What connects these two programmes is the need for employer buy-in, and the fact they mostly happen in the workplace, a delivery model that many colleges with classrooms to fill seem to have little appetite for or ability to expand.
Colleges should focus on and grow what they are good at, so it would wrong to simply criticise them for disengagement.
But this should still concern the DfE, which is relying on colleges to deliver T-levels – which also include mandatory work placements of up to three months.
The T-level workplace capacity building funds and lessons learnt from pilots will help colleges, but in truth the independent sector holds most of the employer engagement cards.
So these latest figures would suggest the DfE should be developing a collaborative delivery model to make a success of T-levels.
The hard truth is that colleges too often have the only access to classrooms and workshops, so independent training providers focus their energies on access to the employers.
T-level students will need both, so a policy of collaboration between colleges and independent training providers is to be encouraged.
The government will publish subcontracting fees for providers across the country in June, the education minister Nadhim Zahawi has revealed at long last.
Individual lead providers were previously required to publish their annual figures by the end of November every year.
This changed from 2016/17, when new rules dictated that providers had to inform the ESFA of their figures, which should then be published centrally.
But the agency came in for heavy criticism as November passed without any indication of when the full figures would be revealed for last academic year.
Gordon Marsden
The sector finally got its answer today, after Gordon Marsden, the shadow skills minister asked, through a written parliamentary question lodged last week, when the government planned to publish the fees.
“The Education and Skills Funding Agency will publish the level of funding paid and retained by providers for each of their subcontractors that delivered full programmes or frameworks during the academic year 2016 to 2017 in June 2018,” Mr Zahawi has said in response.
Criticism of the delay has been led by education select committee chair Robert Halfon, who has demanded action on what he has described as a “deeply worrying” situation.
He urged the ESFA in January to collect the data immediately, after it was confirmed that subcontracting fees would not be made public in time for parliamentary inquiry hearings into concerns about the system, by both the Commons education and public accounts committees.
The ESFA finally announced on April 11 that “all providers who ‘provision subcontracted’ last year have been contacted by email” about the issue. They were sent a template to fill in their fees on and return.
“You need to submit the template that we sent to you to the ESFA fees and charges mailbox by 5pm on Friday, April 27,” it added.
Subcontracting management fees have become a source of mounting controversy, reaching as much as 40 per cent, as was infamously levied in some cases by Learndirect.
Lead providers often claim the fees are needed to cover administrative costs, but many in the sector believe that too much money is being diverted from frontline learning.
Mr Marsden has previously criticised the ESFA over its “double standards” on the figures.
“The continuing failure of ministers and the ESFA to provide this data, after they had trumpeted loudly taking responsibility for it, risks hampering hugely the work of public bodies such as the education select committee’s current enquiries on the concerns around subcontracting,” he said.
“It seems to be double standards, a case from this government of ‘do as I say, not as I do’.”
The DfE’s apparent delaying tactics indicated “defensiveness”, Mr Marsden claimed “not least in terms of its decisions in the Learndirect funding controversy”.
Trailblazers can choose the body that regulates their apprenticeship standard. Only one of these is actually qualified to do so, argues Rob May
Every major skills policy at some point promises to “put employers in the driving seat”. For a department labouring under policy amnesia this has been the rhetoric of reform for at least 15 years.
The principle is sound enough, creating a supply of demand-led human capital through learning which reflects actual industrial realities and usually incorporates practical work experience.
But at some point, employers are inevitably called upon to step in and actually design the new qualifications, as Anne Milton, the current skills minister did recently in the latest rallying call from the Department for Education.
Advisory panels will be used to create the new T-levels that will be delivered from 2022. Panels are already in place across six routes, including childcare, construction and health. These panels of employers have the remit to design and develop new qualifications which will define a whole generation of learners.
Just as I wouldn’t expect a panel committee of a non-departmental, educational public body to design a jet engine, I also wouldn’t ask Rolls-Royce to design a regulated qualification
Awarding bodies are then faced with the Sisyphean task of translating plans and standards into practical, replicable assessments and taking on the accountabilities and financial burden (as this is not normally considered during the panel’s design phase).
But just as I wouldn’t expect a panel committee of a non-departmental, educational public body to design a jet engine, I also wouldn’t ask Rolls-Royce to design a regulated qualification. No offence to Rolls-Royce.
This approach continues to fundamentally misunderstand or ignore the role that Ofqual-accredited awarding organisations are already required to carry out, and which they do so diligently and successfully, despite government’s attempts to marginalise the accumulated expertise and efforts of a whole sector.
Specifically, regulated qualifications should already prepare learners for employment. Awarding organisations must already consult the users of qualifications on the content and assessment method. This is done through close, regular consultation with employers and providers during a regular cycle of design, review, focus testing and ultimately market forces. The process demonstrates to the regulator, and to the public that the qualification is fit for purpose and fit for industry.
Two problems emerge with panels of employers designing qualifications for a whole system. Firstly, the government is attracted to the big-brand corporations to confer credibility on the initiative, so a narrow and disproportionately persuasive voice emerges. These large players have very different working practices and skills needs to SMEs even though small businesses account for 99 per cent of all private-sector businesses.
Secondly, any reform of education for 14- to 19-year-olds must focus on improving vocational and technical pathways, whereas these reforms focus on changing the structure and content of qualifications, rather than on the wider system, for example stronger technical and vocational provision in schools.
What have policy makers learnt from previous reforms? To quote the late, great David Bowie, it’s how to always crash in the same car.
Rob May is CEO of the Association of Business Executives
UPDATE: UCU members at the Hull College Group will walk out on strike tomorrow (May 9) over plans to slash jobs.
Hull College Group has “absolute confidence” in its under-fire chief executive and will not bow to staff and union pressure to fire her, it has announced.
Staff who are members of the University and College Union, representing nearly 400 of HCG’s 1,200 workers, are up in arms over plans to balance the college’s books, by cutting up to 231 full-time jobs.
The group’s leader, Michelle Swithenbank, has come under intense criticism over the proposal, but the group released a statement this morning which reaffirmed its backing for her ability to lead it through its current financial difficulties.
Of the college’s 378 UCU members, 214 submitted a vote in a ballot on April 18 in which 170 opted to strike before unanimously backing a vote of no-confidence in their boss the next day.
Union leaders announced today that members will walk out for an initial three days on May 9, 17, and 18. The strikes to hit all three sites at Hull, Harrogate and Goole.
The UCU has insisted that Ms Swithenbank’s position is untenable after her failure to defend jobs at the college and a “bizarre” 24 hours which saw the management team allegedly attempt to “bully and then bribe” staff first with legal action and then ice-creams to deter them from a protest on April 18.
Hitting back at the resignation calls, the corporation of HCG said today: “The corporation has absolute confidence in Michelle and the leadership team to deliver this plan to build a strong, viable, effective college for the future to offer the best outcomes for students who choose to study at the college.”
Ms Swithenbank was appointed chief executive of Hull College Group less than a year ago to lead the recovery of the college following a period of significant financial and operational issues.
She has been tasked with delivering an agreed five-year “fresh start” plan, which includes severe job losses.
“The corporation recognises that the level and depth of change proposed through our restructure and recovery plans will be something that the college and its staff and students have not experienced before,” today’s statement said.
“As a corporation, we understand the emerging effects of our current plans, and want to assure all people affected, that no decision has been taken lightly and that we are committed to working with Michelle and the leadership team to secure the future of Hull College Group.”
The tactics allegedly employed by Ms Swithenbank to deter staff from a protest on April 18 started with an email to all staff claiming saying that anyone who joined the rally risked doing so illegally.
The college’s employment solicitors “identified participating in an unofficial protest during staffing hours (11am) could result in a breach of contract”, a spokesperson said last week.
The UCU claimed this was “clearly was not the case” and asked whether the college had been “deliberately misinforming staff or did not understand employment law”.
HCG soon tried a different approach, inviting staff to purchase discounted ice-creams at a venue at the opposite end of the college to the protest.
The corporation has absolute confidence in Michelle
The college is understood to have hired the ice cream van from 11am to 1pm, coinciding with the protest.
“Staff have made it quite clear that they have no confidence in Michelle Swithenbank’s leadership and want her to resign immediately,” said UCU’s regional official, Julie Kelley, last week. “To go from bullying to bribery in less than 24 hours highlights the chaotic shambles at the heart of Hull College leadership.”
UCU is expected to announce strike dates imminently.
HCG has been under severe financial pressure for the past few years.
The FE commissioner reported in February last year that its finances remained precarious after the then-Skills Funding Agency had issued a notice of concern in November 2016.
Richard Atkins warned that HCG’s “operating performance, as measured by surplus/deficit after interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation costs has amounted to a cumulative deficit of around £10 million over the past four years”, while “a further deficit in excess of £1 million is forecast for the current year”.
Another studio school that has severely struggled with recruitment has agreed to close “in principle”.
Plans to shut the Isle of Wight Studio School in August 2019 were announced today, but the final decision will be subject to a four-week consultation.
The school said in a statement that the decision has come about because “too few students choosing to study at the studio school in years 12 and 13, which has meant that the school has not developed in the way originally planned”.
As it is no longer financially viable, ministers at the Department of Education have agreed its termination in principle and once this listening period concludes, they will decide to close it in conjunction with the Inspire Academy Trust which operates the school.
Studio schools are an alternative to mainstream education for 14- to 19-year-olds, taking on cohorts of up to 300 pupils.
They provide a work-related curriculum with pupils receiving vocational and academic qualifications, as well as work experience, and like the similarly troubled university technical colleges, are seen by many in FE as unwelcome competition.
Unfortunately the school has not been able to recruit sufficient students
The Isle of Wight Studio School only opened in September 2014 and is yet to have a visit from Ofsted. Latest data on the school shows it only had 146 students on roll against a capacity of 300.
If it does shut, it will become the 19th studio school to close since the project began.
“The IoW Studio School has provided an excellent learning experience for many children on the Island, however unfortunately the school has not been able to recruit sufficient students to its sixth-form, and it is a sad reality that such a small school cannot continue long-term,” said the finance officer of the Inspire Academy Trust, Richard Bryant.
“Student recruitment is a problem which has affected many studio schools across the country.”
If it does close, students intending to start in September 2018 will be able to continue at their existing school or explore a transfer to another school.
“We are very focused on honouring our commitment to pupils who are currently studying at the school, and the department’s decision to keep the school open until summer 2019 ensures that the 120 pupils currently in year 10 and year 11 will all be able to complete their GCSEs here as planned,” Mr Bryant said.
A Department for Education spokesperson added: “We have agreed, in principle, to the closure of Isle of Wight Studio School following a request from the Inspire Academy Trust. A number of options have been explored but ministers have decided that the school, which is operating at 40-per-cent capacity, should close in August 2019.”
Richard White, the school’s head said it was with “great regret” that the school finds itself in this position.
“Despite all the efforts of its governing body and dedicated staff, who have all done an excellent job, the school’s sixth-form has never been fully utilised,” he added.
“This is because our students have progressed at 16 to further study or apprenticeships elsewhere – and our view has always been to support the decision which is in the best interests of our pupils.”
During the listening period, which starts today and runs until 5pm on May 22, interested persons should submit their comments to the DfE through this email address: DFE.IOWSS@education.gov.uk.
The principal of a cash-strapped college recently forced to seek government bailouts has stepped down just a month after it was placed in administered status.
Tim Eyton-Jones is understood to have left his position at grade three Barnfield College after three years in charge.
An official statement from the college confirming the news is expected on Wednesday.
The college was visited by the FE commissioner earlier this year after it received a financial notice to improve from the Education and Skills Funding Agency in January.
Richard Atkins’ report, published earlier this month, found that finances were a “major cause for concern” with “significant” operating losses over the past two years, which were likely to be repeated in 2017/18.
His report, which recommended the college be placed in administered status, was heavily critical of Mr Eyton-Jones, who “should have been aware” of the college’s financial problems, and “should have” done more to address weaknesses in its apprenticeship provision.
The college had recently applied for exceptional financial support, which resulted in the financial notice.
Administered status means that a member of the ESFA’s local team will observe all of the college’s board meetings, and that the college will be required to consult the agency about any significant changes to its operations or finances.
“We accept and acknowledge the findings of the FE commissioner’s report,” said a spokesperson for the college at the time.
“We are working closely with the FE commissioner’s office and the ESFA to ensure we move forward swiftly and continue to provide the learners and communities of Luton with a high-quality learning provision.”
That report, which graded the college ‘requires improvement overall’, found that “leaders have not done enough to secure good provision and good achievement”.
“Leaders do not effectively monitor learners’ progress, particularly those on study programmes,” the report said.
The college’s leadership was criticised for failing to properly address two problem areas that had been identified in the previous inspection: weaknesses in teaching and low attendance.
The overall grade for the inspection was three, including a ‘requires improvement’ rating for the effectiveness of leadership and management.
“Leaders have not done enough to secure good provision and good achievement,” it said. “Although improvements have been made, teaching is not good across all areas of the college.”
Barnfield has had turbulent time under Mr Eyton-Jones’ leadership.
The college was already in FE commissioner intervention at the time, having been assessed as ‘inadequate’ for financial control by the SFA the year before.
That process ended in October 2015, when Mr Atkins’ predecessor David Collins wrote to the college to say it had addressed all of his recommendations.
Ofsted inspectors were back at the college the following March, and their report, published the following month, rated it ‘requires improvement’ across the board. The college retained this rating in March this year.
UPDATE April 25 2018: The college has appointed Martin Sim as interim principal and chief executive. Mr Sim was most recently interim principal at Gateway College, and prior to that was principal and chief executive of Salford City College.
“I am delighted to join the college and look forward to working with the dedicated and skilled teams at Barnfield College,” he said.
Leo Shapiro, the chief executive of major awarding organisation OCR, has stepped down after less than two years in post.
FE Week understands that he left the post on Friday, but will continue to work for the Cambridge Assessment Group, OCR’s parent company.
The exam board said Mr Shapiro’s move is “part of a planned change to support the new Cambridge Assessment Group CEO, in a role which is more compatible with his family responsibilities”.
Appointed in August 2016, Shapiro has now been replaced by an interim chief executive, Janet Morris, who has worked for Cambridge International, another division of Cambridge Assessment.
A spokesperson said Morris brings with her a “wealth of experience of senior management at a major exam board”.
“We plan to advertise for a permanent chief executive in due course,” she added.
Mr Shapiro’s departure comes at a time of significant change for Cambridge Assessment, which has announced leadership changes in three of its exam boards and in its own head office in recent months.
A group of maritime teachers put their lifesaving skills to the test when a standard survival exercise was interrupted by an emergency.
The group, including one student, from Blackpool and the Fylde College’s Fleetwood nautical campus rushed to the rescue of a family whose daughter and five-month-old baby, still in its pram, fell into a seafront boating lake, followed by their mum who was attempting to pull them out.
The drama unfolded while the group were undertaking sea-survival training with students nearby.
“When you work in this area you have the skills and training to provide assistance in rescue situations. We’re just pleased we were able to help and the family were all ok,” said John Bradbury, a lecturer who has worked at the campus for 49 years. “Our student Phil was also able to use his expertise in paediatric care to help look after the baby.”
Following the incident, the kids’ father, who was at work at the time of the incident, returned to the scene to thank the team, and give a £50 donation to a charity chosen by them.
Dr Sue Pember, director of policy and external relations at Holex, answers your questions on college governance, backed by her experience as principal of Canterbury College and in senior civil service posts in education and skills.
Question One: Exceptions to exceptional support
I keep hearing about failing colleges that merged in the area reviews and got large sums of money. Why is the government rewarding failure in this way?
Answer: This is a difficult question to answer, as when you put it like that it seems hard to justify. I agree that it does seem unfair but the students must always come first. It is not the learners’ fault that they have had to attend a poorly run establishment, and future learners must not be subjected to the same experience. So the government has made the decision to prioritise those areas and get provision of good quality in place, but doing that comes at a cost. I am hoping that once these areas are settled, we will return to a fair and more equitable distribution of support funds.
Question Two: Should our principal have three jobs?
I am a staff governor and recently I realised my principal seems to be doing three jobs. Is that normal?
Answer: This is not normal, but not unusual. There is a trend at the moment to grow empires. For example, a principal might run a college as their main role, be chief executive of a trading company where the college is the largest shareholder, and chief executive of a multi-academy trust.
The college structure will probably have grown organically without the board recognising the complexity and extent of its growth. As a board, you might need to start thinking about whether there should be a group structure, and consider whether it is reasonable to ask one person do all three jobs.
Also, the board should look at accountability and what might happen if things go wrong. If one of the boards of these three entities is dissatisfied with the service and attention they are getting, who makes the changes?
There are also questions of remuneration and assessment of performance, and who pays whom?
There are many possible models but, the bottom line is that this needs to be transparent, well documented and be an effective use of public funds.
Question Three: Cracking all these codes of practice
The minister’s letter to governors talked about the Charity Commission code, but we already have the code of good governance for English colleges and the UK’s main corporate code. Why do we need yet another code?
Answer: A college’s legal status is that of an exempt charity and therefore there are elements of charity law and behaviours that are relevant to a college board.
This new code has a greater emphasis on openness and accountability than the previous version. However, the Charity Commission’s code has been drawn up to cover both large and small charities and is very generic.
When the code of good governance for English colleges was developed, the work did consider best practice in the commercial world and charities, and was tailored to represent the best in college practice, which is why it received BIS and ministerial endorsement. However, as it is now three years old, it is high time for a refresh in my opinion.
