The HR director at Hull College Group has been placed on a leave of absence after an ongoing independent investigation found dozens of pay-offs and non-disclosure agreements (NDAs).

Former employees with gagging clauses in their settlement agreements came forward after the chief executive, Michelle Swithenback, was placed on a “leave of absence” in early October.

They described how they were paid substantial sums to stop them pursuing bullying and pay-related sexual discrimination claims.

“I broke down and spent many days crying privately”

The college has refused to comment, but FE Week understands Julie Milad has been temporarily removed from post whilst the claims are investigated.

Milad was appointed director of HR in 2017, and according to her LinkedIn page was promoted to vice principal HR and corporate services in November 2018.

Documents seen by FE Week show that in just eight months, between March 2018 and October 2018, more than £6 million was spent on redundancy payments to over 200 staff.

The costs were covered by the government as part of a huge £42 million bailout as part of the national college Restructuring Fund.

The need to reduce the number of employees formed part of the conditions of the one-off funding and according to published college accounts, a staffing limit was set at 65 per cent of total expenditure.

One former senior employee, ‘Anna’ (see right), described how in the summer of 2018 she found she was not “being taken forward”.

“I broke down and spent many days crying privately” says Anna, who was also made aware by an independent lawyer she had a case for pay-related sexual discrimination.

In email exchanges seen by FE Week, the college’s in-house lawyer said a male member of staff had been overpaid in “error” so “would not look to compensate you for an error of payment made to another member of staff”.

Anna was instead offered four months’ pay as well as a £5,000 “enhancement” for a “swift conclusion and as a gesture of good will…on the proviso that your agreement [NDA] is signed and returned at the earliest opportunity”.

“The solicitor told me to just enjoy some time out as at my age I had deserved it,” says Anna who accepted the offer and signed the NDA.

The NDA, also seen by FE Week, said that “by signing this agreement you are waiving your rights to pursue a claim against your employer” and included gagging clauses such as: “You must not say anything derogatory about the college or do anything that would damage its reputation.”

“The impact on my mental health has been significant,” Anna said. “I was the main earner in our household and my family relied on me.”

Another former senior employee, ‘James’ (see below), claims he was being bullied in late 2018, after the restructure, and raised the matter with the HR department.

“I was humiliated in college meetings for problems that were not even my responsibility,” he said.

He was offered a £30,000 pay-off for his silence and “told if I made a complaint it would simply take three months of wasted time and then I would leave with nothing”.

James said he “was backed into a corner with a choice of either sign the NDA or leave with nothing”.

“It is clear now that the NDA was not to prevent information going to competitors, but to cover up claims of bullying, constructive dismissal and mismanagement.”

The independent investigation, being undertaken by a leading law firm, was launched by the college in September after a senior leader, turned whistleblower, reported evidence of nepotism and inappropriate use of funds.

“I was humiliated in college meetings for problems that were not even my responsibility”

At the time, education minister Lord Agnew told FE Week: “Any financial wrongdoing, if it has occurred, is treated extremely seriously and we will be carefully monitoring events as the information becomes available.”

FE Week then reported in October how Graham Raddings had used the college marketing budget between January and August 2018 to promote a several computer game related projects, including one he had co-founded.

Raddings, himself a computer game enthusiast, is also husband to the college’s chief executive.

It is understood the investigation, in addition to looking at the NDAs, is also taking a closer look at the over £100,000 spent on a computer game app, computer game-style cinema advertising and a PR agency that promoted the music event and computer game.

A freedom of information request response shows the college group spent over £1 million on marketing in the past two years.

One of the last marketing budget commitments, before the investigation was launched, included a three year deal for naming rights at the Hull KR stadium, Craven Park.

The college has refused to answer questions concerning the costs or benefits of the deal, but Hull KR has confirmed “so far as we are concerned the situation has not changed since August…this is a three-year deal that kicks in properly at the start of the 2020 season”.

 

James’s story

A former senior employee spoke to FE Week that we refer to as James, as he did not wish to be named.

James described how the bullying he experienced has had a serious impact on his mental health. After raising concerns he was persuaded by the director of HR he would have to leave with nothing unless he signed a deal that silenced him.

“I was humiliated in college meetings for problems that were not even my responsibility” he said.

“It was made clear to me that those at the top wanted me to leave.

“The long term mental health issues this puts on me and my family is devastating, as those who sign NDAs have to rebuild their lives and careers under the false impression that they were at fault.”

James raised concerns through official channels but was persuaded he would get nothing unless he accepted a £30,000 payoff in return for not pursuing a claim of constructive dismissal and bullying by individuals in the senior leadership team.

“I was told if made a complaint it would simply take three months of wasted time and then I would leave with nothing.

“It is clear now that the NDA was not to prevent information going to competitors, but to cover up claims of bullying, constructive dismissal and mismanagement.

“It is crippling for an employee who is forced into a situation where they have no choice, especially when the activity is coming from the very top and is not related to performance. Raising issues with the HR only meant that they used this information to further enforce my NDA.

“I was backed into a corner with a choice of either sign the NDA or leave with nothing.”

 

Anna’s story

Another former senior employee spoke to FE Week that we refer to as Anna, as she did not wish to be named.

Anna had worked at the college for more than decade and was one of over 200 employees who in her own words were not “being taken forward”.

“My world crumbled. I had already committed to seeing out my career at Hull College and was a dedicated, loyal and hardworking member of staff without a blemish on my record.

“I broke down and spent many days crying privately.”

In the course of the redundancy process, Anna discovered that a male employee doing the same job had been paid significantly more.

In correspondence seen by FE Week, Anna raised this with the college after an independent lawyer suggested there were grounds for a pay-related sexual discrimination grievance.

The in-house lawyer for the college responded to Anna, claiming the male member of staff had been overpaid in “error” so “would not look to compensate you for an error of payment made to another member of staff”.

Anna was instead offered a £5,000 “enhancement” for a “swift conclusion and as a gesture of good will”.

The email from the in-house lawyer said this offer was made “on the proviso that your agreement [NDA] is signed and returned at the earliest opportunity”.

“The solicitor told me to just enjoy some time out as at my age I had deserved it,” says Anna.

She subsequently signed the NDA, seen by FE Week, which included the line: “By signing this agreement you are waiving you rights to pursue a claim against your employer, in exchange for this you will receive the payments shown in the Termination Agreement”.

Anna’s NDA went on to say that “you cannot disclose any information that has come into your knowledge during the course of your employment to anyone outside the organisation” and “you must not say anything derogatory about the college or do anything that would damage its reputation”.

Anna says: “The impact on my family has been huge. I often break down and even mourn the career/life/respect I had. My confidence has gone. My husband and I have had to rethink our retirement plans, and I wonder what the future holds.

“The impact on my mental health has been significant. I was the main earner in our household and my family relied on me.

“I was disappointed that no senior leader took the time to thank me or say goodbye during my last weeks for my service, and I was left on my last day walking to my car, looking up at the building and saying ‘goodbye Hull College.”

As we enter the final stretch of the 2019 general election, FE Week has run through all the education and skills candidates to keep an eye on.

Given the constant changes in the polls and domination of Brexit, which is expected to lead to more tactical voting than ever before, no politician’s seat is safe.

It means we could see a number of high-profile upsets for former and current FE members of parliament.

For example, the Conservative party is currently predicted to unseat Labour’s shadow skills minister Gordon Marsden, while former skills minister Anne Milton is expected be unsuccessful in her bid to be the independent MP for Guildford after leaving the Conservatives.

FE Week has used YouGov’s Multi-level Regression and Post-stratification model for seat predictions in this guide, which was based on interviews with approximately 100,000 people about their voting intentions at the end of November.

While the samples in each seat are too small to produce “reliable” constituency estimates, YouGov correctly predicted 93 per cent of seats and the overall hung parliament result in 2017.

Key education figures opt out of general election race

A number of key political figures in education have decided to step down at this election.

These include previous Conservative education secretaries Nicky Morgan, who held the post between 2014 and 2016, and Justine Greening, the secretary of state from 2016 to 2018.

Morgan said she is not standing to be re-elected as MP for Loughborough because it was time for her to “be at home far more”. She also highlighted the sacrifices involved in, and abuse received for, being an MP.

In contrast, Greening, previously Putney’s representative, blamed the “Brexit approach” taken by the government.

Additionally, former minister of state for skills Nick Boles (2014-2016), who resigned from the Conservative Party and crossed the floor after the Tories refused to “compromise” on Brexit, decided not to stand as an independent in his constituency of Grantham and Stamford.

Education and skills ministers have faced high-profile upsets in the past.

In 2015, Liberal Democrat Vince Cable, then secretary of state for business, innovation and skills, lost his parliamentary seat before regaining it in 2017 and becoming the party’s leader.

Conservative candidate Tania Mathias became the MP for Twickenham for the two-year interim period with a majority of 2,017.

Cable then regained the constituency he had previously held since 1997 with a 9,762 majority. He chose to step down ahead of this general election, having resigned as leader of the Liberal Democrats earlier this year.

Another Liberal Democrat cabinet minister, David Laws, the schools minister between 2012 and 2015, was also defeated in the 2015 general election after being part of the coalition government. He lost 22.6 per cent of the vote compared to the previous election in 2010, with his Conservative opponent Marcus Fysh winning with a 5,313 majority.

Moreover, Shirley Williams, who was Labour’s secretary of state for education and science, failed to get re-elected in 1979. She had previously held the same title between 1967 and 1969.

Baroness Williams of Crosby, as she is now known, later joined the House of Lords as a Liberal Democrat in 1993. She became party leader in the second chamber of the UK parliament between 2001 and 2004.

 

More FE professionals will be backing Labour than the Conservatives at next week’s general election, exclusive FE Week polling can reveal.

When asked who they would be voting for, 37 per cent of the 542 respondents replied saying Labour; while 27 per cent said the Conservative Party.

Coming in third were the Liberal Democrats, on 17 per cent; ahead of ‘don’t know’ with ten per cent and the Green Party, three per cent.

The Brexit Party has made little impact with sector workers, narrowly avoiding last place with one per cent, little more than the option for ‘other’.

A majority (58 per cent) of respondents also did not believe a Conservative government would be good for the FE and skills sector.

And while only a plurality of respondents (46 per cent) believed a Labour administration would be good for the sector, they were even less sure about the Liberal Democrats: 43 per cent said they did not know if they would be good for the sector.

The Conservative party were the least trusted of the three main parties to carry out their FE and Skills manifesto commitments for a £3 billion National Skills Fund and near £2 billion for capital estate upgrades.

They earned 53 per cent on the least trusted question, compared to Labour with a 26 per cent share.

The Liberal Democrats should be happy with a nine per cent share, after coming behind ‘don’t know’, which scored ten per cent.

Labour scored the most for ‘Of the 3 largest parties, which do you most trust to carry out their FE and Skills manifesto commitments?’ with 41 per cent.

Were survey respondents to vote on what they believed was best for the FE and skills sector, 43 per cent said they would put their cross in the box next to Labour candidates.

A quarter said they would back the Conservatives, 14 per cent did not know, 12 per cent opted for the Liberal Democrats, and one per cent said the Green party.

The one landslide from the questions was for remaining in the EU; which was voted in favour of by 63 per cent of people who answered what they would like to happen with Brexit.

Boris Johnson may be slightly buoyed by the fact the option for ‘leave the EU with the current Conservative deal’ came in second… with 17 per cent.

Respondents were drawn from across colleges and training providers, which had some very different views on the election.

Thirty five per cent of respondents from FE colleges said they would vote for Labour, while 39 per cent of PTP voters told FE Week they will back the Conservatives.

For further analysis of our survey, read our general election 2019 supplement, which also features the full story on the various parties’ election pledges for FE and skills sector.

A software firm and three providers working in the care sector have been heavily criticised by Ofsted, in a mixed week for FE providers.

Genius Software Solutions Limited was one of two new private providers to be awarded three out of three ‘insufficient progress’ grades in early monitoring reports.

The education watchdog found its apprenticeships “are of little benefit to too many apprentices and do not develop or extend their knowledge, skills or behaviours” and “too many apprentices do not make rapid enough progress”.

Inspectors added that apprentices who need to achieve English or mathematics qualifications do not receive enough structured support to develop their skills and are not well prepared for exams.

Leaders and managers were also deemed to “have not put in place effective arrangements to improve quality”.

Genius Software Solutions delivers apprenticeships across England and Scotland but only the 109 apprentices on programmes in England were in scope for the visit.

Phoenix4Training LLP was the other provider found making ‘insufficient progress’ across the board.

The company, which was established by two partners in 2007, offers a range of commercial training and funded training to the health and social care and rail sectors.

At the time of the monitoring visit, it delivered training to 59 apprentices.

Ofsted said leaders have “insufficient oversight” over the quality of the programme and apprentices’ progress.

The report also stated “leaders and managers have insufficient understanding of the expectations and requirements of an apprenticeship programme”.

According to inspectors, “too few apprentices develop new vocational knowledge, skills and behaviours as a result of their apprenticeship” and assessments were “insufficient”. 

Another two independent learning providers – Principal Skills Limited and Care Assessment Training Services Ltd – received two ‘insufficient progress’ grades in their early monitoring reports.

Principal Skills Limited had just 11 apprentices on programmes at levels 2, 3 and 5. It delivers its provision in care homes and in engineering and construction settings.

The education watchdog reported leaders and managers have “not ensured that their provision meets the requirements and principles of an apprenticeship” or that “employers fulfil their obligations to their apprentices”.

While steps have been put in place to address the finding that around half of the apprentices on standards-based apprenticeships are significantly past their intended completion date, inspectors said it is “too early” to identify the impact of their actions.

Ofsted found “many” employers working with Care Assessment Training Services Ltd sector did not know their staff were on apprenticeships (click here for full story).

Providers that are deemed to have made ‘insufficient progress’ in early monitoring reports are suspended from recruiting apprentices until their Ofsted grade improves, under government rules.

Elsewhere this week, independent learning provider Youth Force Limited was graded ‘good’ in its first full inspection. Inspectors who visited the Sussex-based provider found that apprentices “are enthusiastic to learn”.

They also “enjoy developing new knowledge and skills” and are “increasingly confident to apply their new learning at work”.

Employer provider Rentokil Initial (1896) Limited was also graded ‘good’ in a full inspection. The global company trains over 350 of its own apprentices who “enjoy their learning and show high levels of professionalism at work and in training”.

Ofsted added that the apprentices “benefit from a carefully planned curriculum that enables them to build their knowledge and perfect their skills”.

The JGA Group maintained its grade two in a short inspection, with inspectors noting that learners “particularly appreciate being taught by experts who help to bring their subjects to life and make them relevant in the workplace”.

Another grade two went to HTP Apprenticeship College Ltd, but it wasn’t all celebrations as it had actually dropped from a grade one following an 11-year respite.

Meanwhile, the University of Hertfordshire was praised for making ‘significant progress’ in its apprenticeship provision in all three assessed themes in an early monitoring visit.

Leaders have a “clear strategy” to provide “highly effective” programmes that “meet the requirements of an apprenticeship”, inspectors said.

And two providers – Paddington Development Trust and the Virtual College – were found making ‘reasonable progress’ in all assessed themes in monitoring visits following ‘requires improvement’ grades in full inspections earlier in the year.

The remaining independent learning providers assessed by the inspectorate this week received ‘reasonable progress’ across the board following their monitoring visits.

These were: Captiva Learning Ltd, Bottle Green Training Limited, Happy Computers, Mercia College Limited and Trainplus Ltd.

 

Independent Learning Providers	Inspected	Published	Grade	Previous grade
Captiva Learning Ltd	14/11/2019	05/12/2019	M	N/A
Care Assessment Training Services Ltd	24/10/2019	02/12/2019	M	N/A
Genius Software Solutions Limited	24/10/2019	02/12/2019	M	N/A
Happy Computers	13/11/2019	04/12/2019	M	2
HTP Apprenticeship College Ltd	15/11/2019	02/12/2019	2	1
Mercia College Limited	13/11/2019	04/12/2019	M	N/A
Paddington Development Trust	06/11/2019	03/12/2019	M	3
Phoenix4Training LLP	07/11/2019	04/12/2019	M	N/A
The JGA Group	31/10/2019	04/12/2019	2	2
Virtual College	21/11/2019	03/12/2019	M	3
Trainplus Ltd	14/11/2019	05/12/2019	M	N/A
Youth Force Limited	15/11/2019	05/12/2019	2	M
Bottle Green Training Limited	14/11/2019	06/12/2019	M	N/A
Principal Skills Limited	14/11/2019	06/12/2019	M	N/A

 

Employer providers	Inspected	Published	Grade	Previous grade
Rentokil Initial (1896) Limited	15/11/2019	02/12/2019	2	M

 

Other (including UTCs)	Inspected	Published	Grade	Previous grade
University of Hertfordshire	24/10/2019	04/12/2019	M	N/A

Every provider that challenged the government on English and maths condition of funding penalties over the past three years had its appeal accepted, new data has revealed.

A Freedom of Information request by FE Week shows that 135 eligible business cases which contested funding adjustments were submitted to the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) between 2017/18 and 2019/20. All of them were “supported”.

Their successful appeals would have saved them tens of thousands of pounds, although it is not clear exactly how much as the agency did not provide costs in its response.

The ESFA explained that it considers “evidenced and credible business cases from institutions where there has been a significant error in the data returned by the institution”.

The agency’s data showed there were another 74 appeals which were not supported, but only because they “were below the business case threshold”.

ESFA rules state that the “standard minimum thresholds” for condition of funding cases are “an overall impact of 5 per cent on total funding or £100,000, whichever is lower”.

The Department for Education’s condition of funding rule means all students in England aged 16 to 19 who have achieved a grade 3 in English or maths GCSEs are required to retake the subjects.

Providers with more than five per cent of eligible students failing to enrol on the qualifications have their funding adjusted by the ESFA.

FE Week analysis of 16-to-19 allocation data from the 2017/18 academic year found that 19 general FE colleges were deducted a total of £1,211,930 under the rules.

Annual eligible applications to appeal condition of funding penalties dropped significantly from that year, when there was 63, to 2018/19, when 36 were entered.

In 2018/19, this newspaper revealed 13 general FE colleges had lost slightly less than the year before – £1,137,091.

However, the number of colleges and amount of funding that was withdrawn this year rose again.

FE Week analysis found 23 colleges were stripped of £1,468,934 in total. For all provider types, including academies and private providers, £5,712,092 was taken back by the ESFA.

All 36 eligible business cases that were submitted in 2019/20 were granted.

Silverstone UTC’s principal Neil Patterson criticised the criteria for the recovery of condition of funding last month after his appeal, which did not meet the required threshold, was rejected.

The university technical college’s allocation data stated that 18 students did not meet the threshold, which resulted in a deduction of £10,406 in this year’s adjustment.

Patterson told FE Week there had been an error in the UTC’s management information system which led to those students being incorrectly identified.

“All 18 students did in fact meet the condition of funding, so we submitted a business case to the ESFA to seek to recover the amount,” he said.

“However, as the amount is smaller than the ‘5 per cent of revenue’ threshold that the ESFA apply, our business case was, unfairly in our view, rejected by the ESFA.”

Patterson added that the UTC felt that, with post-16 funding being “fairly complex,” the threshold rule is a “barrier” to receiving full funding.

Original ESFA condition of funding rules stated that any eligible student who failed to enrol would be removed in full from funding allocations for the next-but-one academic year.

The condition was relaxed from 2016/17, with the penalty halved and only applied to providers at which more than five per cent of students did not meet the standard.

One of the most prominent and long-standing further education representatives in the House of Commons is battling to save his seat in next week’s general election.

YouGov has predicted shadow further and higher education minister Gordon Marsden will be unseated in Blackpool South, a constituency he has represented for Labour since 1997.

The pollster’s Multi-level Regression and Post-stratification model, which successfully predicted a hung parliament in the 2017 general election as well as 93 per cent of seats, believes Marsden’s area is leaning towards the Conservatives. The Tories lost this seat to Labour by 2,500 votes at the 2017 general election.

Marsden’s first stint as a shadow minister for FE was from 2010 until 2013, before he moved to cover the transport brief for two years.

Then, in 2015, he returned to shadow the FE portfolio and has served Labour in that role for four years.

Prior to entering parliament, he was an Open University lecturer and editor of a history magazine and while Labour was in government, he served as parliamentary private secretary to a number of different secretaries of state.

During his time as shadow further and higher education minister, he has been a highly-visible presence on the Labour frontbench during education questions and backbench debates.

He has also been a regular speaker at sector conferences, including for the Association of Colleges, the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, and FE Week’s Annual Apprenticeship Conference.

And when Labour launched its adult education policy for this election, it did so in Marsden’s constituency.

Another FE champion looking likely to lose her Commons seat is ex-minister Anne Milton.

She resigned from the apprenticeships and skills position ahead of Boris Johnson becoming prime minister in July.

Milton then lost the Conservative party whip – essentially her right to sit and stand as a Conservative MP – in September after abstaining on a Commons vote to stop Johnson from proroguing parliament.

Unbowed, Milton decided to stand in Guildford as an independent, but YouGov also predicts the seat is leaning towards electing her Conservative opponent.

To find out how vulnerable all the big FE MPs are, read our special general election 2019 guide here.