secure improvements to the quality of education that learners and apprentices receive during the merger process”.

Tyne Coast College retained the grade two rating obtained by both South Tyneside College and Tyne Metropolitan College after they merged in 2017.

Inspectors believed governors and senior leaders at the college managed the merger “very effectively” and ensured that the college campuses “continue to serve their communities well”.

The Windsor Forest Colleges Group was created in 2017 after ‘good’ Strode’s College merged with East Berkshire College, which had received a grade three.

Ofsted said that governors and senior leaders had ensured they continued to serve their local communities “well, with a broad and relevant curriculum offer” since the merger, with leaders and managers working with local employers and partners to plan and review provision so that it was “focused on current industry practices”.

Moreover, Warrington and Vale Royal College, which formed in 2017, improved its pre-merged college grades.

North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire College retained North Warwickshire and Hinckley College’s and South Leicestershire College’s ‘good’ ratings after the two merged in 2016 and a further grade two was received by Bedford College.

In total, 27 general FE colleges have been inspected so far under the EIF, including CCCG’s verdict.

FE Week analysis shows that more than two-fifths (12) of these have been hit by grade threes.

One provider was declared ‘outstanding’, while more than half (14) were considered ‘good’.

None has been found to be ‘inadequate’.

Grades received by general FE colleges after the introduction of the new Education Inspection Framework – click to enlarge

It’s time to take on the subcontracting profiteers

Subcontractors account for more than 10 per cent of ESFA funding. They need overseeing properly, says Simon Ashworth

It was good to see the ESFA’s Peter Mucklow in edition 306 of FE Week confirming government recognition that subcontracting plays an important role and that there will be not be a complete ban on it.

Some interesting numbers were published as part of the ESFA’s consultation: 674 prime providers subcontract provision to 2,288 subcontractors. The total value of subcontracted provision is £484.5 million – or 10.6 per cent of total ESFA funding. These are big numbers, so it’s no wonder the regulators are keen to ensure appropriate oversight, quality and robustness of provision.

Unfortunately, the ESFA has yet again missed a trick

Unfortunately, the ESFA has yet again missed a trick – by failing to implement a cap on fees and charges which could address ‘profiteering’ from subcontracting. They make it clear, though, that they “do not expect funding retained to exceed 20 per cent”, and have linked this to two points previously raised by the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP). Firstly, if more than 20 per cent of the funding is retained, it raises questions about the capacity of the subcontractor to deliver. Secondly, can good quality can be achieved when funding is so reduced?

Apprenticeship subcontracting has already been reformed with the removal of whole programme subcontracting. And the opening up of the Apprenticeship Service to non-levy employers will allow hundreds of providers on the main Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers (RoATP) to access funding directly, without a non-levy contract.

This will impact on those subcontracting relationships – study programmes, traineeships, adult education – which have hitherto been unable to obtain funding. In the case of AEB, a move to full procurement which rewarded prime providers and subcontractors that actually deliver would also reduce the need for subcontracting.

The proposals around geographical restrictions are attracting the most questions from providers. The “no more than one hour away from the prime contractor by car” pledge begs a question: if a prime provider is undertaking the minimum checks as required by the funding rules, then distance should make no difference in terms of oversight of the relationship. What matters, surely, is that properly checked subcontractors might be based miles from their primes while learners might be on their doorstep.

The ESFA also acknowledged that when working with national employers, a distance arrangement for subcontracting “is beneficial”. The focus on geographical restrictions is more about ‘out of area’ funding, particularly the expectations and justification of grant funding being spent on subcontracting in other far-flung areas of the country. The test is whether provision is supporting the local community or being used to generate additional income.

To date, Ofsted has chosen not to inspect subcontractors directly, and they recently gave me an example of why: a subcontractor that worked with three prime providers, where two-thirds of the provision was good and a third poor. The underpinning rationale was that two of the prime providers had full and suitable oversight and supported the subcontractor appropriately, while the third prime provider took a management fee and had no oversight. This highlights the importance of considering the role that the prime provider has in the process (rather than looking at subcontractors in isolation). But political pressure will probably require Ofsted to inspect a selection of the larger subcontractors as part of their risk-based approach.

The ESFA certainly don’t like managing agent models, and within the sector there are still examples of providers that operate as managing agents in all but name – subcontracting out comparably large portions of their allocations. The ESFA is now proposing a phased transition from all providers to a subcontracting limit of just 10 per cent of their total ESFA post-16 income in 2023-24.

Again, this will be a real challenge for parts of the sector that have for too long relied on subcontracting. Ultimately if the funding isn’t being used, let’s get it reallocated to providers who can spend it directly.

Ofsted watch: Two providers lose ‘outstanding’ grades

One college and one private provider lost their ‘outstanding’ grades in a mixed week for the FE sector.

Gateshead College dropped two grades to ‘requires improvement’ due to poor leadership and management and apprenticeship provision, as reported by this newspaper last week.

But its report, published today, shows it is still rated ‘outstanding’ in its adult and high needs provision. The college is rated ‘good’ in four other areas, including quality of education.

But the education watchdog warned the college that its current financial position creates a “significant risk to the future sustainability of the quality of education”.

Gateshead’s high-profile principal and chair have quit in recent weeks after discovering a shock £6 million shortfall in September.

Inspectors said the information leaders provided to governors about the college’s finances over recent months had “not been sufficiently accurate to enable governors to hold leaders to account for the management of resources and the college’s significant financial deficit”.

Leaders and governors have, however, “very recently” begun to identify actions to tackle the weaknesses.

Independent learning provider QA Limited also saw its rating slip from ‘outstanding’, but it dropped just one grade to ‘good’.

It has around 6,500 apprentices, of which 5,300 were in scope for this inspection, and provides commercial training and apprenticeships to the technology sector.

It was reported that apprentices make “good progress” on their apprenticeships and value the teaching from “credible subject experts”.

Ofsted also noted that leaders and managers have a clear understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their provision, and have created a well-considered, ambitious curriculum.

Two other providers retained their ‘good’ ratings this week.

General FE college Shipley College, which had 2,725 learners and apprentices at the time of inspection, was praised for a “safe and friendly learning environment” and the provision of “meaningful support”.

In addition, the inspectorate found that apprentices make “effective contributions to their workplace and swiftly become valuable members of their employers’ teams”.

The University of Bolton was also awarded a grade two for its apprenticeship provision.

At the time of the inspection, there were 405 apprentices – most of which were on nursing associate apprenticeships.

Ofsted reported that they are “very proud” of how quickly they put into practice at work what they have learned at university and described lecturers as “highly qualified and experienced” in their specialist areas.

Moreover, there were five ‘requires improvement’ ratings handed out to providers this week.

Both Birmingham Women’s and Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust received the grade in their first full inspections.

The education watchdog criticised the trust in Birmingham due to “too few” healthcare apprentices completing the qualification by their planned end date.

It did note that, since September, senior managers have achieved greater consistency in staffing, and have made improvements to curriculum planning.

Most apprentices at Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust remained in their roles, gained promotion or progressed to higher levels of study but healthcare support provision was critiqued for tutors failing to keep employers informed about what apprentices were learning and for not identifying gaps in apprentices’ knowledge.

Independent learning provider Ashley Community & Housing Ltd, which specialises in housing and training for refugees and migrants, was also granted a grade three.

It had eight apprentices during its first inspection. “Too few” on the management programme were said to complete their apprenticeship because “they do not value it”.

In addition, St Charles Catholic Sixth Form College, which has around 1,000 students, failed to improve from a grade three.

Despite Ofsted reporting that staff kept a close eye on students who may be struggling, it concluded that, in too many subjects, “students are not pushed hard enough to achieve”.

One independent learning provider, Environmental Excellence Training and Development Limited, received ‘insufficient progress’ across the board in an early monitoring visit.

It had nine apprentices over the age of 19 who are all employed as cleaning staff in Nottingham University Hospital.

The education watchdog said its safeguarding arrangements were incomplete, there was no effective scrutiny of the quality of education delivered, and the performance of the learning programmes was weak.

London Professional College received two out of four ‘insufficient progress’ grades in a monitoring report after being awarded a grade three. It was given ‘reasonable progress’ in the remaining two areas.

Leaders had “not ensured” improvements had been rapid and that teaching staff “do not help learners improve their skills in written English”.

Elsewhere, independent specialist college Chatsworth Futures Limited was found to be making ‘significant progress’ in two assessed themes regarding health and safety and the quality of education, and ‘reasonable progress’ in the other, following its second monitoring visit in a row after being declared ‘inadequate’.

Winnovation Limited was also found to have made ‘significant progress’ in one area and ‘reasonable progress’ in two others after an early monitoring visit.

The University of The West of England and the remaining independent learning providers to be assessed this week all received ‘reasonable progress’ across the board in their early monitoring reports.

These were: Benson-Smith Limited, Total Training Provision Limited, Melanie Martin t/a Watson Martin and Raise the Bar Limited.

 

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Ashley Community & Housing Limited 24/01/2020 12/02/2020 3 M
Benson-Smith Limited 23/01/2020 11/02/2020 M N/A
Environmental Excellence Training and Development Limited 17/01/2020 10/02/2020 M N/A
London Professional College 21/01/2020 12/02/2020 M 3
Total Training Provision Limited 30/01/2020 13/02/2020 M N/A
Winnovation Limited 24/01/2020 10/02/2020 M N/A
Melanie Martin t/a Watson Martin 23/01/2020 14/02/2020 M N/A
QA Limited 31/01/2010 14/02/2020 2 1
Raise the Bar Limited 15/01/2020 14/02/2020 M N/A

 

Sixth Form Colleges (inc 16-19 academies) Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
St Charles Catholic Sixth Form College 17/01/2020 11/02/2020 3 3

 

Employer providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Birmingham Women’s and Children’s Hospital NHS Foundation Trust 31/01/2010 10/02/2020 3 M
Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust 17/01/2020 10/02/2020 3 M

 

Other (including UTCs) Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
University of Bolton 30/01/2020 11/02/2020 2 2
University of The West of England 29/01/2020 14/02/2020 M N/A

 

Specialist colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Chatsworth Futures Limited 29/01/2020 12/02/2020 M M (4)

 

General FE colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Shipley College 30/01/2020 10/02/2020 2 2
Gateshead College 31/01/2020 14/02/2020 3 1

The levy: change should be evolutionary – not revolutionary

As an employer of apprentices that has made full use of the levy, I have sometimes found it difficult to understand why more levy-paying businesses haven’t taken advantage of the levy reforms, says Sharon Blyfield

Towards the end of last summer, the number of registrations on the apprenticeship service suddenly jumped to nearly 20,000, which represents the vast majority of employers within the levy’s scope. Perhaps it has just been a question of time for businesses to realise how widely apprenticeships can be used across the workforce.

At Coca-Cola European Partners (CCEP), we have, with our engineering apprenticeships, what people would traditionally associate with the programme, but we also recruit young people into merchandising, field sales and business administration. Continued development for all our apprentices is a major benefit to us and them, and all are offered the opportunity to go on and do a degree apprenticeship in engineering, supply-chain management or business management. Every day, we witness the transformation that an apprenticeship can bring to someone’s life while giving us the skilled workforce we need.

Currently, there is too much bureaucracy within the apprenticeship system

This explains why we don’t want to see the government start introducing controls on how we spend our levy, while recognising that the demands on the programme’s overall budget are now throwing up some significant challenges.

Talking to our training-provider partners and AELP, it has become increasingly apparent that there was a group of large levy-paying employers, including several household brands, who were concerned that the government’s levy review might lead to significant changes. Our consolidated view is to leave the levy alone in terms of what employers can do with the funding.

This week, 15 big-name employers from the public and private sectors, both in manufacturing and services, signed and published a statement to this effect. We have made clear that any changes should be evolutionary rather than revolutionary. A top priority is that apprenticeships must provide unconstrained entry points into employment, which will vary from employer to employer, and job to job. For many businesses, level 2 is vital; however, for other employers, it could be any other level up to level 7, or at a range of levels.

Degree apprenticeships are very attractive to us and without the student debt attached, they have become an inclusive means of progression for many people who have been put off by the traditional higher education routes. Therefore we must find a way of keeping them while making the overall programme sustainable.

For those of us who are using up our levy entitlement, the levy transfer isn’t really an option, and in any case, non-levy-paying SMEs are now being moved on to the digital service, where they can access funding. But the imminent levy overspend means that this funding is limited, which is a major concern for us, when so many of these businesses form our supply chains.

Our group is therefore happy to support the call for a standalone non-levy budget of £1.5 billion and we hope that the government will live up to its promises that skills will feature strongly in the March Budget.

At the same time, apprentices aged 16 to 18 should not be treated differently from other young people of the same age group in the education system; they should be funded separately out of the DfE 16-18 budget, regardless of where they work, or the apprenticeship programme they choose to undertake.

Currently, there is too much bureaucracy within the apprenticeship system. For instance, there needs to be a higher level of trust between levy payers and the government to deliver effective off-the-job training. One suggestion would be for an upfront plan, Ofsted inspections and live reporting from apprentices to replace much of the form filling.

We would welcome steady progress on these fronts to obviate the need for significant reform of the levy and build on the successful foundations achieved thus far.

New Boris adviser would ‘take a flamethrower’ to adult education policy

Professor Alison Wolf is now working three days a week advising Number 10 on FE policy ahead of the Budget next month. In October she critised “target-led policy”, called for the introduction of adult education “lifetime allowances” and said the Department for Education should step aside because “you have to put far more of the power and decision-making in the hands of the individual”. FE Week’s editor, Nick Linford, looks at what it could mean for the adult education policy and the DfE if Wolf wins the argument.

Little did we know that when Baroness Alison Wolf gave evidence to the education select committee last October she would be appointed to advise the prime minister from within the Number 10 policy unit.

As FE Week reported last week, Wolf is on a sabbatical from Kings College London and is now working for the PM three days per week in the run up to the budget next month.

Perhaps the move should not have really come as a surprise given the help the government urgently needs to reform the apprenticeship levy, implement T-levels and invest in adult skills post-Brexit.

And Wolf is an obvious pick given she was appointed by Michael Gove in 2011 to undertake an independent review of vocational of education from which most recommendations were implemented. Then in 2015 she joined a group of select few on the Sainsbury Review that introduced the T-level plan and again, there she was on the panel writing the Augar Review in FE and HE funding last year.

“I hope I am going to be able to make a pitch for lifetime allowances”

Looking back at what she said when MPs asked how she would improve adult education policy, it seems obvious she has already played an important part in the manifesto that promised £1.8 billion for college capital.

She said in the month before the manifesto was published that “the main problem is that we have completely destroyed any sort of easy infrastructure of proper institutions in all towns where you can go to evening classes briefly, where you can go for a while, come out and go back. That used to exist in every town in this country. The ghosts of it are there, but it needs to be revived”, something exposed in our feature this week. 

“A vast amount of the money does not actually go on frontline provision to learners”

And when the Conservatives published the manifesto with a commitment to £600 million per year for a National Skills Fund, it was accompanied with a press release that said this would be the “first steps” towards a “Right to Retrain”.

Could this policy be what Wolf meant when she told MPs “adult citizens should have a right to a certain amount of education” and made “a pitch for lifetime allowances”?

She said: “You have to put far more of the power and decision -making in the hands of the individual and that you get better skills for the economy not by asking a government department to organise courses for people that they are sent on but by giving them far greater ability to learn skills when they think they want to.”

And when it comes to adult education, colleges need both the money and the freedoms according to Wolf: “I think you have to make the colleges a very central part of this. They have also been tremendously weakened and one of the things we said in our [Augar] review was that the government had to stop doing this and had to put money back in.”

She saved her strongest criticism for the government machine: “The simplest thing you could do would be to basically take a flamethrower to the way the whole adult and further education budget has all these pots.”

This will have been sweet music to the ears of Dominic Cummings, chief policy adviser to Boris Johnson and former adviser to Michael Gove when he was education secretary.

It is well known that Cummings has regular run-ins with civil servants and recently said he wanted to find advisers that are “weirdos and misfits with odd skills”.

Wolf also said an “obsession with targets, outcomes and making people do things in a way where you can tick things off, has been very harmful”.

“You have to put far more of the power and decision-making in the hands of the individual” and “I think you have to make the colleges a very central part of this”

“One of the problems with this target-led policy that we have had for a long time is that you find, yes, if you get a degree you earn more, if you get anything at what we call level 3, or skilled crafts, you definitely earn more, and if you get a good apprenticeship you definitely, definitely earn more, but just shelling out for lots of little courses does not automatically translate into productivity.”

So, with Wolf at Number 10 and the secretary of state, Gavin  Williamson returned to the DfE after the reshuffle and eager to develop policies to spend the manifesto pledges, civil servants at the Department for Education could be in for a shock.

“I think, alas, devolution does not help. It simply adds another layer of bureaucracy and arguing about who gets what”

Devolution

Wolf was in no doubt that the devolution of the Adult Education Budget has been a mistake.

Lucy Powell MP asked: “What other things do you think might help us to both increase the spending and spend it better?What about devolution and some of those issues?”

Wolf replied: “I think, alas, devolution does not help. I wish it did, but judging by what is happening in London it simply adds another layer of bureaucracy and arguing about who gets what.

“The simplest thing you could do would be to basically take a flamethrower to the way the whole adult and further education budget has all these pots. I do not know as much about the local authorities, so I will stick to the adult education budget going to the colleges. If you could get rid of all these silly little divisions and special programmes, and just hand them the money – and also allow them, as happens in other countries, to have a certain amount of carryover between years – I think overnight you would increase by 30 per cent the amount of money that went straight through to the classroom.”

National Retraining Service

Wolf made it clear she was not a fan of the little known National Retraining Scheme that already has its own department within the DfE.

Ian Mearns MP asked: “How effective do you think it will be in terms of helping adults to upskill or retrain—are we ready to go?”

Wolf replied: “You kind of know what I am going to say: do we need another specialised pot? It is one of these ideas where you think, how could you be against it— how could you be against giving adults help with retraining? Of course, you should not be.

“The trouble with having something that is specialised and specific and that goes through employers is that it is going to be another pot. It is going to have its own regulations. It will work fine if you have a large employer with a trade union that can see what is coming along the road. However, I cannot see how it can actually enable the population as a whole to access the flexible opportunities it needs.”

Online learning

Civil servants at the Department for Education have over many years been looking for ways to increase the access as well as reduce the cost of adult learning, but with little success when it comes to government funded online learning.

It is thought that they are having another go, through very limited National Retraining Scheme pilots, but Wolf appeared not to be a fan of delivering education over the internet.

Ian Mearns MP pointed out that “every town has a university—it is called the Open University.” At which Wolf shot back: “That is true, but it has been pulling back from having bricks and is more and more virtual. I personally think that was a big mistake.”

Mearns then asked if there is “a particular problem with the National Retraining Scheme about an overemphasis of online learning” to which Wolf simply said “Yes”.

Tenders

Wolf seems to be strongly of the opinion that having colleges apply for lots of “little pots” of funding is “extraordinarily wasteful.”

The University of Edinburgh’s Professor Lyn Tett was on the panel and told MPs: “Another problem, especially at the community level, is that most people are sustained by applying for grants—they could be from the local authority, from the big lottery or whatever—so they spend an awful lot of their time getting money in so they can provide a service, instead of providing the service.”

Wolf added: “I agree, really. Partly it is the level of funding, and to a considerable degree it is the way the funding is sent out. It is divided into little pots that mean that it is, amazingly, true that you have fantastic FE colleges that struggle to spend the adult part of their grant. It is hugely wasteful because, again as Lyn has said, a vast amount of the money does not actually go on frontline provision to learners; it goes on the administration, the collection of data and the grant applications. It is extraordinarily wasteful.”