The FE commissioner is wrong: We should keep PROCAT open

The first college incorporated in years has been told to merge to survive. This is the wrong decision, according to its erstwhile principal Neil Bates.

The government continues with its much-needed reforms of technical education and skills at pace. In recent weeks, we have had the announcement of the 16 successful stage one bidders for the £140 million Institutes of Technology and the 52 T-level early adopters, a list which includes a surprisingly large number of schools, sixth forms and faith schools alongside further education colleges. The reforms are driving meaningful structural changes to the educational landscape.

The government wants a world-class education and skills system, but the evidence suggests that transforming technical education is going to be a long slog, not least because our regulatory and compliance system promotes sameness and suffocates innovation.

The recent difficulties at Prospects College of Advanced Technology (PROCAT), which I led for 30 years until I retired in 2017, are a prime example of how hard it is to change the system. 

Born out of the 1964 Industrial Training Act, the original college was one of 150 group training associations owned and run by employers. Sadly, today only around 30 GTAs survive as independent institutions. In 2014, in a landmark development, PROCAT incorporated and became the first new FE college in England since the 1992 Act. That tells you something about the rigidity of our skills system.

PROCAT was established as a new model within the sector. A college of advanced technology specialising in STEM subjects, it was governed in partnership with employers, equipped with the latest technology including digital technology, simulators and robots, and had three times more apprentices than full time students and a strong commercial income.

There to meet the local, regional and national needs of key sectors such as advanced manufacturing, defence, aviation and rail, the college helped shape the template for the new Institutes of Technology.

When I retired last year, PROCAT was the largest rail engineering apprenticeship provider in the UK. It had over 1,000 apprentices, the majority aged 16 to 19 and studying at level three or higher. We had managed to transform the curriculum from mainly level one and two provision, to having three quarters of provision at levels three to six, including new degree apprenticeships.

PROCAT is a victim of the very change it sought to promote

Hundreds of young people started their careers on higher-level STEM apprenticeships at global companies such as Atkins, Thales and Honeywell. Anyone visiting the college could not help but be impressed by the environment, which replicated a modern workplace.

The fact that the FE commissioner has concluded that the college is too small to survive independently, and so is now being driven into merger with South Essex College of Further and Higher Education, illustrates all too clearly the fault lines which remain in our skills system. It also has serious implications for the new institutes of technology, whose mission and specification are remarkably like PROCAT’s.

In many respects, PROCAT is a victim of the very change it sought to promote. The imposition of a badly thought-out levy on large employers has hugely disrupted apprenticeship recruitment. Pressure to move to new apprenticeship frameworks by slashing funding for the old standards has created change overload on an already stretched workforce. Raising the bar on entry to level three (A-level equivalent) study programmes exposed the reality in schools that they are largely ignoring the Baker Clause, a legal entitlement.

On top of this external turbulence is the almost impossible task of recruiting and properly remunerating expert technical teachers in what the FE commissioner calls “a vibrant south-east employment market” and you have the perfect storm.

If the technical education reforms are going to be a success, we need many more colleges like PROCAT – not fewer. There is no reason why a specialist college with a turnover of circa £10 million cannot survive and thrive.

What is needed is policy stability, modest amounts of capital investment to keep pace with changes to technology and sufficient funding to allow for this.

Federation of Awarding Bodies gets the lawyers in over T-levels

The Federation of Awarding Bodies is gearing up for possible legal action over T-levels following the start of a controversial tender process, FE Week can reveal.

The government launched its hunt for awarding organisations to deliver the new qualifications with two “market engagement” events earlier this month.

But AOs have been left fuming over the commercial terms to which they will have to agree.

They believe, among other things, that their ownership of the content they will have developed will be limited.

Tom Bewick, FAB’s chief executive, said the terms as they stand are “flawed” and suggest a “wholescale nationalisation of the technical qualifications industry in this country”.

Federation lawyers are currently checking the terms, Mr Bewick said, and they are considering launching legal action to try to get them changed. He has also requested an urgent meeting with Institute for Apprenticeships’ boss Sir Gerry Berragan to discuss the concerns.

“If the government is procuring the expertise of the awarding and assessment sector then it needs to recognise the integrity of the business models, the brand and in some cases the heritage of these organisations,” he said.

Association of Colleges’ boss David Hughes is worried that any legal challenge to the T-level procurement process could cause unwanted delay to rolling out the new qualifications.

But skills minister Anne Milton isn’t troubled.

“If something could go wrong, then my aim is to put in place adequate mitigation to make sure it doesn’t go wrong, and so I don’t worry,” she told FE Week.

The battleground for awarding bodies concerns just five paragraphs in the draft key commercial principles for T-levels.

These state that the IfA will own the intellectual property in any materials, which will be licenced back to the AO for the duration of their contract.

They also ban AOs from reusing any of the content without “prior written approval” and from using any of their own branding.

The FAB insists these rules set “disproportionate limits” on the intellectual property and ownership of content, and “completely undermine the integrity” of AOs’ business models “in terms of the investment and innovation associated with developing qualifications”.

Its lawyers are reviewing whether the terms comply with public-sector procurement regulations, and if state aid rules apply.

They will also consider taking out an injunction to halt the procurement process if the FAB feels the government isn’t sufficiently engaging on the terms.

Any final decision on legal action would be taken after two roundtable events with awarding bodies early next month, Mr Bewick said.

This is not the first bone of contention to arise during the procurement process.

The government is sticking with its plan to have just one awarding body per T-level, as recommended in the Sainsbury review of post-16 skills, despite concerns being raised across the sector.

Research conducted by Frontier Economics on behalf of the DfE and published last July concluded that limiting access to a single AO may create a “risk of system failure” in both the short- and long-term.

It warned that if a single AO fails, it may be that no alternative can step in.

Then in February, Ofqual, the body that regulates qualifications in England, said it had “advised on the risks related to the single-provider model”.

Ms Milton told FE Week that sticking to a single AO is the “right way to introduce T-levels. I think it’s simple, straightforward, and clear”.

Public Accounts Committee wants more DfE action on bad apprenticeships

The Department for Education must “weed out” poor apprenticeship provision, the Public Accounts Committee has said.

A new report by the group of influential MPs also presses the department to look into whether financial incentives for teacher training deliver value for money, and to increase the number of women studying science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) subjects.

The government has “allowed poor-quality provision – especially in apprenticeships – to continue for too long without being addressed”, it warned.

While Ofsted has an important role to play in “assessing the quality of apprenticeship programmes being delivered by individual providers”, the DfE must ensure it has “systems in place to identify poor quality provision in a timely way, and take appropriate action”.

“Poor-quality apprenticeships must be weeded out and there is still much work required to address the striking gender imbalance in STEM apprenticeships,” said PAC chair Meg Hillier (pictured above).

FE Week exclusively revealed last month that Ofsted will get the final say over apprenticeship quality at new providers, after ministers and officials admitted during education committee hearings to confusion about who had ultimate responsibility for policing quality.

One new provider, Key6 Group, was initially stopped from recruiting new apprentices after its provision was branded “not fit for purpose” by Ofsted in a report published four months ago, the first in a new wave of early monitoring visits that are supposed to be keeping a careful eye on newcomers to the apprenticeship market.

But that ban was lifted just two months later by the DfE, after Key6 Group provided it with a “robust improvement plan”, which appeared to undermine the work done by Ofsted.

Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said the PAC was “absolutely right to identify Ofsted as the chief custodian of quality for the apprenticeships programme”.

“Responsibility for quality has been become a very complex area under the reforms and clarity is urgently needed to ensure that the right providers are and remain on the register while the poor ones are turfed off it,” he said.

Today’s report, called Delivering STEM skills for the economy, also claimed that the DfE “cannot say” whether people given cash incentives to train as teachers in STEM subjects are “remaining in the profession”.

It urged the department to “identify as soon as possible” whether such payments “have delivered value for money”.

On Wednesday, the Taking Teaching Further programme was launched, offering up to £20,000 per provider to train up to five industry professionals to teach T-levels.

The £5 million pot is being managed by the Education and Training Foundation on behalf of the DfE.

PAC members also asked the government to introduce targets to boost the number of girls and women in STEM learning programmes including apprenticeships.

The report said that just eight per cent of STEM apprenticeship starts are by women.

The government is “making insufficient progress in addressing the gender imbalance in many areas of STEM learning and work”, it said.

The committee examined the apprenticeships programme in late 2016, and “recommended that DfE should set up performance measures for the programme that included whether it is delivering improved access to under-represented groups across all occupations”.

“The DfE did not introduce a target relating to female apprentices, because it was satisfied with the fact that women made up over 50 per cent of apprenticeship starts overall,” it added. “But only eight per cent of STEM apprenticeship starts are undertaken by women.”

An Ofsted spokesperson said it welcomed the report “highlighting the need for good-quality STEM provisions and note the recommendations with interest”.

The DfE has been approached for comment.

Ofsted will keep its four-point grading system – for now

Ofsted will stick to its current four-point grading system in its new inspection framework – putting an end to rumours that it would opt for a simpler pass-or-fail system.

Instead, the status quo will remain in its 2019 framework, its chief inspector announced in a speech at the Festival of Education at Wellington College.

Options will be kept “under review” looking further ahead, Amanda Spielman said.

She is working with the Department for Education to “see the removal of the ‘outstanding’ exemption”, which currently allows education providers to go more than a decade without inspection.

We’ve concluded that it is right to maintain the current grading system in the new framework

Before her appointment in 2016, Ms Spielman (pictured) said she was uncomfortable about some of the effects on the education system of the ‘outstanding’ grade, and claimed Ofsted under her watch would have “discussions” about scrapping it.

Rumours have been flying around in recent months that all four of the grades used by Ofsted – ‘outstanding’, ‘good’, ‘requires improvement’ and ‘inadequate’ – might all be on borrowed time.

“I know that there are some who would like Ofsted to abandon grades altogether or to move to a pass/fail model,” Ms Spielman told the audience.

“For me, that is a decision which must squarely be decided on the basis of whether the current grading system meets our mission of being a force for improvement.

“We will keep this under regular review. But we’ve concluded, on balance, that it is right to maintain the current grading system in the new framework and that is the basis of the discussion I’m having with ministers now as we engage with them on the new framework as a whole.

“First, our teacher polling conducted by YouGov indicates that the profession prefers a four-point grading system to a pass/fail one.

“Many teachers have told us directly that a pass/fail would make the system even more high-stakes – it would de facto turn ‘requires improvement’ into a ‘fail’.

“Secondly, parents tell us that they want to keep the current grading system. They like the clarity of four grades in helping them to make informed choices.”

Ms Spielman said that when it comes to the ‘outstanding’ grade in particular, a number of education leaders have “persuasively lobbied me, and others, to keep it”.

I would like to see the removal of the ‘outstanding’ exemption

By losing ‘outstanding’, they said, “we’d send the wrong message about aspiration and excellence in the system”.

There have been strong demands for changes to Ofsted’s ‘outstanding’ exemption for years. They started when FE Week revealed in November 2016 that two colleges in England had both gone more than 10 years without a full inspection.

Our sister paper FE Week then revealed in 2017 that more than 100 schools had similarly been left alone for over a decade – a number which has now risen to nearly 300.

The exemption was introduced by Michael Gove in 2011 as a way to devote more of inspectors’ time to failing institutions and “free” top-rated providers from the burden of Ofsted.

But Ms Spielman is on a mission to scrap it.

“If we are to keep the grading system, I have to be sure that people can have confidence in grades,” she said. “That is why I would like to see the removal of the ‘outstanding’ exemption.

“There is no doubt that the long gap since inspection has undermined parental confidence. From our perspective, it also means our inspectors are getting to see fewer examples of ‘outstanding’ practice.”

She was however “pleased to say” that Ofsted is “engaging constructively” with the DfE on this issue and “hopes to say more in the future”.

Ex-schools minister proposes DfE shake-up to stop schools and HE favouritism

Education ministers’ portfolios need a major shake-up if the historic favouritism shown to schools and universities is to change, according to a former schools minister.

David Laws, who served as schools minister under Michael Gove and Nicky Morgan between 2012 and 2015, believes the current approach is “corrosive of good policy”.

In an exclusive interview with FE Week, the man who now chairs the Education Policy Institute wants ministers to be responsible for individual policy areas such as curriculum development and capital funding across the education spectrum, rather than for specific areas and age groups.

There should then be a separate minister to oversee post-18 education, which would “join up” FE and HE.

There is strong logic in things being joined up throughout a student’s journey

Mr Laws believes this would give FE “enhanced clout and ministerial focus” and stop the DfE giving more esteem to universities.

“There is strong logic in things being joined up throughout a student’s journey so that the same curriculum and accountability system is being developed as you come into education to right through it,” he said.

“That doesn’t happen in the DfE because they are responsible for age phases. We also have a situation where for historic reasons schools and HE are seen to be the exciting and interesting thing.”

As a consequence of this “unfairness”, ministers who are selected for those jobs often have more “profile and rank” than those covering FE.

The education secretary regularly gives more support to schools and HE as a result.

Under its current structure, the DfE is overseen by one education secretary, who then has a minister for schools, one for FE, another for HE, and another for the early years.

Mr Laws believes this drives unhealthy competition between the FE and HE ministers, creating “bad outcomes and missed opportunities” and a “much underfunded FE sector”.

“When I was in the DfE I was responsible for all capital funding. We had a very good schools budget for capital in this time but basically nothing for early-years education and considerably less per head for post-16 and FE,” he continued.

FE would come out of it with enhanced clout and enhanced ministerial focus

“We also had one protected regime for funding in schools up to the age of 16, but bizarrely not beyond the age of 16. I think some of these anomalies would be less likely if the whole thing was under one minister.”

His solution involves “the ministerial responsibilities underneath the education secretary being based on subjects and age rather than simply phases”.

“A curriculum and assessment minister should reach from age three to 18; another should be dedicated to accountability through that range, and a minister should look after revenue and capital funding so you don’t privilege one setting against another.”

But “given the scale of the job” it doesn’t make sense to continue that age range beyond compulsory education at 18.

“If we are ever to break down the divide between FE and the rest of the education system in terms of funding and status, then having one minister responsible, and viewing these as simply respectable education routes and not split up, is something I think is long overdue,” he said.

“I think FE would come out of it with enhanced clout and enhanced ministerial focus even though some parts of the college sector would find themselves having ministerial oversight from a different person up to the age of 18 and then post-18.”

Movers and Shakers: Edition 249

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

 

Mandeep Gill, Principal, Newham Sixth-Form College

Start date: August 2018

Previous job: Vice-principal, Suffolk New College

Interesting fact: Mandeep has been in love for a lifetime: he met his wife when he was just five years old.

Eddie Playfair, Senior policy manager, the Association of Colleges

Start date: September 2018

Previous job: Principal, Newham Sixth-Form College

Interesting fact: Eddie is an avid music lover, and plays the clarinet and piano.

Dawn Whitemore, Principal, Brooksby Melton College

Start date: May 2018

Previous job: Principal, New College Nottingham

Interesting fact: Dawn’s leadership approach ensures that the learner experience is always at the heart of decision-making.

Ashley Barnes, Deputy CEO, Vocational Training Charitable Trust (VTCT)

Start date: May 2018

Previous job: Chief academic officer, VTCT

Interesting fact: Ashley is also a chartered and state registered physiotherapist.

Carina Fagan, Chief academic officer, Vocational Training Charitable Trust (VTCT)

Start date: May 2018

Previous job: Executive director of awarding, VTCT

Interesting fact: Colin Farrell was Carina’s line dancing teacher in school.

 

 

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

Here’s how English skills policy needs to change

The CBI believes the government is on the wrong track with its current skills system. Neil Carberry sets out the ways in which he would change things

People are fond of maligning English skills policy, but there is no truth in the idea that it is lacking. It can’t be – a new one arrives every two years without fail. It is in the delivery of a skills system where we stumble, as each new approach takes us back to the beginning.

We can all understand the political attraction of creating new courses and counting new students as success. But a successful national system needs to be sustainable and flexible enough to meet the needs of different learners and local economies over time.

As I leave the CBI, it remains my hope that the current reforms – the levy, new standards, T-levels and the national retraining scheme – can break this cycle, but something must change. Month-on-month falls in apprentice starts are bad news, but it would be worse if we had to begin again.

The answer is a different approach from the government, an acknowledgement that we are dealing with a skills market in which people have choices – and need help to make good ones.

In a global economy, learners and companies have a great deal of choice as the skills market is growing all the time, yet policies are too often designed without an understanding of these options and their likely outcomes.

It is no accident that, over the past year, every design failure in the levy that had been pointed out before it went live has come to pass. It gives business leaders no joy to say: “I told you so.”

Instead of a top-down system, the government must be more a regulator more than a deliverer, with the industrial strategy as a blueprint. Businesses and providers can then take the lead on delivery. At the moment, this isn’t happening.

A reformed levy will only work with a new culture of skills investment

So what does good look like?

First, the government should reach out further and encourage more firms to take an active role in skills provision. We need many more companies to step up.

Second, the DfE and its agencies should focus on economic and consumer regulation, not state-provided public services. This would focus on regulating markets and consumer protection in what gets delivered – not specifying provision.

The good news is that we have already seen flashes of this. The apprenticeship reform programme and the creation of the Institute for Apprenticeships could be revolutionary: when employers are given choice to buy quality, they do.

There is much still to tackle. We all need to recognise that businesses and learners, rather than the government, are now the customers. Too little time is spent thinking about what drives consumers and providers – and not enough about effective delivery. There is a lot more for the IfA to do.

One example is price-setting. Provision that costs £1,300 outside an apprenticeship should not cost £9,000 inside it. Pace of delivery and quality control are not yet strong enough. And we still lack a provider strategy that will help the supply side support the good and rigorously challenge the bad.

Businesses need to step up. The levy is poorly designed, but it is too easily written off as a government tax grab. If firms believe that skills and apprenticeships matter – as almost every CBI member does – then the government should take a more strategic approach, empowering employers and providers, to create new space for firms to innovate in their provision.

A reformed levy will only work if there is a new culture of skills investment in England. I remain convinced that we are not far from a system that could stick around for many years, but making it happen will require firms to step up and providers to change.

And it will be driven on the ground rather than Whitehall. That’s why the CBI is so focused on supporting collaborative work as we make the levy more flexible. If the government wants to see real change, that’s what it needs to enable: work with us in business to get these latest reforms right.   

It’s time to let FE providers award their own degrees

Only nine colleges currently have the power to award degrees. Stephen Howlett believes this needs to the change for the good of the learners

Rarely does a week pass without a story appearing in the media about the skills crisis facing industry in the UK.

A recent report from the Lords’ economic affairs committee highlighted the fact that that we have “too many biology and history graduates” and not enough people with “technician-level STEM skills”.

I completely agree that we need more focus on skills in our education system – but I’m an advocate of higher education and don’t believe the two are mutually exclusive. It’s encouraging, for example, to see more and more companies are recognising the value of degree apprenticeships.

The skills crisis won’t be solved by encouraging young people to scrap their university plans. Higher-level skills and learning are crucial to a successful economy, and indeed to social mobility.

So rather than discouraging young people from university and degrees, we need to focus on making sure our higher education provision is accessible, relevant and meets the needs of businesses. There is no doubt that FE colleges offering HE provision are in the very best position to do this.

With strong employer links and a focus on work placements, colleges tend to offer a more practical approach to learning – while equipping their students with the specific higher-level knowledge associated with a degree. There are often more flexible study options on offer at colleges, with part-time and fast-track degrees available, making HE learning more accessible to many more.

It opens up many more progression opportunities for young people

And it is for this reason that I believe more “HE-within-FE” providers should be striving to earn degree-awarding powers. Most colleges depend on their relationships with local universities to administer and award the actual degrees. Apart from not being particularly cost effective, this set-up can fail to recognise and celebrate the high quality of HE provision at the college itself.

Being able to award degrees undoubtedly validates the quality of an organisation’s HE provision. From quality assurance to raising the college’s profile, it’s an important reputational marker.

A student who has studied the majority of their degree at a college, but who graduates at a nearby university, might lose their relationship with the college. They will identify as a graduate from their university as opposed to the very institution that has worked with them for three or more years.

The needs of employers must not be forgotten either. Devolution will change the way educators respond to skills needs in a particular region – there will no longer be a one-size-fits-all solution.

Educators need flexibility. With its own degree-awarding powers, an FE college will be able to adjust, amend and create new courses to meet the requirements of local and national businesses. When relying on a partner university, such validation can be time-consuming with the need to meet two sets of objectives.

Of course, excellent partnerships with other educational institutions will remain vitally important. I myself witness first-hand the very many benefits that come from good working relationships between schools, colleges and universities. It opens up many more progression opportunities for young people, fitting with individual requirements and aspirations. This should and would not need to change if a college were permitted to award its own degrees.

Currently just nine colleges in the country have degree-awarding powers – seven at foundation level and only two with full-taught degree status. This doesn’t reflect or recognise the high quality of HE provision that is offered at so many others, which are making higher-level learning so much more accessible to local communities.

Education is key to social mobility, and FE colleges are on the forefront. The outstanding job they are doing to support this (in what is a pretty hostile environment) should be recognised celebrated.

Gaining these awarding powers is not easy and takes years. However, I have no doubt that by doing this, FE colleges would be able to strengthen and expand successful HE provision.

Grade three Ofsted ratings confirmed for NCG and Intraining

The nation’s largest college group and its troubled private training provider have officially been downgraded to ‘requires improvement’, after Ofsted published inspection reports on the pair this morning.

FE Week revealed last week that NCG and Intraining were expected to receive poor ratings – down from their previous ‘good’ overall, following serious concerns about their achievement rates and management.

Ofsted noted some ‘good’ provision at the group. However, its chief executive has since hit back and claimed the current inspection framework is “no longer fit for purpose when inspecting college groups”.

Inspectors observed that NCG’s “leaders’ and managers’ actions do not bring about rapid enough improvement to rectify weaknesses in, for example, learners’ attendance, the quality of training on apprenticeships and the quality of teaching, learning and assessment on too much of the study programme provision”.

Inspectors noted that in the last 18 months, “executive leaders” have spent a “substantial amount of their time on due diligence for the mergers with Carlisle College and Lewisham Southwark College, as well as reviewing other merger requests”.

Governors are now “clear that there needs to be a period of consolidation on what the group offers in order to reach their ambition of being a group of consistently high-performing divisions”.

At Intraining, which is currently cutting staff numbers owing to financial trouble, inspectors found that the NCG board “does not provide managers with sufficient challenge on the underperformance of apprenticeships”.

The group has extremely low achievement rates. In 2016/17, the combined overall apprenticeship achievement rate for NCG’s colleges was just 55.6 per cent, while Intraining’s was 58 per cent.

Both are around 10 points lower than the national average of 67.7 per cent, and lower than the minimum threshold of 62 per cent, according to the latest government data.

Ofsted recognised this: “Leaders and managers have not been successful enough in rectifying many of the weaknesses in learners’ outcomes. Too many learners are not achieving their potential, particularly in English and mathematics.”

Too many apprentices make “slow progress, and as a result do not complete their apprenticeship within their planned timescale”.

And for apprentices due to complete their training in the current academic year, in-year performance records show the proportion to be “higher”, but “it still requires improvement”.

Ofsted added that across the group, achievement rates on study programmes “vary too much and, in too many cases, are not high enough”.

However, senior leaders at NCG are “fully aware of the weaknesses in apprenticeship provision” and since September 2017, they have placed a “strong emphasis on improving the quality of apprenticeships and, in most divisions, new leaders have been appointed”.

There was ‘good’ provision found at NCG. The group was given grade three ratings in six of the eight headline fields – but grade twos for adult learning programmes and provision for high-needs learners.

The college provides courses for over 8,800 adult learners, for whom the quality of teaching, learning and assessment is “consistently good, and this is reflected in the positive outcomes for learners in achieving their qualifications”.

The quality of provision for learners with high needs is “good; teachers are skilled at supporting learners to gain the skills and confidence to prepare them for their next steps”.

Ofsted noted that the NCG governance arrangements are being reformed under new chair and former ESFA boss Peter Lauener, but currently governors “do not always provide sufficiently effective support or challenge to senior leaders across the group”.

As a result of its official grade three, NCG is now expected to be dropped from the government’s final bidding round for Institutes of Technology.

NCG is comprised of Newcastle College, Newcastle Sixth Form College, West Lancashire College, Carlisle College, Kidderminster College and Lewisham Southwark College. It also has two private training providers in Rathbone Training and Intraining.

The group’s chief executive Joe Docherty said there is “no getting away from the fact that these are very disappointing results” but a “single inspection grade across the six NCG colleges masks stronger performance in some areas and weaker performance in others”.  

He added that NCG has “pioneered the college group model, and the current Ofsted inspection framework for FE is no longer fit for purpose when inspecting college groups”.

“We need greater transparency when college groups are inspected and we’re pleased to be making the case to Ofsted for college-level inspections.”

NCG will introduce a new college “campus identifier” field into individualised learner records from 2018/19. It hopes this will pave the way for campus-level Ofsted inspections.