Union warns AoC risks ‘becoming an irrelevant voice’ after another ‘insulting’ 1% pay offer

The Association of Colleges has been warned that it risks “becoming an irrelevant voice” in the FE sector after it offered staff an “insulting” one per cent pay rise again.

The University and College Union said the deal, which was presented to AoC members yesterday, was a “wholly inadequate” response to the pay crisis in FE which has left teaching staff being paid £7,000 less than school teachers.

Last year the AoC said it regretted only making a one per cent offer and has conceded that staff need a rise. But without additional funding from the government a larger pay rise appears to not be possible.

David Hughes, the association’s boss, said he is “deeply disappointed” that a better offer cannot be made but he “cannot recommend a completely unaffordable pay award”.

He added that his members need to “continue to focus our collective energies on pushing the government for better investment”.

The UCU said warm words were “not a substitute for fair pay” and warned this year’s repeated offer sent a “worrying signal to staff that they were not valued and that their employers were not prepared to fight their corner”. 

The union pointed out that Capital City College Group has agreed a 5 per cent pay deal for over 1,700 staff, despite a large deficit, and claimed that less than half of colleges followed the AoC’s previous pay recommendation. 

A walkout over pay by more than 700 UCU members caused disruption across six colleges last week – and even forced one to close for two days.

Further disruption is likely to occur in the New Year, as strike ballots opened at another 26 colleges, with a closing date of December 19.

“The offer will annoy staff who need their employers to be fighting their corner as the pay gap between them and school teachers widens further,” said UCU head of policy and campaigns Matt Waddup.

“It is not right that staff at one college can receive a five per cent increase while their colleagues down the road get nothing for doing the same work.

“The AoC cannot continue to believe that warm words are a substitute for fair pay and they risk becoming an irrelevance. This offer increases the likelihood of more waves of strikes after Christmas and puts the ball firmly in the court of colleges who are prepared to follow CCCG’s lead and actually do something to tackle the pay crisis in further education.”

An AoC email to members, seen by FE Week, said the association “firmly believes” that college staff should be awarded a 3.5 per cent pay increase to at least match the school teacher pay award.

“However, due to the continued chronic under investment in the sector this is currently not an option,” it added.

Mr Hughes said: “Every college leader wants to pay a fair salary to be able to recruit, reward and retain the best people.

“College staff have had to work harder than ever as the funding cuts have bitten but we cannot recommend a completely unaffordable pay award.”

IfA confirms funding cut of £5k to chartered manager degree apprenticeship standard

The popular chartered manager degree apprenticeship standard will have its funding slashed by £5,000, the Institute for Apprenticeships has confirmed.

The results of the IfA’s controversial review of another 17 standards (see table below) have been released, and it spells bad news for the popular management apprenticeships and the employer groups who had joined forces to appeal any funding cuts.

The chartered manager degree apprenticeship standard will see its funding fall 18 per cent from £27,000 to £22,000 on March 4.

The operations/departmental manager will lose £2,000 in funding, falling 22 per cent from £9,000 to £7,000, while the ever popular team leader/supervisor standard will drop 10 per cent, from £5,000 to £4,500.

The employer group behind all three management apprenticeship standards, led by the Chartered Management Institute, launched an appeal to overturn plans to slash the funding bands. However, today’s announcement shows this did not succeed.

Rob Wall, head of policy at the CMI, said the cuts “will damage the market for a management apprenticeships, stall critical investment in management development and undermine efforts to boost UK productivity. The more intensive programmes that support young people and drive social mobility will be the hardest hit.”

He added: “Over 100 employers wrote to highlight the impact that cuts will have, and indeed have already had with some apprentice recruitment programmes put on hold. Today’s announcement shows that ministers are not in listening mode, and is another nail in the coffin of an employer-led skills system.”

Another popular management apprenticeship, the level four associate project management standard, will have its funding cut by a third from £9,000 to £6,000 despite a campaign from the Association for Project Management against the cut.

Debbie Dore, chief executive of the Association for Project Management, warned the cut to the associate project management standard would lead to “the end of this high-quality offering” and described it as a “profoundly disappointing development”.

“The employers group for this apprenticeship standard has been clear that a quality offering could not be delivered at this reduced price and we expect that most employers and providers will now withdraw.

“What makes this decision more perplexing is that this apprenticeship has been increasingly popular and successful with employers in the public and private sectors alike. Apprenticeships are supposed to be employer-led, yet in this case the views of employers have been completely disregarded.”

A spokesperson for the IfA said the priority had been to ensure standards “have the appropriate funding band to support high quality delivery and provide value for money for employers and the taxpayer, whilst ensuring consistency in the way older and newer standards are funded.

“Throughout the process, we have worked collaboratively with trailblazers to ensure the review was carried out in an open way and have worked hard to resolve any concerns about changes to funding levels.”

Today’s announcement follows the 12 changes announced in October. Of the standards announced so far, 21 are set to receive reduced funding. Two standards – aviation ground specialist and senior healthcare support worker – will receive big increases. The aviation ground specialist standard will have its funding doubled, from £3,000 to £6,000, while the senior healthcare support worker standard will rise from £3,000 to £5,000.

Six standards will not see any change to their funding, and two – digital technology solutions professional and motor vehicle service and maintenance technician – have not yet had a decision made on their fate.

The IfA announced in May it would look at the funding given to 31 standards, at the request of the Department for Education.

At the time, FE Week analysis showed that 21 of the 30 standards with the most starts in 2017/18 were among those being reviewed.

Earlier this month, it was announced that a further 30 funding bands would face review. All changes are finally signed off by the education secretary, Damian Hinds.

Education secretary disagrees with Ofsted and not blaming colleges for ‘false hope’ job prospects

Damian Hinds has said he would “not blame colleges at all” in the way that Amanda Spielman did for putting students on courses such as arts and media which have slim job prospects.

The chief inspector told the Association of Colleges conference last month that there is a “mismatch” between the numbers of students taking the courses and their “future employment in the industry”.

She went on to say this was giving learners “false hope” and questioned whether some colleges are chasing income over students’ best interests, which AoC boss David Hughes agreed with but “incensed” many others in the FE sector.

It also caused a media furore, making headlines in The Guardian, The Times and the Daily Mail. A theatre newspaper and website, The Stage, even launched a poll asking readers whether or not they agreed with Ms Spielman’s comments, in which 1,327 people voted “no” and 385 voted “yes”, which prompted Ofsted to write a blog about the situation.

Education secretary Damian Hinds was delivering a speech about ending “snobbery” over technical education at Battersea Power Station in London today, and appeared to make similar remarks to Ms Spielman.

“Right now, we have a training market that is driven by the choices colleges and other training providers make… For the people putting on the training there is good reason to go for cheap, popular courses that are easier to put on, easier to pass,” he said.

“We need a strategy that means both the individuals choosing their courses and the colleges putting the courses on are incentivised to develop skills that match the labour market needs of the future… With the number of people training in proportion to the number of opportunities likely to be available.”

FE Week questioned him on this after the speech, and asked if he was agreeing with the chief inspector that colleges have been selling students an “impossible dream”.

But the education secretary denied this.

“I’m not putting blame on colleges at all in that way but it is right that we do give young people realistic information,” he said.

“There is something of a balance between people are going to be good at and enjoy, obviously that is an important factor in choice, but also it’s important to know where the opportunities are and where you have got a really good chance of getting into a good job which will help to give you a good standard of living and then later on in life will help you to provide for your family.

“I do think that kind of supply and demand matching up and clear information for young people is vital.”

Ms Spielman’s comments followed the inspectorate’s thematic report on level two qualifications which included a graph with just 11 responses which said arts and media courses have the “least chance of progressing to employment in a relevant industry”.

Writing for FE Week last week, the principal of Grimsby Institute Debra Gray, who spoke out during a question-and-answer session with Ms Spielman at the AoC conference, criticised the research for being based on perception not facts.

Don’t play the blame game over the Baker clause

The lack of information about A-level alternatives will not be solved by cajoling schools into compliance, says Kevin Gilmartin. Instead, what is needed is an understanding of what is holding back any progress or solution

There’s frustration in the corridors of Whitehall and among colleges and training providers over the perceived failings of schools to give students enough access and information to A-level alternatives.

Recent stories around the failure of schools to comply with the Baker clause, and a Careers and Enterprise Company survey showing that schools with sixth forms are the worst at offering careers information on different post-16 options, have provoked an inevitable narrative.

This is how it goes: “Why won’t those pesky schools just let the FE colleges and training providers in to talk to their pupils? If they allowed them in, then fewer students would stay on in their small sixth forms with their limited range of A-levels and wouldn’t make the mistake of progressing to low-ranking universities to get a little-recognised degree and a mountain of debt. Instead, they would undertake an apprenticeship or vocational course and end up in a high-demand occupation, have no personal debt and help to reduce the country’s looming post-Brexit skills shortage and boost UKplc’s economic growth. And we all know why the schools are not complying, don’t we? Students equal money.”

Except, of course, it’s not quite that simple.

There are numerous regulations with which schools are expected to comply. Many are financial, but there are others that may be prioritised by overstretched school leaders ahead of the Baker clause: GDPR, Ofsted, website requirements, health and safety, and so on.

In times gone by, the friendly local authority careers adviser would have given information during careers lessons and would have co-ordinated the dates of college open events and apprenticeship fairs. But despite the much-heralded careers strategy, where is the money for schools to access these chargeable careers services?

Many school teachers know little about what goes on at the local college

Perception is also a reason. Many school teachers know little about what goes on at the local college. Attempts to rectify this through college principals sitting on local headteacher boards, or through colleges getting involved in joining multi-academy trusts (often as the sponsor) only scratch the surface. The last great curriculum initiative that actively involved close college and school partnership was the 14-19 diploma. Enough said about how that ended up.

Equally, trying to get school staff to understand the world of apprenticeships, meets with the same confused look. “Just how do I get simple information on apprenticeships?” is a repeated cry. “Do I just tell them to go to the local college? What is a private training provider? What is the difference between the National Apprenticeships Service and the Institute of Apprenticeships?”

Telling school staff that this is important and they need to do more with their pupils on different post-16 options may seem self-evident. But when they respond by asking what’s more important – this or an extra hour of exam revision – then the unforgiving spectre of accountability wins out.

So, the landscape is confusing and congested, and for many the Baker clause is just another pressure. Is it really any wonder that some schools are struggling with this responsibility? However, those same schools will also often say that they would like to do more – to train staff in how to access better careers information, take time to liaise locally with other providers and improve the life chances of their students as a result.

To enable them to do this we have to address funding. Insufficient funding has consequences, including, unfortunately, less ability to provide advice and guidance.

Meanwhile, let’s not have different parts of the sector blaming each other for the system’s failings. Until colleges, schools and careers education are properly funded, and accountability measures are more sensible, then the government’s skills agenda will struggle to take off. The government really should know this… it’s called joined-up thinking.

Apprenticeships starts down nearly a quarter last year

Apprenticeship numbers fell by almost a quarter last year compared to the year before, according to final figures published by the Department for Education this morning. 

There were 375,800 apprenticeship starts in 2017/18, a drop of 118,600 – or 24 per cent – on 2016/17’s total of 494,400, and a decrease of 26 per cent on the 2015/16 figure of 509,400.

Overall participation also fell to 814,800, compared with 908,700 in 2016/17 and 899,400 in 2015/15 – decreases of 10.3 and 9.4 per cent respectively. 

Starts at level two showed the biggest year-on-year drop, from 260,700 in 2016/17 to 161,400 in 2017/18, which represents a fall of 38 per cent.

Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said starts at this level were “now the biggest issue we face”.

“The crash in number of opportunities for levels two and for young people are simply disastrous when the onus is now on us to train up our own home grown talent,” he said.

Level three starts also fell by 19 per cent, while advanced level apprenticeships – those at level four or above – rose by almost a third, from 36,600 to 48,200.

Starts among those aged 25 and above showed the biggest drop, from 229,900 in 2016/17 to 2017/18 – a drop of 32 per cent. For those aged under 19 the drop was 13 per cent, and for 19 to 24-years-olds it was 20 per cent.

Today’s statistics come just days after Ofsted chief inspector Amanda Spielman raised concerns about existing graduate schemes being “repackaged” as apprenticeships, at the expense of younger people on lower level courses.

And skills minister Anne Milton admitted she will look at whether the government should continue to fund all apprenticeships, after FE Week exclusively reported that the apprenticeships budget is set to be overspent by £0.5 billion this year – thanks in large part to the growing number of expensive management apprenticeship starts.

This is the first full year of statistics since the introduction of the apprenticeship levy, in May 2017, which led to an immediate falling-off of starts. 

The final three months of 2017/18 showed an increase of 62 per cent compared with the same three months in 2016/17 – although those figures were 59 per cent down on the previous year.

Speaking about today’s figures, Ms Milton said it was “fantastic to see the number of people starting on our high quality apprenticeships has shot up by 139,100 compared to last year”.

“This is good news and really highlights how employers up and down the country are embracing the huge benefits apprentices are bringing to their business.”

DfE urgently seeking answers to why level two apprenticeships fell by 38%

The Department for Education is urgently seeking to “improve understanding” of what’s behind the drop in level two apprenticeships, as the latest statistics show numbers have fallen by more than a third in the space of a year.

There were just 161,400 starts at level two in 2017/18, according to the final apprenticeship figures for the year, published today – down from 260,700 in 2016/17.

The proportion of overall starts at level two has also fallen to its lowest level yet – from a high of 65 per cent in 2013/15 down to 43 per cent in 2017/18. 

It follows the DfE’s publication yesterday of a call for expressions of interest to carry out research to “improve understanding of the causes and effects of changes to the number of apprenticeship starts at level two”, with a deadline of December 18 – suggesting the department is concerned about the fall.

“Level two starts are now the biggest issue we face,” said Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers.

“We want apprenticeships to grow at all levels, but major mistakes in the implementation of the levy have resulted in a serious undermining of the government’s social mobility agenda,” he said.

“The crash in number of opportunities for levels two and for young people are simply disastrous when the onus is now on us to train up our own home grown talent.” 

Earlier this week Ofsted chief inspector Amanda Spielman hit out at the rise in “existing graduate schemes” being “rebadged as apprenticeships”, at the expense of the “third of students who leave school without a full level two”.

And skills minister Anne Milton admitted she will look at whether the government should continue to fund all apprenticeships, after FE Week exclusively reported that the apprenticeships budget is set to be overspent by £0.5 billion this year – thanks in large part to the growing number of expensive management apprenticeship starts.

According to the call for expressions of interest, the fall in apprenticeship starts in 2017/18 compared with previous years “has been greatest at level two”.

Analysis of data shows the decrease is “most pronounced in four sector subject areas: business, administration and law; health, public services and care; retail and commercial enterprise; and engineering and manufacturing technologies”.

“New research is required to inform the department’s understanding of the factors affecting changes to apprenticeship starts at level two and the interplay with starts at level three, and to inform the policy response to this change,” it said.

Among the aims of the project are to “explore whether lessons can be learned from exceptions to the overall trend” such as where employers within the four subject areas “are in fact increasing level two starts”, and to “identify possible policy responses to the overall change in numbers of Level 2 starts”.

The DfE has been approached for a comment.

 

 

Governors should ask more questions about teaching and learning

Teaching and learning are at the core of any college, says Jill Westerman – which is why governors need to know what happens in the classrooms

How much time does your board spend discussing teaching, learning and assessment (TLA)?

We show value in terms of where we spend our time . . . is the value and importance of TLA shown in the amount of time allocated to it in board meetings? Department for Education guidance and the Association of Colleges’ code of good governance are clear that this is a board duty, with the code stating that “the board must foster exceptional teaching and learning”.

As principal of Northern College until August this year, I had many responsibilities; some were duties and some passions. Teaching and learning was and is a passion, partly because of my background as a teacher, but also because it is the core purpose of a college.

Every aspect of the work should focus on the creation of an environment where successful learning takes place. Therefore, the principal and the board must, in my view, take an active interest in what happens in the classroom or other places of learning.

With the clerk, I worked to present as much as possible about teaching and learning to the board. There is no easy way to do this: we included presentations from students and staff at meetings, as well as “meet the governors” coffee and cake with students.

The quality committee played a key role, allocating at least an hour in each meeting to look at an aspect of teaching and learning; staff from across the college joined the committee to discuss TLA in their areas.

When the college implemented a new system of self-observation using film followed up with peer coaching, the quality committee discussed the plans and subsequent review in depth to ensure that the initiative was having the maximum positive impact on the quality of TLA.

Colin Forrest, a quality committee member, talks about “active governance” that goes beyond simple compliance. Structured governor interactions generate an active understanding of TLA at all levels and in all places, and create conditions for leaders to prioritise TLA.

Students film each other discussing their experiences of teaching

Another great example is happening at The Sheffield College, where the chair and co vice-chair, Seb Schmoller and Beri Hare, are working with other governors to ensure that the board moves from compliant governance to an active model that puts TLA at the heart of its work. A review of committees led to a new teaching, learning, quality and student experience committee.

Alongside this, the college’s new principal and chief executive, and the deputy chief executive, have TLA as a major focus of their job. A governor who has been a college principal chairs the new committee and meets regularly with the senior team solely to discuss teaching and learning. There is also a strong focus in the finance committee on the requirements of TLA and the impact on TLA.

The boards of Northern College and The Sheffield College each receive reports that give a more complete and rounded picture of teaching and learning. For example, at Northern College the board receives a detailed report on the annual “feedback fortnight”, which uses different and more imaginative ways beyond routine evaluations to get qualitative feedback on TLA from students.

Students may interview and film each other discussing their experiences of teaching; as principal I sat with students at mealtimes throughout the year, but focused particularly on TLA.

The Sheffield College has introduced a “Teacher on a Page” report. Aggregated data from this will give governors a more complete and rounded view of progress in teaching and learning.

There is no quick fix to ensure that a board can have a complete view of the quality and impact of teaching, learning and assessment, but giving this area thought, resource and, above all, time is vital for active governance of a learning provider.

Advanced learner loan participation falls for first time

The number of people taking out advanced learner loans last year fell by more than eight per cent – the first overall fall in number since the loans were introduced in 2013.

A total of 109,000 people took out loans in 2017/18, compared with 119,000 in 2016/17.

Participation at all ages fell except for those aged between 19 and 23 which rose 10 per cent – from 20,400 in 2016/17 to 22,500 in 2017/18.

The number of adults aged 24 and above taking out advanced learner loans fell by 12 per cent last year – down from 98,600 to 86,500, while participation by the same age group at level three alone fell by 14 per cent.

Shadow skills minister Gordon Marsden said the figures “underline the bankruptcy” of the loans project.

“We have consistently said they’re completely missing the mark because older people – those who the loans were originally aimed at to retrain and reskill – are are increasingly reluctant, given their more complex life situations, to take them up,” he said.

He urged the government to have a “massive rethink” on loans policy “that goes to all aspects of it, including the interest rate” that borrowers must pay. 

Last year, FE Week revealed that a massive 58 per cent of FE loans funding – amounting to almost £1 billion – had not been spent since 2013.

The shocking figure, which was discovered after a Freedom of Information request, was confirmed by the Students Loan Company, which confirmed that just £652 million in loan-funded provision had actually been delivered since 2013, against a massive £1.56 billion in allocations.

FE loans, originally known as 24+ loans, were introduced in 2013/14 for learners studying courses at levels three or four and aged 24 and older.

However, the overall number of adults studying at levels three and four has fallen steadily since their introduction. Loan eligibility was expanded in 2016/17 to include 19- to 23-year-olds, and courses at levels five and six, but this corresponded with a reduction in the overall loans budget and a crackdown on loan growth requests.

 

DfE to consult on level 4 and 5 T-levels for introduction from 2022

The government is going to build a “new generation” of higher technical qualifications at levels 4 and 5 for T-level students to progress onto, the education secretary will announce today.

A consultation on the qualifications, which will be an alternative to degrees and apprenticeships for mostly 18-year-olds, will be launched early next year with an introduction date set for 2022.

Damian Hinds (pictured) will make the commitment during a speech about ending “snobbery” over technical education, in which he’ll also announce reforms to student destination measures and the next seven T-level programmes, to be taught from 2021.

We’ve revered the academic but treated vocational as second class

FE Week understands that the higher T-levels will be developed using the suite of existing level 4 and 5 technical qualifications currently funded through advance learner loans, as well as the creation of some completely new qualifications.

The funding for these is expected to be detailed in Philip Augar’s post-18 education review, which is delayed while the Office for National Statistics decides on whether student loans should appear in the government’s deficit figures, but is expected to be concluded in early 2019.

The introduction date of 2022 has been set to fit with the first cohort of T-level students, who will start their two-year level 3 qualification in 2020.

The Department for Education said the higher technical qualifications will be an “alternative to a university degree to help more people get on in their careers and employers can access the skills they need”.

Like diplomas of higher education and foundation degrees, they will “sit in between A-levels and a degree in subjects like engineering and digital”.

“The kind of training that helps someone step up from being healthcare support worker to a nursing associate or a bricklayer to a construction site supervisor,” the DfE added.

The Association of Colleges asked for new higher technical qualifications to be developed in a post-18 education policy paper, published in September.

It recommended that they should be paid for via a “higher technical levy” or top-slice from the apprenticeship levy.

The association’s boss, David Hughes, welcomed today’s announcement.

“The secretary of state is correct; educational snobbery exists throughout all strands of society – especially amongst decision-makers and opinion formers – and it has led to educational ignorance around non-academic routes to work,” he said.

“This renewed focus on higher technical education, and the push for greater awareness and respect, can only be good for industry, good for the economy and good for the country.”

David Hughes

Mr Hinds is also expected to announce today that his department will start including data on the number of students that schools and colleges send on to higher-level apprenticeships.

The change to performance tables will see apprenticeships at level 4 or above count towards a school or college’s score for the proportion of students who go on to higher education after their A-levels.

At present, pupil destinations data presented in online league tables shows the number and proportion of students who go on to higher education at university, but not via an apprenticeship.

Speaking to business leaders, Mr Hinds will warn that the nation has become “technical education snobs”.

“We’ve revered the academic but treated vocational as second class – when we do it well, law, engineering, medicine – then we don’t even call it vocational,” he will say.

“Why has this has been tolerated for so long? I think the reason is the ‘O.P.C’ problem. For so many opinion formers, commentators and, yes, politicians: vocational courses are for ‘other people’s children’.”