Halfon blasts Careers and Enterprise Company for their ‘magic money tree’

The chair of the education select committee has laid into the Careers and Enterprise Company for believing it has a “magic money tree” growing in its garden.

Robert Halfon (pictured) offered the heavy criticism during an event about the future of careers guidance in Parliament this morning.

It followed the organisation’s second hearing with MPs two weeks ago, in which it was the revealed the company spent more than £200,000 on two conferences using its own public money instead of private sponsorship.

This body can be ludicrously wasteful

The company had also told MPs earlier in the year that it has spent £900,000 on research, with another projected £200,000 a year to come.

Mr Halfon, who’s also a former skills minister, said today that this was an “obscene waste of money” and a “scandalous lack of oversight”.

“My colleagues and I in the education select committee are deeply concerned by what we have learned in two recent hearings,” he said.

“I don’t doubt for a second that the company is passionate about its work, and that there are good people working there. But I’m worried they are not providing us with value for money.

“This body can be ludicrously wasteful. Last year it spent £200,000 of taxpayers in a time austerity on two conferences – money which should have gone to the front-line. One cost around £150,000 and the other was about £50,000 and held at KidZania! Salaries are too high – its CEO earns almost as much as the Prime Minister.

“And it has spent £900,000 on research, with another projected £200,000 a year to come.

“There is a lack of convincing data on its impact. And a lack of data on hard outcomes: like education and training decisions, or employment outcomes.”

The CEC has so far received £40 million in public money to support careers guidance in schools and colleges.

Mr Halfon continued: “It [the CEC] does not always take its own advice. Take mentoring. Its latest accounts suggest it has spent £4 million on mentoring. In one of its own research reports, it says: ‘Few effects can be seen from mentoring relationships that last for less than six months… There is a widespread consensus that a year-long relationship constitutes a quality mentoring interaction.’ And yet several of the programmes it funds fall far short of this.

“There is a scandalous lack of oversight. The National Careers Service is heavily scrutinised. I’m talking the works: Ofsted inspection, mystery shoppers, quality standards, and payment by results linked to customer satisfaction and job/learning outcomes. But the CEC? Nothing evenly remotely comparable.

“Despite this, it has been lavished with new roles, without really demonstrating that it has mastered its initial brief. It is now broker; grant controller; research organisation; designer of careers toolkit; running a fund for disadvantaged pupils; supporting careers hubs. And I’m still not clear why grant-making decisions cannot be made by the DfE.”

Mr Halfon added that the careers offer in England must be “urgently” improved, and suggested doing this by building a “National Skills Service”.

“What do I mean by this? A one-stop-shop under the direction of a single rigorous backbone organisation,” he explained.

“It must devote extra focus to those who have fallen on hard times. It must serve all ages. Provide top-class independent, impartial support from qualified professional advisers, and a clear line of accountability. And, most of all, a better use of money with demonstrably and measurably improved outcomes.”

Claudia Harris

Responding to the criticism, Claudia Harris, the chief executive of the CEC, said: “Careers education has been underperforming for decades in England, so no one doubts the scale of the task. Our organisation has been in operation for just over three years. In that time Ofsted has found that careers support to young people has improved, noting ‘the current picture is much more encouraging than has been the case in the past… careers guidance within schools is improving’.

“We recently published the most comprehensive assessment of careers education to date, which showed that careers education in England is improving across all of the Gatsby Benchmarks. In particular, careers education is stronger in the most disadvantaged communities.

“Two thousands schools are now part of our network, we’ve provided training to nearly 1,400 Careers Leaders, established 20 Careers Hubs across the country and invested millions in front line providers.

“The improvements we have seen have been achieved through hard work and collaboration between schools, colleges and employers and by putting evidence at the heart of careers support. We are proud to have played a part in this improvement, and we welcome any external oversight of our work.”

Ofsted Watch: Week of winners and losers in FE

It has been a mixed week for FE as two colleges succeeded in climbing higher in the ranks, while two new providers received the lowest possible Ofsted grade.

The greatest accolades were handed to Preston College and St John’s School and College, both of which managed to climb from a ‘requires improvement’ rating up to ‘good’.

Ofsted commended leaders at Preston College for having “rectified successfully the vast majority of weaknesses identified at the previous inspection”, and particularly for working well with partners and employers and implementing effective improvements to the quality of teaching.

The report said the proportion of students achieving their qualifications “has risen considerably since the previous inspection” and applauded the high levels of academic and pastoral support available, but warned that the quality of apprenticeships has not improved quickly enough.

St John’s School and College, and independent specialist college for learners with complex learning disabilities in Brighton, was said to offer a “rich and creative curriculum that provides opportunities for self-expression and enterprise”.

“Learners develop the skills, knowledge and understanding they need to move on to their next steps and to become more independent,” the report said, commending the “ambitious” leaders for taking “decisive action that has led to improvements throughout the college”.

It was also ‘good’ news for Kent-based independent learning provider Profile Development and Training, which received a grade two after its first full inspection.

Inspectors said staff had “built successfully on a strong past record of achievement under subcontracting arrangements and made a good start to their direct provision,” and praised tutors for their “excellent understanding and extensive experience”.

Brighton’s Varndean College, a sixth form college, and London-based provider Train’d Up Railway Resourcing both received their second consecutive ‘good’ ratings from Ofsted.

Varndean was praised for its curriculum, the “exceptional quality” of its learners’ work and its “highly inclusive culture”, while Train’d Up was commended for “excellent partnerships” that allow it to provide “high-quality apprenticeships” for learners who were described as “highly motivated” and “keen to learn”.

However, others had a far less successful week, with two new providers receiving the lowest possible grade.

London-based training provider Touchstone Education Services was rated ‘inadequate’ in every category, and slammed by inspectors for working with employers who did not recognise the names of their apprentices.

And Chic Beauty Academy in Middlesbrough also received a grade four rating, attracting criticism for “misleading” careers advice and not consulting with employers to ensure courses provide learners with the skills and qualifications they need to gain employment locally.

And Southampton Solent University was deemed by inspectors to be grade two for its apprenticeship provision – its first full inspection for this type of provision. It was rated ‘outstanding’ for its maritime FE provision in 2011.

The report said apprentices “rapidly develop good clinical and health-related vocational skills and behaviours” and lecturers have “considerable vocational knowledge and strong occupational expertise”, but found personal development reviews were not “fully effective”. 

Two early monitoring reports of new apprenticeship providers were also published this week. Both University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and London-based Reed Specialist Recruitment were deemed to be making ‘reasonable progress’ in every category.

GFE Colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Preston College  15/10/2018 29/11/2018 2 3

 

Sixth Form Colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Varndean College 30/10/2018 30/11/2018 2 2

 

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Touchstone Educational Solutions Ltd 16/10/2018 26/11/2018 4 N/A
Chic Beauty Academy Ltd 16/10/2018 28/11/2018 4 N/A
Profile Development And Training Limited 06/11/2018 26/11/2018 2 N/A
Train’d Up Railway Resourcing Limited 30/10/2018 27/11/2018 2 2

 

Independent specialist colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous Grade
St John’s School and College 16/10/2018 27/11/2018 2 3

 

Employer providers Inspected Published Grade
Reed Specialist Recruitment Limited 24/10/2018 29/11/2018 M
University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust 12/11/2018 29/11/2018 M

 

Other FE and skills Inspected Published Grade Previous Grade
Southampton Solent University 30/10/2018 30/11/2018 2 1

 

Spielman using perception not facts on arts and media job prospects, says principal

Ofsted’s view that colleges are giving students “false hope” by putting them on courses where there are slim job prospects has been criticised by a leading principal for being based on “anecdotal” rather than robust evidence.

Chief inspector Amanda Spielman (pictured above) questioned whether some colleges are chasing income over students’ best interests at the Association of Colleges conference last week.

She was referring to the inspectorate’s thematic report on level two qualifications which found some subjects, namely arts and media,“stand out” as areas where there is a “mismatch between the numbers of students taking courses and their future employment in the industry”.

READ MORE: Ofsted is wrong about level 2 arts and media courses

Writing for FE Week, the principal of Grimsby Institute, who spoke out during a question-and-answer session with Ms Spielman at the AoC conference, explains why she was“incensed” by the view that arts and media students are being sold an“impossible dream”.

“The [level two] report identifies that art and media courses were generally perceived to give the least chance of gaining employment within those industries,” writes Debra Gray (page 18).

“The interesting term here is‘perceived’. The research is based on the perceptions of a small number of providers.“There appears to be little triangulation with verifiable labour market intelligence from reliable sources to see if perception matches reality.

“What appears to be credible research is simply an account of provider perceptions presented as fact.The methodological dangers of relying on anecdotal evidence rather than empirical evidence are legion.”

The section in Ofsted’s level two report that Ms Spielman based her view on shows a graph with just 11responses which said arts and media courses have the “least chance of progressing to employment in a relevant industry”.

Ms Gray writes: “The problem doesn’t just lie with assumptions that anecdotal evidence is generalizable, it also begs the question whether the right question is being asked in the first place. The chief inspector states in the report ‘I am therefore concerned about the number of courses on offer that college leaders know do not lead to good local employment’.

“The report assumes we have a common understanding of the term‘good local employment’. Fifty per cent of Grimsby’s catchment area is the North Sea, but we have road and rail links to Hull, Lincoln and Sheffield,all of which are thriving creative cities. Is this ‘local’ enough? It is also vital to point out that a significantly higher proportion of jobs in the creative industries are freelance and commission-based than is typical. Is this considered ‘good’ employment?”

Responding to the criticism, Ofsted said: “Our report recognised that the numbers of students going from arts and media courses into jobs in that industry was low. On the other hand,we found colleges advertising these courses as having extremely good career prospects, and as a result these are some of the most popular courses available.

“That is doing a disservice to students who take those courses.”

Government software to withhold up to £4,860 apprenticeship completion payment until employers pay their share

The Education and Skills Funding Agency is clamping down on employers who fail to pay the 10 per cent co-investment fee for apprentices, by withholding completion payments from providers.

A change to a calculation in the agency’s funding software will enforce the new rule from early next month, which will see nearly 20 per cent of the total apprenticeship cash held back until employer payments are up-to-date.

It means that up to £4,860 of ESFA funding, 90 per cent of £5,400, would be withheld if the apprenticeship price is at the highest upper funding band of £27,000, for example.

In a little known monthly update for “MI managers, software writers and suppliers” published this afternoon, the ESFA says: “We plan to update the apprenticeship funding calculation at R04 [Individualised Learner Record data return deadline 6 December] to withhold any completion payments that do not meet the criteria in the funding rules.

“The rules state that co-investment due to be paid by the employer must be collected and recorded in the ILR for the completion payment to be paid.”

Additionally, the agency plans to clawback cash from providers who’ve not claimed the fee from employers.

“This change will also apply to any completion payments already made in the 2018 to 2019 funding year and where necessary payments will be recovered,” the ESFA said.

“We will also identify and recover any completion payments paid to providers in 2017 to 2018 funding year that were not compliant with funding rules. All adjusted payments will be made as part of the December payment run.

“Providers must ensure all co-investment is collected and recorded on the ILR in a timely manner as stated in the funding rules.”

The way the agency funds providers for delivering the training is by paying monthly payments for 80 per cent of the negotiated price up to the funding band, but where the employer has no levy funding or it is insufficient, then co-investment must be paid, currently set at 10 per cent.

The ESFA in future will only pay the provider for the final 90 per cent of the total remaining 20 per cent, once the framework has finished or the end point assessment has taken place and the employer has paid their 10 per cent.

Chancellor Philip Hammond announced last month that the co-investment fee will be halved to 5 per cent, but a start date for this change has still not been revealed.

The return deadline for providers to get their co-investment payments in is tight – December 6.

However, the completion payment is only being withheld until the financial fields in the ILR show the employer has fully paid their share. Once that happens, the completion payment would be released in the next monthly funding cycle.

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 263

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

Elaine McMahon, interim principal, Cornwall College

Start date: November 2018

Previous job: Interim principal, Kensington and Chelsea College

Interesting fact: Part of Elaine’s education took place in Australia and she has lived in France, Australia and the US as well as in all parts of this country.


Fiona Aldridge, director of policy and research, Learning and Work Institute

Start date: November 2018

Previous job: Deputy director, research and development, Learning and Work Institute

Interesting fact: Fiona started working at the Learning and Working Institute (then called NIACE) exactly 21 years ago – as PA to the same role she’s just been promoted to.


Chris Webb, chief executive, Bradford College

Start date: Spring 2019

Previous job: Principal, Barnsley College

Interesting fact: Chris’s degree in sport science enhanced his skills in being creative, collaborative and competitive – everything he needs to be a CEO in the FE sector.


Penny Wycherley, interim principal, City College Plymouth

Start date: November 2018

Previous job: Principal, Waltham Forest College

Interesting fact: Penny didn’t learn to speak until she was three – after which, her mother said, she never learned to stop talking!

If you want to let us know of any new faces at the top of your college, training provider or awarding organisation please let us know by emailing news@feweek.co.uk

Revealed: vast majority of loans-only providers are less than good

A massive 80 per cent of providers that only deliver provision funded by advanced learner loans have been rated less than good by Ofsted, FE Week analysis has revealed.

But despite this “shocking” statistic – which covers provision worth millions and affects thousands of learners – the education watchdog was tight-lipped on whether it was upping its monitoring of loans-only providers.

Furthermore, the Department for Education has revealed that not all loans providers are submitting vital performance data – meaning some could be dodging inspection.

Our findings have prompted Robert Halfon, chair of the influential commons select committee, to demand urgent action.

“It is shocking that so many students who are taking the risk of a loan are experiencing substandard training,” he told FE Week.

It is shocking that so many students who are taking the risk of a loan are experiencing substandard training

Our investigation “must spur the relevant agencies and Ofsted to take urgent remedial action to ensure that students get the quality training they deserve,” he said.

FE Week’s analysis is based on a list given to us by Ofsted of the providers whose only source of government funding was advanced learner loans that had had inspection reports published by the end of October, to which we added those that had been published in November.

That gave a total of 20 loans-only providers to have been inspected by Ofsted.

Of those, eight have resulted in an ‘inadequate’ grade and a further eight were graded ‘requires improvement’, while just four were rated ‘good’. None have received an ‘outstanding’ rating.

The reports published to date reveal a catalogue of alarming findings – including learners at one provider being duped into taking out a loan.

“Too many” learners at Academy Training Group, which began delivering loans-funded training in 2014/15, “are not aware that they have taken out an advanced learning loan to pay for their course and that they are required to pay this back”, inspectors said in a damning grade four report published earlier this month.

Between them the 20 providers had allocations worth more than £12 million in the year of their most recent Ofsted report, and more than 3,100 learners at the time of inspection.

Click to enlarge

The 16 grade three and four providers were responsible for over 90 per cent of that total: 2,969 learners and £11.2 million allocations.

Given these figures, we asked the education watchdog if it had any plans to introduce early-monitoring visits for loans-only providers, similar to those it carries out at new apprenticeship providers.

It didn’t respond directly to our question, and instead said it was “concerned about any skills provider judged to be ‘inadequate’ or ‘requires improvement’”.

“We normally inspect new providers within three years – this time frame begins when loans-only funded skills providers actually start to use their loans and educate their learners,” the spokesperson said.

As a group, loans-only providers have slipped under the radar as inspection reports typically make little reference to whether the funding source comes from a loan or the adult-education budget.

According to Ofsted 2017 annual report, loans-only providers were only “included in the scope for Ofsted inspections from September 2016 as independent-learning providers, at the start of 2016/17”, even though some providers had been delivering since late 2013.

“Limited” evidence from its inspections of loans-only providers over 2016/17 had “highlighted some potential concerns about the quality and effectiveness of distance-learning provision in some providers”, the report said.

Education and Skills Funding Agency figures reveal there are 49 providers whose only form of adult-skills funding is loans allocations, worth a combined total of almost £18 million, in 2018/19.

FE Week analysis has found that 16 of those have had allocations since 2014/15 – but only 10 have been inspected.

Read Editor Nick Linford’s view here

Performance data for some of those six is missing from the published achievement-rate tables, meaning they may not even be on Ofsted’s radar.

The DfE has admitted that not all providers submit this data to the ESFA – even though they are required to do so – because they can still get their funding from Student Loans Company without it.

Additionally, it said a number of those without published data may be below the threshold for inclusion, although the DfE could not explain what the threshold was, at the time of going to press.

“We have been working closely with providers to make sure they record their loans delivery and are taking action if providers do not record their loans data on the individualised learner record,” a spokesperson said.

Shadow skills minister Gordon Marsden told FE Week he was “concerned” about our findings – particularly in light of the three high-profile collapses of loans-only providers in 2017.

John Frank Training, Edudo Limited and Focus Training and Development Limited all went bust within months of each other, leaving learners in the lurch with huge debts and no training – prompting FE Week’s #SaveOurAdultEducation campaign.


FE loans policy explained

Advanced learner loans, originally known as 24+ loans, were introduced in 2013/14 for learners studying courses at levels three or four and aged 24 and older.

Eligibility was expanded in 2016/17 to include 19- to 23-year-olds and courses at levels five and six.

The ESFA had previously recognised that it had problems overseeing loans-funded provision, particularly where much of it was subcontracted.

In August 2016 it banned new subcontracting contracts for advanced learner loans, with a complete ban coming into force the following year.

It also introduced caps on the amount of loans cash that could be allocated to a provider, and tightened up the rules for providers that want to start delivering loans-funded provision.

Since 2017/18, providers must have been rated either ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted to request a new loans facility – although this criteria was loosened slightly for certain providers the following year.

“The ESFA will always take into account any underperformance in ongoing monitoring and contract-management arrangements,” a spokesperson said.

“Any provider that receives an inadequate Ofsted rating will have its advanced learner loans agreement removed.”

 

London mayor seeks special treatment amid AEB devolution ‘postcode lottery’ concerns

Fears are growing over the creation of a postcode lottery for adult learners, leading one devolved area to seek special treatment from the Department for Education, FE Week can reveal.

From August 2019, more than £600 million of the £1.5 billion adult education budget will be devolved to the seven mayoral combined authorities. However, these authorities will only be able to fund students who live within their boundaries.

Guidance on AEB devolution, published last month, confirms there will be “no direct reciprocal agreements between the Education and Skills Funding Agency and any mayoral combined authority or Greater London Authority arrangements to fund residents who travel to learn across boundaries from devolved areas to non devolved areas, or vice versa”.

This change could have a big impact on the number of learners accepted by colleges inside the seven devolved areas – Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Greater Manchester, Liverpool City, Sheffield City, Tees Valley, West Midlands and the West of England – and London, as well as the institutions nearby.

With the prospect of colleges and providers being forced to check postcodes at enrolment, and out of area learners being turned away, FE Week has taken a closer look at the reality of devolved funding.

Special treatment for London

The Greater London Authority is in the process of trying to negotiate a special agreement for the capital which would allow for greater flexibility.

 A spokesperson said the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is asking for Londoners to “receive the same treatment as learners from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland”, rather than England.

“This includes an acceptance that learners from London could be funded if specialist skills training is not available other than outside of the capital and they want to travel to, or live in, other areas of England to study or learn,” he said.

Many colleges outside the capital are used to enrolling Londoners, including Guildford College, Harlow College and North Kent College, while colleges based inside of London but close to the border, such as London South East Colleges, may now face difficulties recruiting learners from outside the capital.

A spokesperson for the DfE said the Greater London Authority had been given “access to information which identifies learner attendance and need”.

“This is a significant step that will give local areas the opportunity to better meet local economic needs,” she said, adding that the authority is able to enter into a funding agreement “with any provider, no matter where that provider is based, to fund learners who live there”.

Concerns from sector leaders

Sector leaders have been unanimous in their warnings about the new policy, which they say could have negative consequences for learners and institutions alike.

 Mick Fletcher, FE expert at the Policy Consortium, warned the changes “could cause all sorts of problems”.

 “One of the difficulties in running colleges is ensuring class sizes. Even if it’s just one or two students, that could be the difference of a class being viable or unviable,” he said.

 “All these negotiations will have to be done by people who haven’t done it before. We’re going to reinvent a whole load of bureaucracy.”

 He added: “I think it’s going to be damaging. It’s going to be damaging for some individuals and for some institutions, and it’s going to be an extra cost.”

Stephen Evans, chief executive of the Learning and Work Institute, called on the combined authorities and the ESFA to “take a proactive approach” to make sure learners can continue to find the best courses for them, and to make sure colleges are not subjected to “unnecessary bureaucracy” or uneven funding.

“The measure of the success of devolution will be whether devolved areas can deliver higher quality provision and better outcomes for individuals and employers, without adding extra burdens and bureaucracy,” he said.

Sue Pember, director of policy at Holex, warned that even in cases where colleges do agree contracts with an authority, these contracts will be “numbers driven” and so are likely to “limit a student’s ability to choose”.

“The feature of learner choice has been an important aspect of the English system of FE,” she said.

“It has driven up quality, allowed the best colleges to grow, and it will be a sad day when it is lost.”

Concerns have also been raised that the policy ignores the fact of people often travelling across geographic boundaries for work as well as for study.

Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said it would be “sensible” to have more “flexibility” within the devolved funding to use for learners who travel from outside of the relevant area.

“There is growing recognition that in most combined authorities there is significant travel for work outside the combined authority zone,” he said. “This presents a significant issue when looking at workforce rather than residency.”

Colleges fear postcode ‘restrictions’ 

Harlow College estimates the changes could affect up to 200 of its learners every year who come from both London and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough region.

The college is particularly concerned about its newly established partnership with Stansted Airport, who work extensively on recruiting learners from London on to their campus.

A spokesperson said the GLA has made contact to try to find a way forward.

 He said: “Employers and potential employees increasingly do not work within the geographical boundaries defined by politics.

 “It is really important that contracting arrangements do not impede opportunities for people to gain access to better employment and training. There appears to be no proposed flexibility in rules related to postcodes.”

Ian Pryce, chief executive of Bedford College, said he was concerned the devolved budgets are “likely to restrict rather than increase opportunities” and “increase the complexity for colleges”.

 “I really don’t like the idea of us having to say to someone from St Neots ‘these are all the courses we do but you can only do these ones because of your postcode’.

“I hope it won’t come to that, and also hope we don’t see devolved authorities using funds to favour their own adult provision departments or creaming off money for admin.”

However, he added that the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority has been “excellent at involving us and wants us to carry on as normal for now”.

Sean Scully, director of student experience at Oaklands College, which takes learners from London and Cambridge, said the college was “aware and fully engaged” and expecting “very low numbers” of learners would be affected.

“Our initial thoughts are that by staying engaged with the areas we know students are coming from we will greatly reduce any possible impact,” he said.

A spokesperson for the Guildford College Group said it was “aware of the issue” and was still in discussions with the Greater London Authority “to find a resolution for the very few students that this will affect”.

Trouble ahead for colleges with multiple campuses

FE Week has taken a closer look at some of the complications that may arise from the new focus on postcodes.

As the emphasis is placed on whether colleges are inside a combined authority, this may overlook colleges with multiple campuses which can lie outside of boundaries.

The College of West Anglia, for example, was formed in 1998 out of a merger between the Norfolk College of Arts and Technology and the Cambridgeshire College of Agriculture and Horticulture, and a further merger in 2006 added Isle College in Wisbech.

The college is now based over these three campuses but, although Cambridge and Wisbech are contained within the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority, the third campus, in King’s Lynn in Norfolk, is not.

The College of West Anglia did not respond to requests for comment about what this will mean for the way the college operates, and whether learners in Norfolk will still be able to attend the local King’s Lynn campus.

The arbitrary nature of the boundaries also means that some learners living on the same street could be prevented from going to the same colleges.

 For example, the edge of the Greater London Authority boundary splits Crayford Road from Dartford Road, where it becomes Kent.

This means that learners who live on the Crayford Road side, in London, will not be funded by the GLA if they enrol at North Kent College’s campus in Dartford, just 1.3 miles away.

And their neighbours who live on the Dartford Road side, in Kent, will not be funded to go to the London South East Colleges’ campus in Bexley, just 2.38 miles away.

 

Figures from AoC

Estimates from the Association of Colleges suggest a huge variation in the amount of money that different devolved areas receive.

The Greater London Authority is expected to receive an AEB allocation of £311 million next year, whereas smaller areas can expect a fraction of that amount, with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough in line for £12 million and the West of England expecting £17 million.

The AoC’s estimates, based on data from 2016/17, suggest that 62 colleges are contained within the boundaries of the combined authorities and GLA, which will share £342 million from the devolved budget but just £42 million in separate funding from the Education and Skills Funding Agency.

There are 168 colleges not based within a combined authority, which will share £401 million from the ESFA but will be entitled to split just £81 million from the devolved budget.

Speaking at the AoC conference last week, its deputy chief executive Julian Gravatt said: “I think effectively what we will see is the devolved authorities will want to deal with fewer colleges and providers, and will effectively localise.”

 Asked about concerns over a postcode lottery, he told FE Week: “It would be much better if the DfE and the combined authorities could agree a cost transfer arrangement to avoid new bureaucratic obstacles.”

How DfE can better support colleges in crisis

As she leads her new institution to financial recovery, principal Karen Redhead reflects on what can help and hinder this difficult process

I took over at Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College in September, in the wake of a financial notice to improve from the Education and Skills Funding Agency, and an intervention from the FE commissioner, fully aware of the scale and extent of the issues faced by the college.

This is my initial insight into what it’s been like leading a college towards financial recovery, what is working and what could be done better.

The first stocktake visit from the commissioner’s team in October was thorough and purposeful. It genuinely gave me access to what felt like high-quality consultancy, coaching and mentoring that is vital in such a challenging scenario. It acknowledged that we’d done an overwhelming amount of work but that there was still much to do.

The process has been as burdensome as it has been supportive, and there’s a real danger of overwhelming a college that is by definition already weak. Deteriorating financial health is often the first sign to the outside world that all is not well. But that’s usually the tip of the iceberg.

The financial controls at West London College were certainly weak, but in addition, the college had no strategic plan, no costed curriculum plan, no workforce plan, a financial plan that was not fit for purpose, no estates strategy – despite having multiple and complex projects on the go – and the risk register hadn’t been updated since 2016.

Compounding this can be the difficulty in attracting senior leaders and board members. At one point we had vacancies in the post of chair, vice chair, clerk, deputy principal for curriculum and quality, director of finance and resources, and director of management information systems. I’m really pleased to have appointed some strong candidates to the executive team, but they don’t take up their posts until the new year.

The hoops the college has to jump through become the biggest barrier to improvement

We have to report to three separate agencies: the ESFA, because we’re under a financial notice to improve; the FE commissioner’s team, following their diagnostic assessment in July; and the transaction unit, because we’re in receipt of an exceptional financial support loan.

And perversely, what happens is that the hoops the college has to jump through, mainly in relation to the financial support loan, become the biggest barrier to improvement.

There’s simply not enough time to do the crucial development work with the finance department and senior team because they’re too busy providing data about the college’s weekly cash flow, in order to calculate the bare minimum loan payment we need each month.

We’re lacking some of the underpinning processes that would be taken for granted in a well-running college, and due to the onerous reporting requirements, the team doesn’t have time to set them up.

Data requests include items such as course-level costing. But if the college is still developing its curriculum plan and workforce plan, that information is not available. It can feel quite challenging when the various agencies are making demands for information for which the processes are not yet in place.

The power imbalance in this kind of situation leads to a temptation to acquiesce to administrative requests, in the interest of maintaining harmonious relationships, that under other circumstances I would question.

The three agencies are trying hard to minimise duplication of demands on the college. However more could be done to achieve this. Rather than the separate processes requiring different recovery plans, it would make more sense to combine these into one plan from the outset. It would also have helped to have access to a model recovery plan template that could be modified according to the circumstances.

More clarity about the new insolvency regime would also help. Asking a college in crisis mode to create its own specification for an independent business review, for example, is just one more unnecessary burden.

And finally, if we’re to avoid these situations in the first place, leaders must be encouraged to ask for help early – and this requires a radical rethink. If the only option is to trigger a formal process with high personal consequences, then of course leaders will be reticent.

We know very few people set out deliberately to do a bad job, so we need to think about how to create a no-blame, no-shame process.

College-run academy trusts in trouble

An academy trust run by a college has been warned it will be stripped of its only school if standards don’t improve – the latest in a string of college-run trusts falling into trouble.

The Burton and South Derbyshire Education Trust – set up by Burton and South Derbyshire College – was warned the Kingfisher Academy could be rebrokered unless standards improved.

 In a minded to terminate letter, published last week and sent in October, the government highlighted the school’s ‘inadequate’ Ofsted rating, after its first inspection in September 2017.

Although a monitoring visit in June found leaders were taking effective action to make improvements, the government has asked for further information to ensure progress is being made.

The trust has since said they have provided this information, and claimed closing the school had now been taken off the table.

Among the other college-run academy trusts to face problems is the Salford Academy Trust, founded by Salford City College, the University of Salford and Salford City Council.

In June it confirmed that it would give up all four of its schools and close. Salford City College retained 75 per cent control over the trust, which, according to accounts published in February, had been identified as “high risk” by the Department for Education after a review of one school identified “serious weaknesses”.

And in March the multi-academy trust Marine Academy Plymouth, sponsored by the University of Plymouth, Cornwall College and the Plymouth local authority, was warned its namesake school could be transferred to another trust after being put into special measures in November last year.

Kevin Courtney, joint general secretary of the National Education Union, said colleges are “very good” at providing post-16 education, but warned that “does not qualify them to run schools or manage academy trusts”.

He said: “The government was wrong to assume that a college provider could simply take over schools and run them successfully.”

According to DfE statistics, 21 colleges are listed as the main sponsors of academy trusts, with a total of 57 academies between them. They range from having one to 13 schools.

FE Week analysis found just one of these academies is rated as ‘outstanding’: Heath Lane Academy run by The Midland Academies Trust, which is sponsored by North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire College.

However, the trust’s three other schools are rated ‘requires improvement’. Three more of its academies, including two studio schools, have closed.

In total, 13 college-run academies are rated as ‘good’, nine as ‘requires improvement’ and five as ‘inadequate’. The rest have not yet been inspected by Ofsted.

Julian Gravatt (pictured), deputy chief executive at the Association of Colleges, said it was important to note that colleges “mainly” sponsor trusts with schools that were previously failing, or which run ventures such as university technical colleges or alternative provision academies.

He said there have been “many successes” in college-run trusts, but added: “Colleges don’t have deep pockets like some sponsors do, and the different legal structure of academies has been an unhelpful obstacle.”

The obstacles he referred to include the fact that colleges have a different financial year end, and that colleges can’t recover VAT although schools can.

Mr Gravatt also said that the DfE and Education and Skills Funding Agency have more than 1,000 officials who work on issues associated with academies but only a few hundred who work on colleges.

 “The former don’t always understand the latter,” he added.

 Kevin Gilmartin, post-16 and colleges specialist at the Association of School and College Leaders, said colleges can bring “great benefits” to trusts because of their “close links to employers and their expertise in vocational and technical education”.

He added the biggest challenges to education are inadequate government funding and teacher shortages.

The DfE offered this comment when FE Week asked why it thinks some college-run trusts have underperformed: “One of the benefits of the academy system is that sponsors are from a variety of backgrounds and can tailor their expertise to suit pupils’ needs.

“This freedom in the hands of school leaders is driving up standards across the country, with more than half a million children now studying in sponsored academies rated ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ that often replaced underperforming schools. This includes academies that are sponsored by further education colleges.”