A government-imposed cap on advanced learner loan (ALL) provision is having a “devastating impact”, a college in Oxford has claimed.
Despite a 40 per cent increase in demand for its adult learning courses, Ruskin College has been denied permission by the Department for Education (DfE) to increase its ALL facility.
This has led to at least 10 additional learners who wanted to enrol on courses, including potential nurses and carers, being denied a place, the college said.
The DfE said that to be eligible for advanced learner loan facility growth under its rules, the value of paid loans must be at least 75 per cent of the provider’s 2019/20 total budget.
“All providers must meet a funding threshold of committed learners before they are awarded further funding to take on more learners,” a DfE spokesperson told FE Week.
She added that at their most recent review, Ruskin College “did not meet this threshold, but will be eligible for another review in November”.
A college spokesperson would not reveal how many loans learners it had already enrolled, but said: “Unsurprisingly, we are seeing increased demand year on year, so the cap on advanced learner loan allocation is having a devastating impact on those adults who may come to us a little later in the academic cycle and don’t yet have a loan in place.
“In a climate where there are severe shortages of nurses and carers, the cap is actively deterring the very students that the government says it is trying to attract.
“Although we have been advised that new allocation may be available after 1 November, this lack of certainty is forcing students to rethink their study options or defer to next year.”
She added: “As a college, we cannot enrol potential students without the loan, so this is extremely frustrating, especially given Ofsted’s focus on tackling disadvantage and our own Ofsted rating as exemplary for widening participation.”
In 2018/19, Ruskin College had an initial allocation of £1,240,914 for advanced learner loans, according to ESFA data; but by July this reduced to £1,197,675.
This loans cap is not peculiar to Ruskin: the post-18 education report led by Philip Augar and published in May said: “Qualifications supported by advanced learner loans are not demand led.
“Instead, institutions have a funding agreement with the ESFA that enables them to provide a loans facility.
“The size of this facility is based on what was delivered through loans in previous years. As such it is difficult to increase the size of the facility even if the demand is there.”
It added that this can be “particularly problematic for small institutions which may lack the capability and capacity to meet minimum delivery expectations, yet these institutions are often very close to the labour market and its changing skills needs and are potentially the key to filling local skills shortages”.
Advanced learner loans are available for people aged 19 and above, studying courses at levels three to six.
Additionally, FE Week revealed towards the end of 2017 that 58 per cent of FE loans funding – amounting to almost £1 billion – had not been spent since the policy was introduced.
Less than a third of colleges are currently offering traineeships to 16 to 18-year-olds, FE Week analysis of new government data shows.
A list of providers, put together for the first time to help young people and employers find out who offers the preemployment programme, was recently published by the Education and Skills Funding Agency.
It shows that just 52 of the 170 general FE colleges in England offer traineeships to those aged 16 to 18. Overall, 138 of all providers deliver them for that age group.
At a time of low unemployment publicity for the programmes needs to be reaching students and employers
It comes three months after the former skills minister Anne Milton hailed the success of traineeships in light of research that revealed 75 per cent of learners move on to work or further study within a year of completing their programme.
Her comments were a boon for the pre-employment course, which has been plagued by falling learner numbers and a lack of investment that has frustrated sector bodies.
Julian Gravatt, deputy chief executive of the Association of Colleges, suggested that one reason for low take- up among colleges is that the government has failed to advertise traineeships well enough.
“Traineeships are a good way to provide education, training and work experience to help young people who are perhaps not quite ready for employment,” Gravatt told FE Week after being shown the latest college figures.
“However, at a time of low unemployment publicity for the programmes needs to be reaching students and employers.”
Gravatt added that the AoC is working with a new government-led Traineeship Advisory Group to “make sure the traineeship offer fits within the broader context of pre-apprenticeship and employment support to ensure people of all ages and backgrounds can get the skills they need to progress”.
Traineeships, launched in 2013, are designed to get 16 to 24-year-olds ready for an apprenticeship or job. They can last between six weeks and six months.
The courses include work preparation training, a work placement and English and maths support if needed.
Many general FE colleges in England that have some of the largest numbers of 16 to 18-year-old students do not offer them. Staff have indicated there is a lack of awareness of the scheme and problems with the design.
A spokesperson for Harrow College and Uxbridge College (HCUC), which had 5,960 students aged 16 to 18 in 2018/19, said it does not deliver traineeships due to the unpaid work placement element of the programme.
Jo Withers, executive director employer services and partnerships at HCUC, told FE Week: “Our experience of supporting traineeships across a range of sectors indicates that eligibility criteria and issues relating to extended unpaid work placements mean other routes tend to be more accessible to learners and employers, as well as maximising integration with pre-existing college provision.
“Responsive provision is a core value at HCUC and continued provision of traineeships is an ongoing possibility should it prove helpful.”
Dan Shelley, the executive director of strategic partnerships and engagement at East Sussex College, explained that until 2019/20 the funding rules for traineeships made the “English and maths requirement contained in the condition of funding unworkable, as it meant the very students that this would be targeting would need to participate in GCSE programmes.
“This has now changed but we are focused on providing all our students with meaningful industry placements so feel this is a change hat has been too slow in coming,” he added. “We may reconsider this decision in the future.”
And a spokesperson for Capital City College Group, which had over 9,500 students aged 16 to 18 last year – the second highest out of all colleges in England – said: “We have found that the traineeship programmes don’t have enough flexibility to engage or meet the needs of preNEETS (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) and NEETs.
“We deliver similar programmes like pre-apprenticeships, which we have found better meet learners’ expectations while still providing a trained and educated workforce for employers.”
Traineeships saw their starts numbers fall from 24,100 to 17,700 (26 per cent) between 2015/16 – before reforms to the apprenticeship system came into force – and 2017/18.
Anne Milton
The DfE’s latest data, published in July, shows there were 12,500 reported traineeship starts during the first three quarters of the 2018/19 academic year, a decrease of 16.8 per cent from 15,000 starts at the same time in the previous year.
Previous FE Week analysis found that colleges delivered less than a quarter of traineeships in 2016/17, and nearly half across the country had no starts whatsoever.
Recognising that traineeships are in need of reinvigoration, the government recently announced it would introduce a new traineeships achievement rate measure for the academic year 2019/20 to help monitor the programme’s effectiveness.
She revealed she was already in cross-departmental discussions with ministers about the programme, which would prepare 16- to 25-year olds for employment, whether that be apprenticeships or another route.
Asked if officials were disappointed by the number of colleges that offer traineeships, and whether there has been any movement on this new pre-employment programme tabled by Milton, a spokesperson for the DfE said: “Traineeships are a demand-led programme.
“We are continually working to raise awareness of them and boost supply with providers to ensure young people are able to access opportunities.”
Click below to see the full list of colleges offering traineeships:
The government is “carefully monitoring” an independent investigation into allegations regarding the management of Hull College Group.
FE Week has spoken to numerous current and former employees and understands that a whistleblower has contacted the FE Commissioner alleging nepotism and inappropriate use of funds by college bosses.
Education minister Lord Agnew told this newspaper that the college has launched an independent investigation into the allegations regarding the management of Hull College Group.
Michelle Swithenbank
He said: “Any financial wrongdoing, if it has occurred, is treated extremely seriously and we will be carefully monitoring events as the information becomes available.”
Allegations of nepotism first surfaced in 2018, but it is understood that it is appointments that have occurred in recent months that are under investigation.
The Hull College Group chief executive and principal is Michelle Swithenbank, who joined in January 2017 as deputy chief executive.
Swithenbank became the top boss in August 2018. This was around the time that the college received a bailout of more than £50 million and slashed more than 300 staff to balance the books as part of a ‘Fresh Start’ programme overseen by the FE Commissioner.
Published accounts for 2017/18 reveal a “partner of a senior post-holder” was appointed in January 2018 and resigned their position in August 2018 after being paid £36,640.
The senior post-holder is the now chief executive Michelle Swithenbank and the partner, now husband, is Graham Raddings.
Lord Agnew
Raddings was appointed to a new senior post, executive director of marketing and innovation.
FE Week understands that in February 2018 a whistleblower informed the FE Commissioner of the relationship.
In April, an anonymous twitter account believed to be set up by Graham Raddings tweeted: “Been sacked. Quite pissed off. Wonder what Hull Coll have to say about it. #shitcollege.”
The tweet, seen by FE Week, was deleted shortly after.
Raddings did not respond to a request for comment and has removed his LinkedIn profile.
In July 2018, he married Swithenbank, according to Radding’s Twitter account.
Several sources also claim that at a staff event in late 2018, Swithenbank told staff that the low point in the year for her was “being forced to sack my husband”.
The college has told FE Week that full disclosure of a family connection was made to the board and claim it was a fixed term marketing role concluding in August 2018.
The current investigation is understood to relate to the use of college funds and appointments in recent months, and is being conducted by a law firm with experience of the FE sector which will report back to the chair, Dafydd Williams.
Daffyd Williams
Lord Agnew, who was announced as a minister for FE earlier this month and now oversees the FE Commissioner, said: “The Education and Skills Funding Agency has been made aware of allegations regarding the management of Hull College Group. The college has launched an independent investigation into these issues. The ESFA has contacted the college to seek assurances that the investigation is independent and is monitoring the situation.”
Writing in FE Week this week, he said many colleges are “already working hard to” balance the books and “curb excessive costs”. However, he added, “in the rare circumstances when this does not happen, I will not hesitate to step in”.
A spokesperson for Hull College Group said: “With regards the ongoing investigation, as FE Week will be aware, it would be inappropriate for this to be discussed publicly until it has been allowed to conclude without risk of interference or prejudice.”
The college remains in financial intervention and is reviewed on a quarterly basis.
Education minister Lord Agnew has in recent weeks had his brief widened beyond schools to include financial oversight of colleges. In this, his first article on FE, he sets out why good governance is key to a thriving sector making good use of tax-payers money and the support that is available to colleges struggling
One thing that comes pretty close to a cast-iron guarantee in life is that if you don’t have good governance -whether you are making widgets, running a multinational company, or the corner shop – you will trip up sooner or later.
The need for good governance is one of those self-evident truths that I have become more than a little evangelical about. Get the basics right and you can become as successful as your ambition or vision takes you. If you don’t, you won’t; it’s as simple as that.
Further education is a big priority for this government. The prime minister, the education secretary and the chancellor of the exchequer have all made this clear. We’ve recently announced an extra £400 million for colleges and sixth forms next year – the single biggest annual boost since 2010.
I will not be turning a blind eye to unjustified and disproportionate pay
Good governance is absolutely crucial in ensuring that this investment is not wasted and that the FE sector grows and flourishes in the way that we all wish it to.
Despite some recent changes in the education department, I want to reassure you that it is still business as usual, with FE financial accountability falling under my remit.
I will be working alongside you to empower and strengthen the sector. One of the best ways to do that is to encourage you to look at everything through the prism of good governance so that all colleges become financially resilient.
There are plenty of fantastic governors and leaders who have a wealth of skills and experience. But this will not always be the case. We need to make sure that all colleges have the financial management capabilities needed to keep their institutions running smoothly and efficiently. I will be working with the sector to ensure that this happens and that college leaders treat taxpayers’ money with care and in a way that benefits their students.
Balancing the books is a challenge for any organisation. Many colleges are already working hard to do this and to curb excessive costs, especially senior staff salaries. However, in the rare circumstances when this does not happen, I will not hesitate to step in. I will not, for instance, be turning a blind eye to unjustified and disproportionate pay.
We already have a support network to help the sector lay sound foundations of good governance. The National Leaders of Further Education and National Leaders of Governance programmes draw on the expertise and experience of some of the best FE leaders, governors and clerks to help other colleges to improve.
These programmes have made a real difference but they could help many more colleges. We will shortly be launching an exercise to recruit more members, and I would encourage more principals and chairs to consider the benefits that the programmes offer.
We want to help any college that is struggling with financial or quality issues to get themselves back on track. We want every student to be confident that the education they receive is of the highest standard and that the college they attend is well run.
Our recently updated College Oversight guidance is a one-stop document for FE and sixth form colleges, which sets out how we will work with colleges to identify issues early on, before they become serious. Its aim is to inform colleges about the range of support available, including from the Education and Skills Funding Agency and the FE Commissioner. Where problems persist, the guidance outlines how and when we will intervene. For extreme cases, it details how the insolvency regime will work.
Colleges quite rightly have many freedoms. But freedoms bring responsibility; not only to the students and staff, but to the taxpayers who fund them. I am here to help provide colleges with the support they need to deliver high quality education and training, and I am committed 100 per cent to doing that.
Three leading associations from across the university, private provider and college sectors have united to call on the government to fund 16 to 18-year-old apprentices through general taxation.
The membership organisations, who often hold divergent views, agree that the apprenticeship levy should not be used to subsidise this age group.
They say that this cohort should instead be guaranteed government funding just like A-levels and the incoming T-levels.
The University Vocational Awards Council (UVAC) has pleaded the case in a recent letter to education secretary Gavin Williamson, while the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) made the call in a policy paper they published last week.
Leaders at the Association of Colleges (AoC) say they’ve also recently been campaigning for this change.
“It is to say the least a little odd that the state pays through general taxation for A-level, T-level and applied general provision for 16 to 18-year-olds, but employers are expected to pay through the levy for apprenticeship provision for this cohort. Why?” UVAC chief executive Adrian Anderson told FE Week.
“Secondly, employers, through a productivity tax, the apprenticeship levy, shouldn’t be forced to pay for programmes for this ‘guarantee group’, tackle the NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) problem or indeed pay the price of the failure of schools system to ensure individuals after 11 years of compulsory education gain a full level 2 qualification.”
He added that removing 16 to 18-year-old apprentices from the levy would allow employers to focus on using it to fund programmes “that are needed to raise productivity, as was the point of the levy when originally introduced”.
AELP chief executive Mark Dawe said that the levy “should never have been used as an excuse to exempt 16 to 18 apprentices from the government’s guarantee to fund all learners in this age group”.
However, he warned that even if the right to full funding is restored, “it still won’t relieve, by a long chalk, the pressures on the levy that the demand for higher and degree apprenticeships is exerting”.
Previously, the AELP and UVAC clashed over what the levy should fund after the Institute for Apprenticeships warned in December 2018 that the apprenticeship budget could soon be overspent.
The National Audit Office later said there is a “clear risk” that the apprenticeship programme is not financially sustainable after finding levy-payers are “developing and choosing more expensive standards at higher levels than was expected”.
After this, in March, the AELP called for all level 6 and 7 apprenticeships, including those with integrated degrees, to be removed from the scope of levy funding to relieve pressure on the budget.
A month later, Anderson said it is “entirely unacceptable” to expect public sector employers to subsidise low-level apprenticeships for chefs and hairdressers, and called on government to better support levels 6 and 7 instead.
Dawe believes the higher education loans system should be used to fund these levels, which would free up an estimated “£600 million a year for level 2 to 5 apprenticeships based on the starts this year alone”.
He added: “A decision not to tackle the pressures would ultimately lead to few or no new starts for degree apprenticeships and the universities I’m talking to increasingly recognise this.”
Deputy chief executive of the Association of Colleges, Julian Gravatt, said it was “great to see UVAC calling for a consistent form of 16 to 18 funding that is accessible to all young people regardless of the route they choose”.
“It’s something AoC have been campaigning on for a while,” he added.
“The wider point to make clear however is that 16 to 18 apprentices should feel confident of guaranteed money through DfE ring-fencing of funds. AoC would support a shift from the government that placed consistent priority on the funding of training for young people, new to work.”
A Department for Education spokesperson said: “The apprenticeship levy was introduced to tackle employer underinvestment in skills.
“We want to make sure that the levy continues to help develop the skilled workforce businesses need to grow and have sought views from a range of employers on the operation of the levy after 2020.”
Ofsted was right to chastise us for poor student retention, says Len Tildsley, but our learning journey since shows unlocking success requires more than resilience. So what do you need, and what happens when you apply that to young people?
Four years ago we had a particular problem with retention of young students. We simply lost too many, including a significant drop-out during the first 42 days. Messages about ‘early losses not counting in the stats’ had been mis-interpreted as ‘get the more challenging students out quickly’.
We were also losing too many during the year and this quite rightly helped to trigger an Ofsted inspection in September 2016. We deserved the ‘requires improvement’ grades, but we had already taken steps to change the culture, practice and processes that had led us into this position.
We hadn’t been paying enough attention to the support of those at risk of early drop-out. We hadn’t fully considered the reasoning that leads a young person to leave after only a short period, despite the fact that they had chosen to come to us in the first instance and had progressed through all of the challenges of application, interview and induction.
When we did look back at some of the withdrawal reasons recorded on our system, we had far too many stating simply ‘course not suitable’. The only conclusion was that either their personal circumstances had changed or that we had failed to provide the quality of experience that we had promised. We had to do something to reverse this perpetual failure.
We had to do something to reverse this perpetual failure
Our first change was to appoint a team of progress coaches, who form a core part of our learner journey team. They are advocates for the student, and keep an eye on attendance and progress. They look for warning signs and can mobilise a range of other staff and resources should an individual student need extra help and support. They are a proxy for their parent and the front line for intervention and safeguarding. They really are like a sports coach – keeping them motivated and on track, picking them up and helping them if they are struggling and cheering them to the finish line of achievement and progression.
People and their relationships are vital, but processes are also important to bring focus on and remove the stigma from any doubts a student might be feeling, especially in the early weeks of a new programme.
We introduced the Swap Don’t Drop initiative in September 2017, a cross-college approach to encourage students to consider alternative programmes if the one that they had chosen wasn’t meeting their expectations, or they had simply decided that their future career needed to take a different direction. We had a poster campaign supported by teaching staff, progress coaches and the Student Union.
Although we promoted this from the outset, we also understood that students who were wobbling needed intensive guidance and support, and opportunities to act. We paired the campaign with what we called Right Choice Week. Scheduled for the fourth week of term, we set aside timetabled periods when students could try out other pathways. We threw in careers guidance sessions and drop-in opportunities for students to discuss their options with independent specialists and their progress coach.
All of these initiatives and structures combined have paid off. There is still work to do, but our 42-day withdrawal rate over has fallen steadily from 5.2 per cent in 2017, to 3.4 per cent in 2018. It currently sits at 1.5, and looks set to remain below two per cent.
It’s all too easy to find reasons or factors to blame for young people not accessing or rejecting education, but if you keep your expectations high, and take responsibility for your part in their journey, you can transform opportunity. After all, they came this far, and they came to us. Offering them support and opportunities to change their minds seems the least we can do.
A three-way merger is on the cards to help secure the long-term future of a college that has been surviving on government bailouts.
City College Southampton, Itchen Sixth Form College and Richard Taunton Sixth Form have all agreed the move would be a “positive” step following a local area review by the FE Commissioner.
It comes six months after City College Southampton saw its second proposed merger, on that occasion with Eastleigh College, collapse at the eleventh hour.
The situation threatened the solvency of City College, which received an unknown amount of exceptional financial support from the Department for Education in 2018/19 to enable it to “continue in operation in the short term”.
In a joint statement, Sarah Stannard, principal at City College, Alex Scott, principal at Itchen, and Dr Liz Lee, principal at Richard Taunton said they are at the “very early stages” of the merger even being an option and there is no timescale in place for this to happen.
Further details about the move, whether that is closer collaboration or a merger, are expected to be released by the FE Commissioner in the coming weeks.
“All three colleges are already working together to share best practice in areas such as student support and safeguarding, and we will obviously continue with this close working relationship going forward,” the statement said.
“It is widely agreed that a formal merger between the three colleges would be positive for students and the communities they serve.
“Nationally colleges have been encouraged to merge to be as financially efficient as possible and if this were to happen in Southampton it would be in line with the wider national agenda.”
A spokesperson for the Department for Education said details of the potential merger and publication of the FE Commissioner’s local area review will be published “in due course”.
The merger with Eastleigh College was so close to completion that City College Southampton principal, Sarah Stannard, had already announced plans to stand down.
But the plug was pulled in March after the government refused a request for an unknown amount of funds from the Restructuring Facility – a £726 million pot of cash that is used to support college mergers that closed in September.
City College Southampton’s accounts for 2017/18 warned that if this merger failed, it would “require a standalone application to be approved to ensure it is able to continue operations into 2019/20” and it would have to “seek additional long-term funding from the ESFA in order to remain in existence in the long-term”.
The DfE has made clear there will be no more long-term bailouts available to colleges following the introduction of the insolvency regime on January 31, which will allow colleges to go bust for the first time.
The college’s first merger attempt, with Southampton Solent University, fell through in 2017, after the move had been recommended in the Solent Area Review.
City College, which is rated ‘requires improvement’ by Ofsted, has seen its financial health deteriorate to ‘inadequate’ in recent years.
Its 2017/18 accounts show that its cash deficit deepened from £257,000 to £585,000. The college teaches around 5,000 students.
The joint statement from the principals at City College, Itchen and Richard Taunton said: “Whatever structure the colleges may take in the future, our number one focus remains to ensure that young people and adult learners in Southampton have the best possible further education provision and opportunities to learn the skills they need to be successful in their chosen careers.”
Government ought to invest in upskilling people on to level 2 qualifications or apprenticeships as a priority, a new report has recommended.
Close the Gap, a wide-ranging report joint authored by awarding bodies NOCN and City & Guilds, says the investment is necessary to provide a stepping stone to the next level for learners at every stage and age.
It warns that over the next five to ten years, there will be a “major skills gap” in the growing number of associate professional, scientific and technical jobs, particularly at levels 4 and 5 – which the authors call the ‘Missing Middle’.
The report says the current overall reduction in “operative skill” grade apprenticeships (level 2) is “making the problem worse, as the ability to progress up to and beyond level 3, 4 and 5 has become severely restricted”.
It calls on the government to launch a campaign to “recognise and encourage level 2 apprenticeships or qualifications in the economy”.
NOCN managing director Graham Hasting-Evans said government currently “does not seem to understand” that people must be taken from level 1 to level 2.
“You are not going to be able to take them to levels 4 and 5 where there will be jobs. You have to move them up from level 1 to level 2 first.”
The recommendation builds on work from organisations such as the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) to encourage more starts at level 2 – it has previously called on the government to fully fund apprenticeships at levels 2 and 3.
AELP chief executive Mark Dawe said: “AELP very much welcomes the call for a coherent strategy around getting more people skilled to at least level 2 and in our view, apprenticeships are the cornerstone on which the strategy should be built.”
Seeking to set the agenda for a “single, simple, integrated and economy-led technical and skills development scheme” – known as a ‘TVET system’ (technical and vocational education and training) internationally – Close the Gap features a number of other recommendations for tackling skills shortages in England.
Once an adult achieves their level 2 qualification, for example, the government ought to fully fund their first level 3, the report says.
Another proposal is for recent reforms to TVET, such as apprenticeships, T-levels, and functional skills, to be brought into one system championed by a single organisation – the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE).
By doing so, IfATE should be accountable for management of public investments and quality, while still being “owned” by stakeholders.
All TVET qualifications, apart from apprenticeships, would also be rebranded as T-levels: qualifications at level 3 and below would be named T-levels; and if it is level 4 or above, it would be named a Higher T-Level.
The report also proposes an “upskilling levy” to help continuously develop employees’ skills, saying: “It is unlikely there will be sufficient public expenditure available to match the significant scale of upskilling needed for the economy to manage a transition from the skills profile of today’s workforce to that needed in five to ten years’ time.”
“Accordingly, we suggest the government considers introducing an Upskilling Levy, similar in concept to the current apprenticeship levy, but for companies upskilling their existing employees.”
This levy would be set at the same level as the current apprenticeship levy, 0.5 per cent of payroll.
The upskilling levy would fund people moving from level 3 up through 4 and 5 and include specific management development programmes.
The Close the Gap report will be launched at today’s Skills and Employability Summit in London.
