The University and College Union has written to Anne Milton before key pay talks, to warn it will not put up with another “shoddy” deal.

The union wrote to the skills minister today ahead of tomorrow’s sit down with the Association of Colleges, in which it is looking to secure a pay offer better than the 1 per cent increase recommended last year.

In its letter, UCU claims that FE has reached “a crisis point on pay”. After a “decade of real terms pay cuts”, senior lecturers are now earning around £9,000 a year less than they would if their pay had simply kept pace with inflation, it says.

And even in colleges that have honoured the pay recommendations from the AoC, staff have “suffered a real terms pay cut of 25 per cent since 2009”. 

The letter states that “failure to properly reward staff means that teachers in further education are now earning around £7,000 per year less on average than teachers in schools”.

It adds that the current review of post-18 education, including funding, led by Philip Augar will not report in time for next year’s pay round.

“The truth is that UCU members simply cannot afford to hear once again that there is no money for a proper pay rise,” said Sally Hunt (pictured).

The general secretary of the union also warned that FE staff will continue to strike, like they have done in droves throughout this year, if better pay is not secured.

“If the sector is to continue attracting experienced and dedicated staff to deliver for students, colleges need to make decent pay and conditions for staff a central priority,” said Ms Hunt.

“UCU members have already shown this year that they are prepared to take strike action to defend and improve their pay.

“After years of warm words, it is time for the government to step to the mark on funding for further education and for the employers to bring a sensible offer to the table.”

Trade unions wrote to the AoC last month to spell out exactly why they have resubmitted a claim for a raise of five per cent for the next academic year.

They originally made the request at a meeting at the start of May, but the AoC said it would not consider a claim while some colleges were still in dispute with the University and College Union.

Later that month the AoC, which represents college leadership, backed down.

The unions want a guaranteed minimum increase of £1,500 for the lowest-paid staff where a five-per-cent rise is lower than £1,500.

They also want colleges to pay the living wage of £8.75 (£10.20 in London) and become accredited living wage employers.

Ofqual has today launched a consultation about how it will regulate T-levels – but has only given the sector four weeks to respond.

The exams regulator is asking for views on how it should frame its rules, including on issues such as how assessments should be set and marked, when retakes can be taken, and certification requirements.

Its mammoth consultation document is 71 pages long with 52 questions, but in the latest piece of evidence that the new technical qualifications are being rushed, it is only offering up time for responses until August 6 – half the usual period it sets aside.

Ofqual itself recognised this was a short deadline and is recommending respondents only answer particular areas of interest, including setting and marking assessments, results and certification, and retakes.

“We recognise that given the scale of our proposals, respondents may not wish to respond to the whole consultation,” the regulator said.

Its consultation document gave an insight into why the time frame is so short.

It explains that the first three T-levels will be introduced for teaching in 2020, and the Department for Education plans to launch an invitation to tender in September 2018 for awarding organisations wishing to bid to offer them.

Following the completion of today’s consultation, the exams regulator has to announce its decisions about how it will police the technical qualifications in September alongside the launch of the invitation to tender.

It will follow this with a more detailed technical consultation, “seeking views on the exact wording of the conditions and guidance we propose to use to implement our approach”, which is expected to run for eight weeks from September.

Based on responses to this, Ofqual “intends to publish our final conditions and guidance for technical qualifications in December so that awarding organisations are clear, as they develop their technical qualifications, what conditions and guidance they will have to meet”.

Ofqual consultations are typically eight weeks long, and can stretch to 12 weeks for those of high-profile – such as its GCSE reform consultation in 2013.

FE Week has asked for more detailed comment on why the current T-levels consultation is so short.

Mark Dawe, boss of the AELP, wasn’t impressed with the four-week deadline.

“I appreciate that the DfE has a tight timescale, and at least this is four weeks rather than the four days from the Institute for Apprenticeships,” he said.

“It is a shame, that on the surface, it would appear that the DfE is not treating these ‘gold standard’ qualifications with the same care as they did with A-levels.”

This isn’t the first piece of evidence that T-levels are being rushed through.

In May, the IfA initially gave the sector just five working days to respond to its consultation on the draft content for the first three T-levels – and it was during half term. It only extended the feedback period following outrage from FE leaders.

This came just days after the education secretary Damian Hinds refused his own permanent secretary’s request to delay the initial rollout of T-levels until 2021.

Ofqual’s chief regulator, Sally Collier, has made it no secret that she believes the timescale to deliver T-levels is incredibly tight.

But speaking about the launch of today’s consultation, she said: “This consultation will help ensure that technical qualifications, and the T-levels of which they form a part, are set up to succeed.

“I would encourage anyone with an interest in these new qualifications to give us their views on the proposals we have set out.”

Three events to support the consultation are being run on July 23, 24 and 31. You can find out more here.

Leaders at Learndirect have been criticised by Ofsted for causing “confusion and uncertainty” over the transfer of their apprentices to other providers.

Inspectors noted a number of improvements since it was rated ‘inadequate’ overall last summer and from two subsequent monitoring visits, in their latest assessment of the troubled provider.

But “insufficient progress” is being made in Learndirect’s efforts to ensure a “smooth transition” for apprentices transferring to other training providers by the end of July, when its government skills contracts finally end.

“Leaders’ negotiations to transfer all apprentices on directly delivered programmes to one large provider ended unsuccessfully in March 2018,” Ofsted said.

Leaders’ lack of clarity about the transfer process has caused confusion and uncertainty

“Leaders are now approaching the final stages of the process to transfer these apprentices to five other providers and have allocated the large majority.”

However, while most apprentices appear to have been allocated to providers, they “are still waiting to be re-enrolled with the new providers so they can continue their programmes”.

Leaders at the provider were blamed for this. Their “lack of clarity” in their communications about the transfer process has caused “confusion and uncertainty” among employers and apprentices.

“Too many employers are dissatisfied by the lack of information that they have received and have concerns that their apprentices will not achieve their qualifications,” Ofsted found.

The inspectorate said that some employers were informed that Learndirect would continue to work with their apprentices until the end of July 2018 to complete their programmes, but were then told that the apprentices were transferring to a new provider.

As a result, “a few employers have approached other providers independently to ask them to complete their apprentices’ programmes, thereby compounding the confusion about the transfer arrangements”.

The process for transferring those apprentices whose programmes are delivered by Learndirect’s existing subcontractors has however been “much more effective”.

But a “small proportion” of apprentices have still not yet been allocated to a provider, and there is a “risk” that a very small number of apprentices will “not be able to complete their programmes if they are not accepted by a new provider before the end of July 2018”.

“Throughout the process of transferring apprentices to other providers, Learndirect Ltd has been working closely with ESFA to ensure that all transfers are managed in the interest of the learner, employer and in compliance with ESFA rules,” said a spokesperson for the provider in response.

“Whilst a small number of transfers have been delayed for a short period of time, the majority of large volume transfers have progressed without issue. The sample size of apprentices used for the Ofsted report was too small to capture the fact that the majority of the transfers were well managed and undertaken with minimum disruption to both learners and employers.

“All of this has been achieved in the challenging context of closing delivery centres and reducing staffing, as acknowledged within the Ofsted report. It is worth noting that Ofsted commends learndirect’s progress in three out of the four other areas in this report.”

Learndirect received an overall ‘inadequate’ rating from Ofsted, including for outcomes for learners, after it was inspected in March and had its report published in August following a judicial review.

It has since been “winding down its contracts” to deliver apprenticeships and adult learning until July 2018.

Ofsted praised leaders for having “sustained the improvements” to the quality of the provision that were identified at the previous monitoring visit – which found “significant improvement” was made in increasing proportion of apprentices and adult learners who now achieve their qualifications.

“They have achieved this in the challenging context of winding down their main funding contracts, closing delivery centres and significantly reducing staffing,” the watchdog said.

Too many employers are dissatisfied by the lack of information that they have received

“Staff at all levels of the organisation have demonstrated a strong commitment to supporting learners and apprentices to complete their qualifications.”

Managers of Learndirect’s adult learning provision have meanwhile “tackled successfully” some of the “more intractable areas for improvement” from the previous inspection.

Leaders have meanwhile “reduced further the number of subcontractors in response to concerns about the quality of the provision”.

Their monitoring of the progress of apprentices at subcontractors has been “intensified”.

Contract managers “of the 39 adult learning subcontractors have overseen continuing improvements in learner achievement rates, levels of attendance and the proportion of learners progressing to employment, education and training”.

Lastly, Ofsted said leaders have “continued to improve” their use of the apprentice tracking system that they developed after the last inspection to “enable them to monitor effectively the progress of the remaining apprentices”.

At the time of this monitoring visit, Learndirect had 2,892 apprentices – down from 17,000 in 2016/17 – and 7,276 adult learners on programmes.

The troubled provider, which has been subject to investigations by the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee since it grade four, has recently been offloaded by its private equity firm owner – Lloyds Development Capital – to entrepreneur Wayne Janse van Rensburg, the managing director of the Stonebridge College Group.