Charity to test new GCSE maths curriculum for controversial resits policy

A maths charity has been awarded £60,000 to investigate the “feasibility” of a new GCSE curriculum in the subject for post-16 resit students.

Mathematics in Education and Industry will run a review independent of government, with the aim of developing a curriculum that has a greater focus on applying maths in real-life situations.

The project will include a small-scale study to assess the suitability of the curriculum as a basis for an alternative to the existing GCSE maths, which many resit students find tough to succeed in.

MEI chief executive Charlie Stripp said: “Resitting a GCSE maths qualification designed for 16-year-olds does not meet the mathematical needs of the large majority of students who do not succeed in maths at age 16.

“These students need a different post-16 GCSE maths curriculum that can motivate them to develop fluency and confidence in the fundamental maths skills they need for everyday life and employment.”

The current condition of funding rule, introduced in 2014, means that all students without at least a grade 4 – or a C, under the old alphabetical grading system – in English or maths must continue to study these subjects as part of their study programme.

Those with a grade 3, or D in the old system, must resit the GCSE exam rather than an alternative.

The requirement remains in place until the young person has completed 16 to 19 education, or achieved at least a grade 4.

Many FE representative bodies have asked the government to review the resits policy, mainly because of the sector’s tight resources due to the increasing number of students required to retake the qualifications, and they find that resitting a GCSE over and over again demotivates learners.

Over 170,000 young people resat GCSE maths in the summer of 2018, but only 23.7 per cent achieved at least a grade 4 or equivalent.

Josh Hillman, the director of education at the Nuffield Foundation, which is funding the project, said: “Performance in GCSE maths has both immediate and long-term impact on the education, training and employment trajectories of 16-year-olds.

“Previous Nuffield Foundation-funded research has found that students’ past experiences mean they lack both motivation and confidence when required to retake their maths GCSE, and the resit success rate remains stubbornly low.”

The MEI said that the standard GCSE maths curriculum, which is designed for 14 to 16 year olds, attempts to do two things: prepare students for further academic study of maths, and develop the knowledge and skills to apply mathematics to practical problems encountered in the workplace and other aspects of life.

“Most resit students need to focus on the latter,” the charity said.

The project will report towards the end of 2019.

£2m bank charge for college clearing debt with bailout

A cash-strapped college has spent almost £2 million of the bailout cash it received from the government on bank charges – although it has actually saved money.

Stoke on Trent College successfully bid for a reported £21.9 million from the Department for Education’s restructuring facility in September.

According to its recently published 2017/18 accounts, £1.93 million of this cash went on “break costs”.

These are the fees levied by a bank for repaying a loan earlier than agreed, to compensate it for lost interest.

“Most people who have received fixed-term or fixed-interest loans or mortgages in their personal or business lives will have also experienced this penalty when repaying loans early,” said Denise Brown, Stoke on Trent College’s principal.

“In the college’s case, the fee paid represents a net saving of around £2.5 million on further payments that would have been due under the original loan agreements.”

The accounts said that on September 27, 2018 “the college received restructuring funding from the transaction unit which resulted in three of the college’s loans with Lloyds Bank being repaid in full (£9.06 million plus £1.93 million break costs)”.

A further £5,475,000 of the cash went on repaying exception financial support owed by the college, which included a £1.1 million loan from the former Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

The college also received a £500,000 “interest-bearing” loan, repayable by July 2030 “subject to a capital loan repayment holiday until October 2021”.

FE Week previously reported on the college’s successful bid to the restructuring facility in September, although it wouldn’t say at the time how much it was awarded.

Ms Brown has now confirmed that the college has so far received £16.5 million, with a further £5 million available for it to draw down.

The college had been through a “rigorous process” to get its hands on the funding, she said.

The support package it has received “provides an adequate injection of funding to clear the burden of debt, to ensure that the college meets its immediate financial commitments and starts to build the foundations of a more sustainable future”.

According to the 2017/18 accounts, the college was “reliant on exceptional financial support in order to meet its working capital requirements and debt-serving obligations”.

It made an operating deficit over the year of more than £3 million on an income of £23 million, before adjusting for other gains and losses, and owed a combined total of £13.3 million in bank and BIS loans.

The previous year it was almost £16 million in the red, according to the 2016/17 accounts.

That year, the college made two separate requests for EFS over the year – one for £990,000 and the other for £2.55 million.

FE Week reported in February that the college had drawn down more than £500,000 in EFS in December 2017 alone, although it wasn’t clear if this was part of or in addition to the £3.5 million.

Unlike other colleges with similarly precarious finances, Stoke on Trent has no plans to merge.

An FE commissioner-led structure and prospects appraisal in 2017 “recommended a ‘fresh-start’ approach as the college had been unable to find a willing strategic partner”.

It is currently rated ‘requires improvement’ by Ofsted – a grade it has had for two inspections in a row.

A monitoring visit report, published in December, found that the college was making ‘reasonable progress’ in all areas under review.

The restructuring facility, which closed for applications in October, was originally intended to fund changes resulting from the area review of poat-16 education and training, which ended in March 2017.

However, it has increasingly been used to prop up failing colleges, although both the DfE and the skills minister Anne Milton have both denied this.

Other huge payouts from the fund include a reported £54 million to Hull College last year, and £21 million for Telford College, formed through the merger of New College Telford and Telford College of Arts and Technology in December 2017.

Colleges congratulated as FE funding tops DfE’s correspondence league tables

FE funding was the most popular topic of correspondence from MPs and stakeholders to education ministers in the last eight weeks of 2018.

Skills minister Anne Milton revealed the topic had been consistently among the top three at the end of last year at the winter conference of the Sixth Form Colleges Association on Wednesday.

In her keynote address, Ms Milton said: “Congratulations to you on your campaign ‘Raise the Rate’ and the wealth of stakeholder support you have managed to get behind the campaign.

“The level of correspondence sent to the department has resulted in further education funding being a top subject for eight weeks at the end of 2018.”

This refers to the amount of correspondence the department’s ministers get from MPs on a certain subject.

The Department for Education has since provided figures to FE Week which show in the last eight weeks of 2018, the department received 103 separate pieces of correspondence on FE funding.

For three of those weeks, the topic had the most pieces of correspondence.

The second most popular subject of correspondence from MPs and stakeholders over the eight-week period was school funding or school funding policy, with 43; the third-most popular was teacher pay, with 41.

The interest in FE was in part thanks to the Raise the Rate campaign led by the SFCA to secure at least £760 of additional government funding for each sixth form student in the Treasury’s 2019 spending review.

The campaign is also calling for sixth form funding to rise in line with inflation each year.

It was supported by the Love Our Colleges campaign, which launched in October and focused on securing extra funding for colleges more generally. It included a march on Parliament attended by FE staff, leaders, students, unions and MPs.

A petition, launched by students at Brockenhurst College, to increase FE funding was launched in October as part of the campaign and has reached nearly 70,000 signatures so far.

As a result, MPs will debate the issue in parliament on Monday.

Despite the campaigns, Ms Milton urged the delegates to get better at mobilising support for the FE sector among the press and politicians.

“There is no shortage of school teachers willing to talk about funding,” she said.

“Schools and universities are good at mobilising, so I need you to be as good.

“Please continue to highlight the challenges you are facing, as well as the outstanding work you are doing, and remember to please, please reach out to your local MP to invite them to visit once a year.

“It’s hard to get traction with the press and we need to use every means we can.

“You are a key part of filling this country’s skills gap and making us more productive as a country; if there’s one case that might get traction [with the press], I think that’s the one that does.”

Ms Milton told delegates at the SFCA conference that she could not commit to any funding increases, but she was aware of problems.

But she said the 16-19 base rate of funding will be part of her submission to this year’s Treasury assessment of all departmental spending, formerly known as the spending review.

Ofsted watch: Two NHS trusts hit with poor reports

Two NHS trusts have been put in intensive care this week, following poor Ofsted reports – one a monitoring visit, the other a full inspection.

Elsewhere, a trio of providers have maintained their grade three ratings for at least the second inspection in a row.

Walsall NHS Trust was rated ‘inadequate’ across the board for its apprenticeship provision, down from its previous grade three, in a damning report published January 18 and based on an inspection in mid-December.

Trust leaders and board members were criticised for failing to “hold managers of the apprenticeship programme effectively to account for the quality of provision”, while managers had “not sufficiently tackled the areas for improvement identified at the previous inspection”.

Assessors were “not aware that the vast majority of apprentices are not making the expected progress on their programme” and “do not ensure that apprentices understand how to organise their work for endpoint assessment”.

Improvements have already started to be put in place

Safeguarding was deemed “ineffective”, with concerns raised by apprentices and staff “not dealt with safely”, the report said.

Catherine Griffiths, director of people and culture at the trust said the report “makes uncomfortable reading for all of us and leaves us in no doubt that our apprentices have not been given the support and safeguarding they deserve”.

“Improvements have already started to be put in place including the trust sourcing an external provider for off-the-job training,” she said.

University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust was found to be making ‘insufficient progress’ in two out of three themes under review, in an early monitoring visit report published on January 18, and based on a visit in early December.

The trust’s provision “is not leading to substantial gains in knowledge, skill and understanding for many of its apprentices”, the report said.

“Ineffective strategic leadership, weak systems to secure trust-wide delivery and an absence of a clear understanding of what constitutes an effective apprenticeship training programme have combined to expose serious weaknesses in the apprenticeship programme of the trust.”

“Too many” healthcare apprentices “do not receive sufficient off-the-job learning activities” because “too many assessors, mentors, tutors and managers do not fully understand the requirements and full entitlement of an apprenticeship training programme”.

Matt Joint, director of people at the trust said it was “taking steps to make improvements in the areas which have been highlighted”.

Itchen College received its second ‘requires improvement’ rating in a row this week, while the Virtual College gained its third – and, as previously reported by FE Week, Kensington and Chelsea College racked up its fifth grade three in a row.

“Too many” A-level learners “leave their course early” while many are on “courses that have underperformed for too long” at Itchen, according to a report into the sixth form college published January 18 and based on an inspection in early December.

“Not enough students make the progress of which they are capable”, the report said – with “not enough” teachers taking “students’ prior achievement and potential” into account “so that they can excel”.

Programmes at The Virtual College, an online learning provider based in Ilkley, “focus too heavily on the completion of tasks rather than on the development of appropriate skills and behaviours”, according to a report published January 14 and based on an inspection in late November.

“Managers’ self-assessment is overly optimistic and fails to identify the key weaknesses in the provision,” inspectors found.

Their monitoring of subcontractors, who deliver around a third of the college’s provision, “has not led to rapid improvements in apprentices’ progress or their completion within planned timescales”.

Two providers saw their grades improve from ‘requires improvement’ to ‘good’ this week: Wakefield College, and Jancett Childcare and Jace Training Limited.

Leaders at Wakefield College “successfully promote an inclusive ethos throughout the college”, and have “taken effective steps to improve the quality of teaching, learning and assessment”, according to a report published January 17 and based on an inspection in early December.

Students “thrive in a supportive, welcoming atmosphere” and “benefit from well-resourced learning environments that help them to increase their self-esteem and develop their knowledge and skills well”, the report said.

In a report published January 14, and based on an inspection in late November, inspector praised leaders, managers and staff at Jancett Childcare and Jace Training Limited for “supporting young people and adult learners, many of whom start courses with low prior attainment, to achieve well, develop their self-confidence and their ability to gain employment”.

Students “thrive in a supportive, welcoming atmosphere”

Two providers slipped in the opposite direction this week: Northumberland College fell from grade two to three, and, as previously reported by FE Week, independent provider DV8 dropped from three to four.

Governors at Northumberland College had, “until very recently” failed to “identify and stop the decline in the quality of the college’s provision and the deterioration in its financial position”.

“Too many students on study programmes and apprentices do not attend their lessons often enough, particularly in English and mathematics”, the report said.

A further eight apprenticeships early monitoring visit reports have been published this week.

One, for SCL Education and Training, resulted in ‘significant progress’ verdicts in two out of three areas under review.

Six were found to be making ‘reasonable progress’ in all three areas: Aspire Sporting Academy, Aspire Development (UK) Ltd, Randstad Solutions, CIPFA Business Limited, Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust and Care Training Solutions.

The eighth was found to be making ‘insufficient progress’ in safeguarding: TMS Learning and Skills Support.

Four providers currently rated grade three had monitoring visit reports published this week: City College Nottingham, West Thames College, The Sixth Form College, Solihull, and Norman Mackie & Associates.

GFE Colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
City College Nottingham 12/12/2018 17/01/2019 M 3
Kensington and Chelsea College 20/11/2018 15/01/2019 3 3
West Thames College 28/11/2018 11/01/2019 M 3
Wakefield College 04/12/2018 17/01/2019 2 3
Northumberland College 27/11/2018 14/01/2019 3 2

 

Sixth Form Colleges (inc 16-19 academies) Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
The Sixth Form College, Solihull 12/12/2018 16/01/2019 M 3
Itchen College 04/12/2018 18/01/2019 3 3

 

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
DV8 Training (Brighton) 20/11/2018 16/01/2019 4 3
SCL Education and Training 12/12/2018 17/01/2019 M M
T.M.S. Learning and Skills Support Ltd 28/11/2018 16/01/2019 M M
University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust 05/12/2018 18/01/2019 M M
Aspire Sporting Academy 10/12/2018 17/01/2019 M M
Aspire Development (UK) Ltd 28/11/2018 11/01/2019 M M
Randstad Solutions 06/12/2018 17/01/2019 M M
CIPFA Business Limited 12/12/2018 17/01/2019 M M
Jancett Childcare and Jace Training Limited 27/11/2018 14/01/2019 2 3
Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals National Health Service Trust 13/12/2018 18/01/2019 M M
The Virtual College 27/11/2018 14/01/2019 3 3
Walsall NHS Trust 11/12/2018 18/01/2019 4 3
Norman Mackie & Associates 28/11/2018 11/01/2019 M 3
Care Training Solutions 14/12/2018 11/01/2019 M M

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 267

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


Lee Probert, principal and chief executive, York College

Start date: June 2019

Previous job: Principal, City of Bristol College

Interesting fact: Lee has been musical director for pantomime at the Swan Theatre in Worcester three times….oh yes he has!


Julie Peaks, deputy principal, Wyke Sixth Form College

Start date: January 2019

Previous job: vice-principal, Wyke Sixth Form College

Interesting fact: Julie is a keen follower of fashion, and had a part-time job at clothing retailer Topshop while at university in Liverpool.


Kate Josephs, director of funding, Education and Skills Funding Agency

Start date: April 2019

Previous job: Director of national operations for academies and regional delivery, Department for Education

Interesting fact: Kate spent two and a half years living and working in Washington DC as director of the US Performance Improvement Council in the Obama administration


Daniel Howard, managing director, For Skills

Start date: January 2019

Previous job: Assistant director of apprenticeships, Ixion Holdings

Interesting fact: Daniel is a maternal descendant of the Duke of Wellington


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

Provider integrity at heart of Ofsted’s new Common Inspection Framework

Ofsted will soon focus on providers’ “integrity” during inspections, but its chief inspector has said she cannot turn the education watchdog into a police force.

In a speech to launch a consultation on the new inspection process, Amanda Spielman said: “Two words that sum up my ambition for the framework and which underlie everything we have published today: substance and integrity.

“One thing I hope will flow from this new approach is that integrity will be properly rewarded.

“I know how easy it is to let drift happen, because of the pressures of making the numbers add up, or because someone down the road is doing it and you think that you or your students will suffer unless you do the same.

“That’s not your fault; it’s human nature.

“But its effect is pernicious, and we know that it is disadvantaged pupils that suffer the most when substance comes second to point scoring.”

Ofsted’s new focus on integrity means inspectors will challenge providers if they find evidence of practices such as enrolling students with funding and high achievement rates as a motivation ahead of which course is best for the learner.

Ms Spielman said: “We’ve seen some young people kept on level 2 study courses, when they could and should have been progressing.

“We’ve also seen off-rolling between year 12 and year 13 on A-level courses.”

Providers were also criticised for being funded for apprentices “whether or not they are really learning anything”.

“All of these practices need to be discouraged, and inspection has a valuable role to play in doing so,” she said.

After her speech, Ms Spielman told FE Week: “I can’t turn Ofsted into a police force, I’m not resourced and I don’t have the skills; and I do not think it will be a helpful thing to turn Ofsted into an investigation service, turning up to try and find any possible way integrity has been damaged.

“I’m about trying to create the right incentives and the right conversation.

“Everybody in every sector can start to wobble at the edges under pressure.”

She would not be drawn on how big the problem is in the FE sector.

This is not the first time Ofsted has shown an interest in potential gaming of data, funding and the integrity of the sector.

In 2009, Geoff Russell, the then-chief executive of the Learning and Skills Council – the predecessor organisation to the Skills Funding Agency – sent a letter to college principals after finding data mismanagement.

This followed “desk-based analysis and fact-finding reviews” by the LSC, Ofsted, the Data Service and the information authority looking into “suggestions that data manipulation goes beyond routine data cleansing to improve the accuracy of the data”.

They concluded: “Some of the practices identified at the fact-finding visits have led to an artificial increase in success rates.”

Mr Russell’s letter read: “Colleges adopt various approaches to the completion of the Individualised Learner Record (ILR) and interpret the ILR guidance differently, resulting in inconsistent and sometimes inappropriate reporting.

“If the data management in your college varies from [best] practice, please ensure this practice ceases with immediate effect.”

For several years thereafter, Ofsted used government software to analyse the credibility of ILR data prior to inspections.

The conference also exhumed the controversy around the chief inspector’s thoughts on arts courses, which caused a national media furore.

At an Association of Colleges conference in November, Ms Spielman said: “Arts and media does stand out as the area where there is greatest mismatch between the numbers of students taking the courses and the employment prospects at the end.”

At the Sixth Form Colleges Association conference, she clarified her remarks: “I gave an example, which was widely misinterpreted, that arts education is a bad thing.

“That was an example of where getting the funding is taking priority over putting people on the right track.”

IfA boss refuses to say whether he wants to remain in post as DfE forced to re-advertise role

The Institute for Apprenticeships will re-advertise for a new chief executive in the coming months, but its current boss has remained tight-lipped over his future.

Sir Gerry Berragan took the top job at the IfA in November 2017 and later revealed to FE Week that he was only contracted for two years because he did not go through a formal recruitment process.

The former army man, who was a career soldier for 37 years, admitted at the time that he only decided to “throw my hat in the ring” after the institute endured a fruitless sixth-month hunt.

The post will be re-advertised this year

But as the end of his contract approaches, Sir Gerry has refused to commit to reapplying for the role.

“The post will be re-advertised this year and if I want to do it I will reapply,” he told FE Week.

“That’s none of your business, I’ve said all I am going to say,” he added when asked about his interest in carrying on in the job.

If Sir Gerry decides not to reapply it is likely to be a blow for the IfA.

The current chief executive and former board member has been pivotal in creating and leading the institute, guiding it through its “faster and better” approach to the apprenticeships programme, and the government’s first ever funding band reviews.

It will also come at a time when the institute takes on responsibility for T-levels from the Department for Education.

The IfA will officially change its name to the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education in the next few weeks, at which point it will assume powers for the new post-16 technical qualifications.

If Sir Gerry doesn’t throw his hat back in the ring for the IfA job then a likely successor could be his second-in-command, Robert Nitsch.

The current chief operating officer, who also worked in the army for years, caused controversy last month when he delivered a presentation to an employer engagement event which included a forecast of a £500 million overspend on the apprenticeship budget in 2018/19 – rising to £1.5 billion by 2020/21.

The figures prompted widespread concerns and demands for an open debate on how the levy operates, and for the IfA to share the full presentation, which it has now finally done.

The IfA will most likely be hoping that it doesn’t have to recruit an external person to the chief executive role, considering the difficulty it ran into two years ago.

Sir Gerry spoke to FE Week about his unusual appointment when he took the job in 2017.

“All I know is that by mid-to-end October, it had reached a stage where they had not found a candidate that fitted all the criteria, and that was a frustration because we knew Peter Lauener was going to retire at the end of the year,” he said.

The search for a full-time successor to the outgoing Mr Lauener, who was also coming to the end of his stint as chief executive of the Education and Skills Funding Agency, began in April 2017.

Well, you know, if you want I’ll throw my hat in the ring

The initial recruitment round had no success so the IfA turned to headhunters in July, which again was unsuccessful.

A breakthrough was finally achieved during a two-hour working dinner with two fellow board members, IfA chair and former Barclays chief executive Antony Jenkins, and Dame Fiona Kendrick, who chairs Nestle UK.

“There was a bit of an imperative to get someone in place,” said Sir Gerry.

“That’s when I said to the chairman ‘well, you know, if you want I’ll throw my hat in the ring’.”

A “mini-recruitment phase” followed.

“The only way they could appoint me was for a two-year period because I hadn’t gone through the formal recruitment process. After that, I’d have to go through another recruitment process if I wanted to stay longer.”

A formal recruitment process, under Cabinet Office rules, would have involved Sir Gerry going up against multiple other candidates for the job

Let’s not have arbitrary caps on apprenticeship provider growth

If ESFA introduces a limit on the scope of providers to grow it could hinder the delivery of apprenticeships, says Simon Ashworth

At the AELP autumn conference, ESFA apprenticeships director Keith Smith announced that the ESFA was giving serious consideration to introducing a “provider earnings limit” on all apprenticeship providers in 2019, or in plain English placing a cap on a provider’s ability to grow.

I find it surprising how little coverage this got, especially as the proposal seems to interfere with the direct customer relationship between levy-paying employers and providers. Weren’t we meant to be moving away from this?

In 2017 when the first iteration of the register of apprenticeship training providers (RoATP) was launched, the resulting approved list was not robust. Many organisations piled into the marketplace, resulting in FE Week stories about “backroom providers” who were able to gain access to taxpayers’ funds. Clearly new, untried providers presented a high risk to our apprenticeship system. Around one in four new providers visited by Ofsted have been judged to be making ‘insufficient progress’.

Thanks to government policy, it’s almost a case of ‘too small to succeed’

However, let’s not be quick to write off all new providers, as many are still judged to be making reasonable or even outstanding progress. Having visited several over the last few months, I have seen some innovative approaches to employer engagement and programme delivery. So we need a levy system that enables good providers to flourish once they have demonstrated they are good, and providers should be able to maintain confidence in the system as their organisation grows.

Mr Smith also expressed concerns about established large providers growing too fast and in some cases appearing to trade quality for surplus. Malpractice can happen in any industry, but despite seemingly being reluctant to recognise its own role in the high-profile failures, the agency now appears preoccupied with clipping the wings of providers deemed “too big to fail”.

In some ways it is amazing that any providers still exist, because the government has made it near-impossible for organisations to trade with any sort of surplus. Indeed we should be celebrating those that have survived and even grown at a time when start numbers have dropped so much and the viability of delivering and assessing a high proportion of standards is still questionable. Thanks to government policy and implementation, it’s almost more of a case of “too small to succeed”.

If the ESFA does implement a provider earnings limit later this year, what are the top five things it should consider, having beefed up the RoATP? AELP recommends:

1. An approach that is flexible, transparent and simple to understand and applied only where appropriate.
2. Rethinking the name itself. “Provider earnings limit” has negative connotations, something like “growth framework” would be more positive.
3. A bespoke approach, recognising the different risks between new and established providers.
4. Restricting the amount of funding new providers can initially access and using recognised milestones (successful Ofsted monitoring visits, full Ofsted inspections and ESFA’s Provider Financial Assurance visits) to allow access to greater amounts until they become established.
5. For established providers, an approach that doesn’t inhibit quality growth. Rather than a notional hard cap, a flexible framework that allows for a dialogue between providers and the ESFA. If an established provider is judged ‘requires improvement’, why not limit future growth until it is deemed good, to help it focus on improving existing provision rather than chasing extra volumes?

What we must not do is allow the government to start interfering in an established relationship between levy-paying employers and their providers. Yes, the register needs to be far more robust; yes, the quality and audit regime needs to function adequately; yes, there needs to be intelligent account management between the provider and government, but under no circumstances should we prevent a levy payer from ramping up apprenticeship delivery because its chosen quality provider has had an arbitrary cap placed on it by a misguided new funding regime

On the point of account management, it worth highlighting that in December in a letter from Peter Mucklow, FE Director at the ESFA, to post-16 institutions explaining funding for the academic year 2019 to 2020 stated: “We are strengthening our oversight of ITPs by introducing named contract managers for the largest providers. Our contract managers will work closely with ITPs to ensure that public funds are safeguarded, increasing our scrutiny in order to protect learners participating in apprenticeships and other ESFA funded programmes. We will communicate the detail of the changes in January 2019”.  We are already getting positive feedback to this from AELP members, so let’s hope this is the first step in a more collaborative approach to managing the growth and risk of established and in particular the largest providers.  Between them the large independent providers deliver the majority of the apprenticeship provision so of course any failure will cause serious ripples. For this reason, AELP has been calling for a move back to a closer collaborative account management process for the largest providers which should avoid the need for arbitrary growth caps.

International work is neither celebrated nor talked about nearly enough

Colleges that choose to extend their work internationally can reap rewards in many different ways, says Emma Meredith, but perceptions are almost entirely negative

Many readers will remember the now-infamous “Deptford not Delhi” comment made by a former chief inspector six years ago. The message to colleges was: focus on domestic work, forget about international.

At the time, stories about India ventures and revoked Tier 4 licences dominated the headlines (and let’s face it, good news doesn’t always sell). International work was tricky, expensive and not guaranteed to deliver results.

But is this the norm? The short answer is no. Why? Because we rarely hear about colleges’ international successes, however great or small. While external factors such as visa restrictions have caused some colleges to drop out of international work, others are quietly making a success of it, against the odds.

Any college that operates the most modest student exchange abroad or that enrols a student born outside the UK is doing international work. The main misconception about college international work is that it only fits the stereotype of doomed Saudi colleges or risky student visas, and that it must be done on a BIG SCALE. International work in colleges is so much more than this and is neither celebrated nor talked about nearly enough.

AoC’s 2018 survey of college international activity showed that colleges engage in over 20 different types of international work including transnational education projects, summer schools and the delivery of professional training and consultancy overseas.

The main misconception is that international work only fits the stereotype of doomed Saudi colleges

Why do they engage? It’s an inescapable fact that colleges look to international work as an alternative income source. Anyone associated with the sector or who followed the #LoveOurColleges campaign will know that college funding levels have been in decline for the last 10 years.

International work won’t make up the difference, but it can bring in income that can be invested back into central college operations once costs are covered.

But it isn’t only about the money. Some colleges are in parts of the UK with very little ethnic or cultural diversity. Institutions look to exchange programmes such as the EU-funded Erasmus+ programme to give their local students an invaluable opportunity to go abroad and improve their interpersonal and employability skills. I’ve heard many amazing stories of how life-changing these experiences have been for students and staff, thus benefiting the entire college. And that’s certainly staying focused on the local.

Colleges are simply not able to take major financial risks on international ventures. I think that ship should now sail. As a sector we have a responsibility to mitigate risk, which means colleges talking to each other and sharing best practice. Colleges might be in competition, but it doesn’t mean that they can’t, or don’t already, help each other.

AoC works closely with the UK Skills Partnership and government departments to position the college sector for new international opportunities. But we also advise government that these need to be the right opportunities, and that colleges need support to deliver them. Staff capacity, infrastructure and finance are obstacles, but colleges have fantastic expertise to offer a world that wants skills education and training.

Telling colleges that they should only focus on domestic work was another unfortunate example of the snobbery and ignorance with which colleges have been treated. Thankfully, in most quarters the thinking is starting to move on.

International work is difficult and doesn’t always work out, but it is worth it and does make a difference to the college community. Colleges should have the right to choose to do international work, and if they do they should be accountable and responsible. Colleges must always focus on Deptford, but they should also be free to choose Delhi.