50,000 more nurses? 3m apprenticeship target a lesson in how key Conservative manifesto ‘guarantees’ do not add up

The Conservative Party manifesto, published yesterday, pledged “50,000 more nurses” as the first of six “guarantees”, signed on page two by the prime minister, Boris Johnson.

And Matthew Hancock, the health secretary and former apprenticeships minister is, according to his Twitter feed, particularly grateful to the Daily Express.

In a triple digit font size they’ve written “BORIS PLEDGES 50,000 EXTRA NURSES” on their front page.

But we now know, after it was pointed out the budget was significantly short of the cost for 50,000 nurses, that in fact around 20,000 (40 per cent) are already nurses.

I listened to Nicky Morgan doing the media rounds this morning, floundering on the BBC Today radio programme and on ITV’s Good Morning Britain, where the interviewers were not convinced by the “we’ll improve retention” spin.

And it reminded me of something Nick Boles said about the method of arriving at another previous centrepiece manifesto recruitment target: “To create 3 million apprenticeships for young people by 2020.”

Boles, who took over from Hancock as the apprenticeships minister in the summer of 2014, was interviewed by the Institute for Government in late 2017 and said: “Well, we had delivered two million apprenticeships in the 2010–15 Parliament. So in the manifesto process, there was a classic exercise in ‘Well, okay, what are we going to promise for the next Parliament?’

“There was this feeling that you can’t say two and a half million, that sounds a bit tame, nobody would be excited by that, so we’re going to say three million. Then three million is really a lot of apprenticeships, it’s big growth.

“Where’s the money going to come from? In advance of the election, we were lost in the noise and fury, as it were. I hadn’t expected or wanted to be reappointed, but when I was reappointed I was quite aware that we had a bit of a challenge here.”

It would appear that the priority when it comes to manifestos is that a target must sound exciting and be a lot higher than what came before – worry about money and a plan latter.

Basically, round it up to 50,000 or 3 million – seems to be the methodology within the Conservative Party.

But, to give the Conservatives the benefit of the doubt, maybe they subsequently put in place a plan to achieve the 3 million target?

If they did have a plan, then it has spectacularly failed.

The number of apprenticeships in recent years have not risen and nor has the pass rate.

By May 2020 there will have been around 2.2 million starts, the same as the period prior to the setting of the target and around 800,000 (a quarter) short of 3 million.

And, far from supporting “young people” as the manifesto promised, last year apprenticeship starts for those under the age of 19 fell by 9 per cent whilst for those aged 25 and over, starts grew by 14 per cent.

The government has since excused the sluggish numbers on the grounds that quality is more important than quantity.

So, does the data show quality has risen?

The official figures actually show a 4.4 percentage point fall in the apprenticeship pass rate and Ofsted has expressed concern about the influx of inexperienced training providers.

Based on the most recent figures, for 2017/18, just over 30 per cent of apprentices at all ages are not finishing the course and for the growth area, adults, it is over 35 per cent.

History, and specifically the apprenticeship manifesto target, demonstrates the Conservative Party like a big number and don’t seem to care if it does not stack up.

But maybe this time, when it comes to nurses, there will actually be a rise in recruitment levels, even if it isn’t as many as 50,000.

Inaugural WorldSkills UK Diversity and Inclusion Heroes Award winners revealed

The winners of the inaugural WorldSkills UK Diversity and Inclusion Heroes Awards have been crowned at WorldSkills UK LIVE.

Run in partnership with Coca-Cola European Partners, the ceremony recognises those who have gone above and beyond in their support of young people from a range of backgrounds and championing difference and inclusivity in the further education sector.

The winner of the Rising Star Award, Jaguar Land Rover apprentice Raisa Matadar (pictured centre), said: “I’m feeling very over-the-moon.

“I definitely wasn’t expecting to win tonight especially among the shortlisted candidates, but I can’t wait to go celebrate now.”

Paul Sowerby from the Catcote Academy Sixth Form, which teaches special needs students in Hartlepool, took home the award for programme or initiative of the year.

He said the award was for students’ work in care homes, where they made relationships with staff and residents.

They are now being asked to take on casual work and for full-days so they have “really, really come on”.

“It’s great to have the care home on board, who have been very caring and on-board for our needs,” said Sowerby.

The awards were introduced by WorldSkills UK chief executive Neil Bentley-Gockmann, who said: “People talk about diversity and inclusion not as an event, but a progress.

“When I first joined WorldSkills four years ago, I said we needed to do a lot more work strengthening our processes and our work on diversity and inclusion.”

“We need to ensure we are pulling on the best talent to ensure we are fully inclusive in everything we do.”

The organisation has conducted a root and branch review of everything it does, as well as an internal audit, to make its work as inclusive as possible, Dr Neil said.

Coca-Cola European Partners HR business partner Sharon Blyfield (pictured right) spoke about how her organisation “needs to understand the barriers for young people coming to our organisation”.

They have launched their ‘Just Speak’ programme to ensure employees “feel they can come to work and be themselves”.

“Anything I and my colleagues can do to move forward representation and make sure we create a level playing field for young people coming into work is a major factor for us – this is why we got behind this this year. We knew it would benefit us as an organisation.”

FE Week is the official media partner of WorldSkills UK LIVE and is providing live coverage from all three days of the event.

The full list of winners is as follows:

  • Programme or initiative of the year – Paul Sowerby, Catcote Academy
  • Media/social media campaign of the year – Michael Purcell, Southern Regional College
  • Network of the year – Natalia Rossetti, The Girls’ Network
  • Role model of the year – Libby Price, Gemini Accident Repair
  • Rising Star – Raisa Matadar

My 5 priorities for FE that should go first in the next education secretary’s in-tray

Some issues have been hanging over the vocational sector for 40 years, says Ewart Keep. If we truly want to transform our society and economy, we can’t afford to keep passing the buck

As FE and skills have taken centre stage in this election battle, and parties vie for our attention with policies and promises, it is worth reflecting on some of the deep-seated and intractable issues facing the next education secretary.

First, the apprenticeship policy is suffering from a lethal combination of providers anxious to game the system creatively, and employers keen to get their levy back without doing anything new by way of training. The result has been an explosion of higher-level training for established adult employees. There is nothing wrong with this – indeed more is needed – but provision for young people has fallen, the opposite of what policymakers had hoped for.

At some point in 2020 the apprenticeship levy pot will run out, with nothing left over for smaller firms. The government can either try to reduce/cap costs, or restrict the age, wage or level of training of apprentices, but either “solution” will be met by howls of rage. Fortunately for the new secretary, the decision will probably have to be made by the Treasury as the levy is a UK-wide tax.

Next, T-levels. The government is already touting them as a new gold standard qualification, with optimistic projections about how employers will react to them when recruiting – before a single student has completed one. But the bulk of 16 to 19 students in FE are on courses at level 2 or below, the concept of a “transition year” is still nothing more than a concept, and there are serious questions about where work placements will come from and whether they can function as intended. And that’s not to mention the sheer economics of provision. 

The nation also has to come to terms with the gradual retreat of employers from training employees. Best estimates are that between 1997 and 2017 the volume of training given by companies to their workers in the UK fell by 60 per cent, and there is no sign of a halt to this decline. It is not a temporary phenomenon, but appears to be a structural trend deeply rooted in employment and competitive strategies. The importance of this issue cannot be over-estimated. It partly underlies the Labour Party’s lifelong learning proposals and the Lib Dems’ “skills wallet”. We haven’t even chosen whether to embrace this trend or try to reverse it; either will be incredibly challenging.

There is the question of a vision for vocational education

Fourth, governance. Civil servants still refer to an education system, but in fact what policy has created over the past 20 years is a set of quasi-markets, funded through atomised, individual student choice and superintended by a host of regulators (commissioners, ESFA, Ofsted, OfS, etc). Fragmentation has brought multiple problems, of which Hadlow and Highbury are simply the most egregious examples. Local accountability is often weak or non-existent. Because funding follows individual choice, neither employers nor government have many levers to influence the shape of provision and, where it applies, devolution is patchy, weak and stalled. It is unclear what solutions are available.

Finally, there is the question of a vision for vocational education. To date the Conservatives have eschewed formulating one, but the other parties have started sketching theirs. Whether it’s a strategy or just a set of objectives, though, the capacity of government to deliver any of it is open to serious doubt. Powerful, capable, intermediary bodies have been abolished and their expertise dissipated. Collective employer organisation to address skills issues is now very limited – probably more so than in any other developed country. At national, local and sectoral levels, capacity to craft and deliver policy and interventions around skills and competiveness is extremely weak.

The upshot is that, unless the new incumbent starts with structural reform, we may find ourselves with a secretary of state with great policies, but no means to really implement them. Again.

Edtech reforms that ignore FE’s ‘dual professionalism’ will make things worse

Edtech can improve teaching, learning and assessment – and save time (but only if it’s done right), says Vikki Liogier

It is cliché by now, but the world of work really is changing and no industry sector will avoid technology’s transformative impact, not least education. As pointed out by Nora Senior in these pages last week, this has implications for the professional practice of teachers and trainers, from the curriculum they deliver to the professional development they experience.

I agree with Ms Senior that professional development must include improving the digital skills of the workforce in line with changes in the workplace. However, efforts are likely to be counterproductive if they focus on this and don’t account for helping practitioners to excel in their distinctive “dual professionalism” – their necessary expertise in teaching and in the industry sector their curriculum prepares young people for.

Being an effective, productive practitioner in any sector means developing sustainable practices, avoiding overload and stress – a tall order in FE at present. Unless we get the implementation of educational technology right, we could compound problems with workload, recruitment and retention.

Using educational technology or “edtech” to develop teaching practice is a well-rehearsed theme, and one that has come back into focus with Ofsted’s new education inspection framework. With a fresh emphasis on “quality of education”, the framework will review how teachers and trainers are implementing proven and well-regarded teaching and learning practices. Edtech offers an array of tools to support practical approaches to implementing established pedagogy.

Using these very tools, the Education and Training Foundation (ETF) has created an online training service – the Enhance Digital Teaching platform – based on bite-size modules to provide practitioners with easy-to-access ways of developing their professionalism in this area. The training service supports our digital teaching professional framework.

The ETF is also consulting on a possible “edtech teacher status” award to recognise and reward professional development in digital skills. This would recognise advanced practitioners and would enable teachers and trainers to demonstrate how they are having an impact by supporting other practitioners to develop their pedagogy using edtech.

It is cliché by now, but the world of work really is changing

So much for developing how teachers teach, but developing practitioners’ industry-related digital skills is also under scrutiny. The government’s new essential digital skills entitlement for adults aged 19-plus comes into force from summer next year; the ETF has been commissioned by the DfE to develop and provide a continuous professional learning and development (CPLD) package to prepare practitioners in FE and training to deliver the new qualifications.

Aside from these generic skills, each industry sector also has its own hardware and software that are constantly upgraded, and its own evolving practices. It is important our teachers and trainers are kept abreast of all these developments, which ought to define what they teach.

Mirroring our dual professionalism, the digital revolution we are experiencing is affecting pedagogy and curriculum.

We need sustainable practice to give practitioners the means to save time and cut workload, and it is welcome that this is one of the DfE’s priorities as highlighted in its strategy document Realising the potential of technology in education published in April this year.

Use of edtech and enhancing digital skills can be key to productivity in education just like every other sector. Esam Baboukhan’s session at last week’s Society for Education and Training conference showed that edtech can improve teaching, learning and assessment while saving time. Done right, it can provide fresh opportunities to inspire and sustain the professionals who are the foundation of our sector’s success

However, the dual professionalism of FE demands a careful approach to implementation. With intensified pressure on every aspect of teachers’ and trainers’ work, sustainability needs to inform all our actions or things could get a lot worse before they get better.

Politicians are beginning to realise they can’t afford to ignore FE

What would you tell the leaders of the major political parties about needed policy changes in further education? Tony Lewin has a few ideas . . .

Everyone who works in FE knows how vital the sector is. Colleges provide life-changing opportunities while powering the workforce of local industry. They educate and train 2.2 million learners, making an undeniable impact on individuals, employers and communities.

It is therefore heartening to see that discussion around the work of FE is becoming increasingly part of the mainstream political conversation. Last week, the three major political parties recognised the pivotal role that colleges play.

But many challenges remain. It will be important that the next government listens to colleges and tries to grapple with some long-standing issues.

One is the underfunding of provision for 16 to 19-year-olds. It is welcome the base rate for 16 to 19-year-olds has been raised to £4,188. However, this falls short of the recommendations of the “Raise the rate campaign” and the education select committee, who both called for an increase up to £4,760.

The crucial element is to ensure that the core element of vocational provision is appropriately funded. A total of 540 guided learning hours may be allocated to a programme, but when you break it down only about 360 hours are spent directly delivering the core component. A funding increase is undoubtedly essential, but it will be crucial that funding then flows to the element of programmes that are most directly related to the acquisition of technical skills.

Adult education and participation are also significant challenges. There are several reasons why people may not engage with adult education, but the cost should not be one of them. One significant barrier is that those already in receipt of a level 3 qualification cannot be funded to undertake another. Yet in places such as Newcastle there are opportunities to retrain to get the skills that local employers need — but people are reluctant to take on more personal debt. The government should allow them to undertake a second, fully funded qualification at level 3. The regional combined authorities give us a mechanism to pilot such an approach.

Apprenticeship and the levy continue to pose challenges for colleges. The principle and idea of the levy is still widely supported, but it is not working well. Large employers are underspending their levy, but there is still apparently not enough money to fund non-levy apprenticeships. The impact of the changes on smaller employers, who struggle with the 20 per cent off-the-job training rule, has been severe, and there has been a consistent decline in the number of apprenticeships starts since the policy has been introduced.

Colleges provide life-changing opportunities while powering the workforce of local industry

This is not to say that the current system should be scrapped, but the government should focus on ensuring that levy underspends can be reallocated on a demand-driven basis, that there is transparency in the price banding and standard approval process, and that longstanding issues with the endpoint assessment process are addressed. The levy can still be remedied, but with some minor adjustments.

Finally, there are recurring issues around English and maths. We know how demoralised many young people are at having to resit their English and maths GCSE, especially when they may be unlikely to achieve a grade 4 in the time available. We should look for alternatives that ensure learners are making progress and achieve a qualification that recognises their progress. The levels of English and maths skills vary in different occupations and we should have the flexibility to deliver qualifications that best reflect the needs of the individual.

So, despite these challenges, it does seem that FE is being taken increasingly seriously. Historically the government hasn’t shown a great interest in what FE does, but that might be changing. Politicians have realised that they can’t afford to ignore it. Let’s hope that this sentiment lasts up to the election and beyond.

This piece is part of a series of Collab Group election 2019 opinion pieces

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 298

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


Jo Maher: Principal, Loughborough College

Start date: Spring 2020

Previous job: Principal, Boston College

Interesting fact: She had to go to ballet lessons as a child, until it was obvious that she couldn’t dance, and then she was allowed to do Taekwando instead.


Paul Cox: Chief executive and principal designate, Eastleigh College

Start date: November 2019

Previous job: Vice principal for curriculum and quality, Eastleigh College

Interesting fact: He and his wife, Clare, have trekked to both Everest Base Camp and Machu Picchu.


Tamarra Taylor: Executive director of learner services, Grimsby Institute

Start date: September 2019

Previous job: Head of learner services, Grimsby Institute

Interesting fact: A huge Inspector Morse fan, she once met actor Shaun Evans from the prequel series Endeavour at the Bodleian Library in Oxford.

Ofsted attacked for ‘unfair’ inspections before mergers

Ofsted was criticised by an experienced turnaround principal for inspecting colleges just before mergers, at the Association for Colleges’ annual conference this week.

Andrew Cropley, who has been involved with three FE commissioner interventions, said he had an “unfair experience of being inspected” and the education watchdog must find a better way to work with colleges during a panel at a workshop called “Balancing oversight, support and intervention”.

He compared Ofsted to “a sword of Damocles [an allusion to the ever-present peril faced by those in positions of power] in a college in intervention” but reserved praise for the FE commissioner and was “confident” that the regime would prevent lack of action by leadership in the future.

Cropley was previously an interim principal at both Stratford-uponAvon College and Cadbury Sixth Form College and is now principal and chief executive officer at Vision West Nottinghamshire College.

Click to enlarge

He was asked what improvements could be made to the college intervention regime, of which he said he had two criticisms.

He questioned why Ofsted inspections of colleges in formal FE commissioner intervention took place shortly before a merger and highlighted the impact of scrutiny on staff’s mental health.

Cropley said: “At Stratford-upon-Avon College our report was published 56 days before it dissolved. Three staff went off with some mental health issues on the day of the inspection. What was the point, apart from putting us through the mill?”

The college was inspected in September 2017 and downgraded from a grade two to a grade three.

It had been told by the FE commissioner that it urgently needed to merge in order to survive after being bailed out by the Education and Skills Funding Agency. It merged with Solihull College & University Centre in February 2018.

Ofsted’s approach appears to be at odds with its own policy, introduced in June 2016, that says “deferral or cancellation should, normally, only be granted if… the provision is due to merge, close or move and it is decided that no useful purpose will be served in inspecting it”.

An example of this policy in action was revealed in December 2017, when the National Audit Office reported that Ofsted had decided to defer the inspection of Learndirect Ltd, the largest training provider in the country, as its “apprenticeships provision was about to move and there was no evidence that learners’ welfare was at risk”.

Birmingham-based Cadbury Sixth Form College received a visit from Ofsted within six weeks of Cropley’s arrival, according to the principal. He said he also had to “let go” the vice-principal, who was the nominee, in his second week.

“So we had an absolutely unfair experience of being inspected, we were just trying to help the college.”

The college was under FE commissioner intervention. It was inspected by Ofsted in March 2018, received a second grade three and subsequently merged with Sandwell College in November 2018.

Cropley told college leaders, and the FE commissioner Richard Atkins, who was present at this week’s AoC event, that an improvement would be to “find a way for Ofsted to be constructive if we can”.

He added: “I suggest at every opportunity I have, really thinking about how Ofsted can work with the colleges in financial intervention to help them keep an eye on the quality as they are going through these horrendous cuts and challenges that they are having to implement.

“How they are supported and how their understanding… make sure that the quality isn’t forgotten but isn’t a publically pronounced verdict of a previous regime that then impacts on the lives and livelihoods of the staff working in that college.”

His other suggestion for improvement was “consistency of FE advisors” and better “co-ordination of scrutiny” during college interventions.

“At Cadbury and Stratford we had the same people with us all the way through the system and that was really, really helpful. That’s not really the case at West Notts College.

“It is not terrible but I think it would have been more helpful if we had the same people all the way through.

Cropley added that, during the intervention at his current college, which has undergone a major restructure to make financial savings, the “learner record MIS team, between January and September, did not go for more than a week without some kind of external audit of what was going on in West Notts College.

“That is not good for their mental health and it is not good for us taking the organisation forward because they are completely overwhelmed – so understand the pressures.

“Inevitably in a financial intervention a college shrinks by about a quarter to a half where people are working hard and that scrutiny has an impact.”

Kate Webb, group principal at the Windsor Forest Colleges Group, was also on the AoC panel and said: “We are living in a system at the moment I think where there is an increasing threat and risk of harm, and failure starts to feel catastrophic.

“We need to make sure we don’t fetishise failure.”

Webb added that she was trying to put the teaching profession “at the centre of what we do” and emphasised the importance of “the moral character and purpose of the organisation”.

Cropley’s experience of a premerger inspection of a college in formal intervention is by no means unique. Prospects College of Advanced Technology (PROCAT) went into formal intervention following a notice to improve for financial health in January 2018.

The intervention was lifted once the merger with South Essex College completed on 1 February 2019, but not before Ofsted had come knocking on 4 December 2018.

And more than two weeks after PROCAT was dissolved, on 18 February 2019, Ofsted published its grade three inspection report.

Ofsted was asked if it agreed that the colleges were inspected unnecessarily, and if it believed the supportive aspects of the intervention regime were undermined.

But, owing to pre-election restrictions, a spokesperson directed FE Week to Ofsted’s inspection deferral policy published in June 2016, which says: “Ofsted puts the interest of children and learners first and it is only in exceptional circumstances that Ofsted would consider granting a deferral of inspection.”

It played to our strengths: grade-one principal explains Ofsted success

The principal of the first college to be rated “outstanding” under Ofsted’s new framework has warned that “you can’t hide anything” if you want to achieve the top grade.

Karen Dobson was celebrating last week after the publication of Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group’s glowing grade one report.

The feat was all the more impressive considering the group was formed through a merger in 2017, when Newcastle College was rated “good” but Stafford College was “inadequate”.

Speaking to FE Week at the Association of Colleges conference this week, Dobson explained how the inspection regime has changed and what it takes be rated “outstanding” by Ofsted.

“There were quite a few differences, some expected and some perhaps not quite so obvious”

“There were quite a few differences, some expected and some perhaps not quite so obvious,” she said before describing the inspection as “intense”.

The watchdog’s focus has shifted from outcomes and achievement rate data to the “quality of education” and what is being called the three Is: intent, implementation and impact.

Dobson said it was “not quite true” that data had been completely forgotten, as she spent some time with the team of 13 inspectors over the course of four days looking at “historic data” that informed their investigation for the rest of the week.

She said the biggest change, which “played to our strengths”, was the amount of time that inspectors spent speaking to people around the college’s campuses.

“As the principal you have an opportunity to say what you think the position of the college is and what your priorities are. There is then so much time spent talking to teachers, talking to middle managers, talking to students about impact,” Dobson told FE Week.

She said inspectors got “out and about” from 11am on the first day of inspection (Tuesday, 22 October) and they were still talking to staff and students on the Friday. This part of the inspection would have been “all done and dusted” by Thursday morning under the old regime.

Dobson said this, and the fact that Ofsted had inspectors at both of their campuses in Newcastle and Stafford, was “really helpful”.

“So, for example, they looked at health and social care at Newcastle, crawled all over that. Then they went to Stafford and they found the same quality and teaching.”

The principal puts her college’s success down to their attention to the student experience.

“We have spent a lot of time, going back to the last academic year, talking about why they are doing what they are, why are they choosing these courses, choosing these option units, the order they are doing them, and getting our teachers to think about the curriculum more.”

Dobson said there was “little wriggle room” for colleges if they cannot show the intent and impact of their offer, as inspectors get “under the skin of everything”, including the subcontractors they work with.

“We don’t do a massive amount of subcontracting but they [Ofsted] did spend quite a bit of time both visiting and looking at the detail and talking to staff in those particular companies.

“That featured a bit more than I had previously experienced in any inspection framework. You can’t hide anything.”

Asked what she believes sets Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group apart from a grade-two college, Dobson said: “I think consistency in terms of the way that we operate.

“There is very little difference between our two campuses, certainly in terms of curriculum approach, and I think we have done a good job of bringing staff and teams together.

“Particularly in parts of the geography where we operate, we have to be ambitious for our students. When they come to us, their aspirations sometimes aren’t that high and we have got to say, ‘Look,  you are here, the world’s your oyster, widen your horizons’.”

Asked for her top tip to other colleges hoping for a grade one, Dobson said: “The intent features largely in the new inspection framework and I think you can’t do that in two weeks.

“So, whenever your next inspection may be due, I think you need to start today in terms of the work you do with your key talent, your teachers and your middle managers. That would be my advice.”

Karen Dobson

The principal admitted that there had been a “great big long list” of issues that needed to be addressed at the point of merger with Stafford College in November 2016.

For the 12 months before the merger it had nine “key” posts filled by interims, including the principal and finance director.

“We turned up at the beginning of September and there were no managers,” Dobson explained.

“Stafford had a period of problems: the investment hadn’t been made in terms of training for staff, resources for staff, resources for students – and I think the focus on making sure Stafford was a great place to work and study had been lost somewhere.”

But Stafford did have “very good teachers” who were able to thrive once Newcastle College’s management took over.

“The nice thing about the inspection outcome is that Stafford staff as well as Newcastle are very much part of that end result. There isn’t a difference in the performance of the two sides.”

One notable aspect of the new Ofsted reports is that they only grade and discuss the whole college group, rather than commenting specifically on individual campuses.

Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group’s report, for example, mentioned nothing about Stafford College’s previous grade four.

Recognising this issue, particularly for the largest college groups with wide geographical spreads, the watchdog is looking to introduce campus-level grading next year, as FE Week revealed last week. But Dobson doesn’t see what benefit this bring to her college.

“I personally wouldn’t welcome that, but I’m sure people would say, ‘Well, she would say that wouldn’t she?’,” Dobson said.

The Ofsted grade one was not Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group’s only celebration this week. It also came second in this year’s NICDEX.

‘Heart-wrenching’ impact of funding cuts shared by college leaders

Six college leaders have shared the “heart-wrenching” impacts of government funding cuts after speaking anonymously to FE Week for the first time.

We approached the principals and chief executives at this week’s Association of Colleges conference, who revealed how they have had to cut back significantly on staff, pay and provision.

They, like anyone who works in FE, are fully aware that funding for 16 to 19-year-olds and adult learning has faced pressure like no other phases of education.

Between 2010-11 and 2018-19, spending per college learner fell by 12 per cent in real terms, after cuts during the 1990s and low growth in the 2000s, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

The economic research organisation has also found that funding for adult education has been cut by 45 per cent since 2009-10.

Politicians appear finally to be taking notice of this, with FE funding among the hottest topics in this year’s general election campaign. But college bosses, understandably, are often reluctant to share the true impact of these cuts with their institutions and learners out of fear of a bad press that could damage their reputations.

This is how college life is being affected:

 

College leader 1

Staff strikes have been rife in FE over the past few years, mainly because the funding crisis has left lecturers being paid £7,000 a year less than school teachers on average.

The head of a large college group, this leader said the most “critical” impact they have had to deal with because of a lack of government investment is not being able to offer good pay to staff, as well as struggling with the recruitment of teaching staff in specialist subjects.

“The cuts have not enabled us to continue to make progressive pay awards to staff. We’re not able to be as competitive on salaries as we would want to be.

“Where we are trying to develop new specialisms, it is very difficult to attract people in, because you are constrained by affordability.”

“You’re foraging in an ever-decreasing circle of ways to make efficiencies”

College leader 1 went on to say they have taken the decision to protect all areas of provision and the number of frontline lecturers, but in turn have had to cut back office and support staff, thus increasing workload.

“The challenge around that is workload and the wellbeing of those staff who are inevitably having to pick up more things than they would have done previously.

“So you cut out management posts, but unfortunately the work still has to be picked up. That is the other thing we have done: we have invested in a lot of process work to try and make systems more streamlined to try and compensate for there being fewer managers.

“But inevitably, again, you’re foraging in an ever-decreasing circle of ways to make efficiencies.”

They said that, over the past three years, their college has had to absorb around £5.5 million of costs “out of our business, of which probably a third of that is pay and two thirds is non-pay, to run more efficiently”.

They added that the predicted imminent overspend of the apprenticeships budget and particularly the constraints around non-levy funding have led to them turning small employers and apprentices away.

“Most of our employers are small and medium-sized. We are not able to train them currently and the impact for us then is we have fewer apprentices coming through the system, which means less work for staff. We have had to cut staff as a result.”

Asked what it is like having to make this kind of money-saving decision, they said: “It is really, really tough and I would say it is getting even tougher.

“For my colleges, we have done the things we needed to do that were around staff utilisation, curriculum efficiencies and you start to run out of more things you can do.”

 

College leader 2

The uncertainty around FE funding has left staff feeling “vulnerable” and fearing for their jobs on an almost weekly basis, according to college leader 2.

“Ultimately we are human and, if we feel vulnerable and we might not have a job next month, then our ability to be at the top of what we are doing is considerably impacted,” they told FE Week.

“And, if you think in FE, because we don’t manufacture widgets, we are dealing with people, it is difficult for us to be genuine motivators and game changers for our learners when we ourselves feel so vulnerable. I would say that is probably the biggest impact of funding cuts.”

“You become numb and develop a way of doing it”

They went on to say that, because of cuts, they have had to “take out the kind of courses that might not be as efficient as others: that is to say they are costly to run or don’t attract massive numbers”.

“Financially inefficient” subjects including creative arts, which require big spaces, art classes and land-based courses have all been dropped by the college in recent years.

These were “heart-wrenching” decisions to make because “colleges in their local areas are more than just education and training providers”.

“They get communities to gel together and, when you have young people who are disengaged or worse still they engage in gangs, stuff like that, then society needs to engage them somehow.

“For this type of young person, generally education is not really the highest of their priorities, but you can potentially have a fighting chance if you could engage them in something they are interested in, so they can start to interact with society on a different type of interaction.

“The more you cut inefficient provision, the more you cut your opportunity to help those learners.”

Asked if making decisions to reduce support staff and provision had got harder over the years, the leader said: “Perversely, no. You become numb and develop a way of doing it. It’s heart-wrenching and it doesn’t go away. In fact, I still remember in 2015 having to do something like this and I still feel it now – and I had to do some last summer.

“But what you do is develop a way of doing it so you just go into that mood, blinkered, body armour and it is really sad.”

 

College leader 3

Leader 3 said they have had to sacrifice vital adult education courses in recent years to ensure that their college stays financially sustainable.

“Some time ago, when funding was a little bit more generous, you could carry provision that was small numbers or allowed for progression but potentially wasn’t viable for whatever reason,” they told FE Week.

“I think, over the years of this static funding picture and increasing cost, actually you can’t do that anymore. There are things you can’t do, not because there isn’t a value in them, but because they aren’t making a contribution to the core stuff, such as adult community provision.

“The difficulty is it is very expensive to do that at a time where actually your funding rate is static for however long and so we haven’t got anything like that now.”

They explained that these are usually short courses in basic IT, for example, but “some might be just courses that are more enjoyment, perhaps photography or something like that.

“We’ve got only very small amounts of that sort of provision.

“I often say that at some point somebody, a minister, might turn round and say ‘where’s all of the lifelong learning gone?’ Obviously there is a big issue there.”

Like college leaders 1 and 2, they said they were finding it “difficult to recruit in certain areas” as they “can’t compete with schools” when it comes to salaries.

“For example, we can’t get some of the maths teachers we would like and it’s really tough to recruit a highly skilled engineer as you are competing with the wages of big businesses.

They said their college had a strict process of scrutinising “every staff vacancy” to “make sure we actually need that role”.

They added: “We are conscious that, if you are adding to a pay bill, obviously that puts further pressure on the finances.”

 

College leader 4

Increasing class sizes and huge reductions in teaching hours are two of the biggest impacts of funding cuts that this chief executive of a large college group has had to deal with in recent years.

“You used to have a class of, say, 16, but you’re now having to do groups of 20 or 22 in order to make it financially viable,” leader 4 said.

“That then puts pressure on the teacher because, instead of giving 16 sets of feedback to learners, you are now giving 22. So in some ways the student experience may not be affected but the workload on the teacher is that much greater.”

“They said it was easier to work in the NHS as the workload was less”

They continued: “The other thing for me is, when I first came into teaching technical education, we had 1,200 hours a year. Now you are lucky to get 540.”

They said the funding levels that colleges had ten years ago enabled them to “almost over-recruit some teachers so you had some spare teachers that could actually do project work or help teachers when they were new and coming in to really ease them in”.

They added that there was no “fat” in the system anymore and, when lecturers are appointed now,  “you come in and teach straight away”.

They added: “So some of the things which may seem like luxuries but really raise the quality of the learning experience are now not in the system because none of us can afford to over-recruit.”

Additional support for students with high needs is another area that has been reduced because of funding cuts.

“The amount of support you give to certain students has to be thought of very carefully. Do you support a dyspraxia student for four hours or do you go, OK, everybody can have one hour’s support?”

They continued: “Another issue I think we are all facing is the level of mental health support our young people receive.

“One of the things we are looking at, but it means that we will have to take the money from somewhere else, is educational psychologists, not just for students but to help teachers.

“Some of our teachers have been teaching for five years. The problems that they face with some young people they haven’t faced before.”

College leader 4 said they recently recruited someone from the NHS as a lecturer but they left after just a few months in the post because “they said it was easier to work in the NHS as the workload was less”.

 

College leader 5

Leader 5 runs a large college group and said over the past five years they have had to cut some areas of “costly” provision, such as engineering, as well as delaying building work and holding back on investing in new equipment.

However, the main focus for their cuts has been “trying to get people to do more with less”.

“We have cut managers and just enabled coordinators to do more. We have taken out administrative staff. We have tried to deliver things like ‘support to learning’ with fewer learning assistants because we just haven’t been able to afford them.

“So, undoubtedly, I don’t see how anybody could have lived in the financial circumstances we have lived in for the past five years without the students being affected in some way because the provision that we have been able to deliver has been really, really difficult to do.”

They said they had to take “£2 million out of our cost base this year” and “we lost money last year and we will lose money this year as well”.

The college group gained planning permission for a new science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) building four years ago but it doesn’t “have enough cash in order to launch it”.

Some individual campuses in their group have “really poor buildings” which need a lot of money spent on them but they can’t because “we don’t have access to capital”.

“We have got to stay financially solvent, so the limitation there is you stop investing. We have got areas that desperately could do with some updated equipment which they haven’t got because you have to rationalise it.”

They said they needed to be “very resilient as a chief executive” when making these tough decisions.

“I love my job, I love the difference we make to students, but there are times when I think, Why am I struggling this hard? Because there are other things that perhaps I could be doing but would not be so challenging from a financial point of view.”

 

College leader 6

Leader 6 claimed to have retained staffing at all levels and protected all areas of provision in the face of government cuts.

They said that good management skills have never been more crucial for college leaders and it was their “efficient” way of working that had enabled them to avoid making cuts where others have.

They argued that, as the only large college in a rural area that students could travel to, they “don’t have the option” of withdrawing expensive provision.

They also said that they could not “cut a back office service and expect teachers to pick up what they were doing because you need to protect the frontline”.

“As a principal you have always got at least four or five years in your head”

“To reduce people means you have to stop doing things. What you need to do is offer it in a more efficient and effective way,” they told FE Week.

“It’s about being as clever and efficient as you can be with funding that is out there.

“Go for projects that support business as usual, rather than projects that are going to be in addition to what you are already doing and can make us busy fools.

“Pick things that align to your strategic objectives so it is always moving you forward, and be really clear on your strategic intent.”

Asked if they would therefore say that the impact of funding cuts was that colleges are reluctant to  take risks and work in new areas, such as institutes of technology, they said: “I think, providing you have got a sound business plan, it wouldn’t prevent you moving into a new area. But that new area has to be aligned with where you think the college and the provision needs to go.”

They continued: “I think it’s about taking the long-term view and it’s about looking at, OK, this is what we know now but this looks like it is on the horizon for next year and the year after.

“As a principal you have always got at least four or five years in your head.

“You are planning the next enrolment already because you have got staff out in schools talking to young people, talking to employers about what apprenticeships they need – but that is not enough.

“You are also looking at the following two years, when you are thinking, OK, in 2021, what T-levels will there be? What will they look like? What does that mean for teachers?

“What curriculum changes have you got to make now to be ready for that? What does the workforce look like, and how are we going to find T-level industry placements?

“If you have only ever got three years in your head – the last one, this one and the next one – you won’t be successful in that. You really have got to future-gaze.”