The chief executive of the Hart Learning Group has stepped down after three years in charge, it has been announced.
Matt Hamnett was appointed head of Hart Learning, which describes itself as a “charitable organisation with a mission to create social and economic value through learning”, in March 2015.
The group includes North Hertfordshire College and The Hart Schools Trust, which encompasses the Thomas Alleyne Academy secondary school and the Roebuck Academy primary school in Stevenage.
Two studio schools run by the trust, the Da Vinci School of Creative Enterprise in Letchworth Garden City and the Da Vinci School of Science and Engineering in Stevenage, closed this summer.
Hart Learning paid tribute to Hamnett’s “three transformational years at the helm” when it announced he had stepped down today, including adopting an “ambitious five-year strategy” and creating the emerging talent business Hart Learning and Development, which has recently signed major apprenticeship deals with companies including Co-op, World Pay, Pay Point and Avnet.
Hamnett described his time as chief executive as a “genuine privilege” and said he had “learnt a great deal from a wonderful set of colleagues and students”.
He added: “I’d like to thank them for their hard work and good humour as I wish them well for a future which I know will be very bright.
“For my part, I plan to take a break and smell the roses before deciding on my next adventure.”
North Hertfordshire College principal Kit Davies has taken over as interim CEO before a permanent replacement is found next year.
He said working with Hamnett had been a “real, different and development experience for all of us” and said Hamnett “leads differently to anyone I’ve ever worked with in the sector.”
He added: “We’ll miss his leadership, his sporting metaphors and his unique approach to staff communications. We will also, absolutely, maintain the trajectory of improvement we’ve established under his leadership.”
Acting chair of the group board of governors, Lynne Ceeney, paid tribute to Hamnett’s “passion, imagination and ability to engage colleagues in pursuit of excellence”.
She added: “We wish Matt the very best for the future – whatever he decides to do next”.
Apprenticeship providers in London are the biggest losers from the results of the much anticipated non-levy tender, after FE Week analysis revealed they were only awarded a third of their bid.
The ESFA last night informed providers of how much funding for apprenticeships with small employers they will receive from January 2018 to March 2019.
In the results letter sent out, the agency detailed how it decided the values each provider would receive.
“As set out in paragraph 6 of Attachment 2 of the ITT (Evaluation Guidance and Scoring Matrix), the awards for each individual budget were set through a pro rata process: for each of the 18 budgets, the Agency divided the total budget available by the total value of successful tenders to generate a pro rata percentage,” it said.
“The pro rata percentages were then applied to the value of the successful tenders in the respective budget groupings. The value of the pro rata awards at individual Potential Provider level was then combined to form a total contract award. (Any pro rata percentage that exceeded 100 per cent, was capped at 100 per cent so that resulting awards did not exceed tender values).”
The 18 budget groupings were made up on England’s nine regions, and then two different age ranges– 16 to 18 and 19 and over.
FE Week launched a survey immediately after the results release, and providers have been telling us their outcomes ever since. From this, we have been able to work out the proportion of non-levy funding awarded by age and region (see table above).
We will run out of non-levy funding by April and learners will suffer as a consequence
Our analysis shows that London has been worse hit; providers from the capital have only received a third of what they applied for.
At the other end, providers in the east of England came out on top after being awarded nearly two thirds of their bids. The variations came about as the ESFA attempted to manage demand across the country.
The second biggest losing region was the west midlands, followed by the south east.
London apprenticeship providers have been expressing their disappointment.
“As a successful college provider which has increased its apprenticeship delivery substantially over the past two years, delivering in a highly deprived part of London, this is an extremely low award,” Stewart Cross, director of information and integration at the College of Haringey, Enfield and North East London, told FE Week.
His college bid for £1.5 million but was only awarded £569,413.
“About 90 per cent of our current delivery, like many in London, is to non-levy payers,” Mr Cross added. “We will run out of non-levy funding by April at our current rate and SMEs and learners in Tottenham and Enfield will suffer as a consequence.”
Others, who failed to get a single penny in the tender, were even more annoyed.
North East Employment & Training Agency Ltd, a provider which has been running for 30 years and is rated ‘good’ by Ofsted, bid for just over £300,000, a tender which was “realistic based on our current levels of delivery”, according to its managing director Stephen Briganti.
He told FE Week his tender was successful but the pro rata awarding process saw any potential award fall below the £200,000 minimum requirement and the “end result of this is that we are being offered nothing”.
“To find out we have then been made unsuccessful based on a pro rata calculation taking us below the minimum threshold is devastating news,” he said.
“Had we been greedy/unrealistic in our request, we may well have received an allocation in line with our actual request.”
Some providers were just relieved to get any award considering the “year we’ve [FE] all had”.
After receiving £595,559, even though he bid for £1,044,500, Malcolm Armstrong, the managing director of Access Training Limited, based in the north east, told FE Week: “Not sure how I feel. After the year we’ve all had, anything could have happened. So, I am relieved we’ve got a contract, but disappointed in the allocation.
“Holding on to the fact that it is an ‘initial allocation’. We already had two growth cases approved so hopefully we’ll get increases through the year.”
With more and more councils introducing travel charges that deter learners from further education, the government has ignored the AoC’s appeal for a review of transport arrangements for post-16 learners with special educational needs or disabilities (SEND). FE Week investigates how widespread these charges really are, and considers their impact.
Two thirds of county councils are charging post-16 SEND learners for transport to and from their lessons, FE Week has discovered.
The Association of Colleges first requested a review of their transport arrangements last February, after FE Week reported on new charges instituted by certain councils in the north-east of England.
No review has been forthcoming, however, as the government insists statutory responsibility for transport for 16- to 19 -year-olds rests with local authorities, as it does for those with SEND up to the age of 25 who started a course before they turned 19.
It does expect councils to make “reasonable decisions” about how much, if anything, they charge.
Clare Howard
This begs the question: is anyone listening? FE Week set out to establish a national picture, and we found that SEND learners are charged for transport by 19 of the 27 county councils in England.
The amount they charge varies widely depending on the region, but some students are left with bills of almost £1,500 a year.
A spokesperson for Natspec, the membership association for organisations which offer SEND provision said that “transport is an issue for some students, resulting in a few not taking up their college place because they are not funded to attend”.
An increasing number of local authorities are trying to save money by offering day places to SEND students rather than residential places, she said, meaning some learners now face expensive journeys of more than 90 minutes each way – which causes them “stress and anxiety”.
“We know that budgets are tight and that local authorities aren’t necessarily breaking the law, as the rules are different for post-16 transport compared with school-aged children,” admitted Natspec’s chief executive, Clare Howard.
“But it is disappointing that budgets are not viewed longer-term as it can be a false economy.”
Eight of the 19 councils we identified have introduced charges since 2014. Two of them, Dorset and Suffolk, began charging this year, while Surrey and Somerset introduced transport charges in September 2016, and Hertfordshire and East Sussex in September 2015.
Only three had charges before 2010: Warwickshire (2004), Staffordshire (2007) and Lincolnshire (2008).
Liz Maudslay
“Students with SEND can often have to travel quite long distances in order to join the most appropriate study programme,” said Liz Maudsley, a senior policy manager at the Association of Colleges.
“It is a concern if any local authority charged unreasonable costs and thus prevented a student following the most appropriate course of study.”
In terms of impact on participation in FE and skills, the most recent government data shows that the total number of students with learning difficulties and other disabilities fell from 628,970 in 2013/14 to 606,600 in 2015/16.
The National Autistic Society’s policy and parliamentary officer, Catriona Moore, described our findings as “worrying”, as many young people on the autistic spectrum may only be able to attend appropriate providers if specific transport arrangements can be arranged and paid for.
“As part of local planning, councils need to look carefully at the needs of their local population of learners with special educational needs and disabilities and establish a clear plan, including funded transport wherever necessary for young people who are unable to make their own way to school or college because of autism or another disability,” she said.
The Department for Education reiterated that “the legal responsibility for transport to education and training for 16- to 19-year-olds rests with local authorities”.
A spokesperson said colleges were able to subsidise learners’ travel costs, if they dip into 16-to-19 bursary funding available “to support disadvantaged young people who need most help with education and training costs”.
Click to enlarge
Hertfordshire charges some learners over £1,400 a year
The most expensive travel assistance can be found in Hertfordshire, where the county council demands a contribution of up to £1,411 a year depending on miles travelled and days attending.
A spokesperson said the figure was approximately 20 per cent of the average cost for travel across the county, and would be charged to learners travelling between five and seven miles and attending five days a week.
Also among the top five approached by FE Week for comment, Essex county council ranked second, charging SEND learners £900 a year, albeit with a 50-per-cent discount available to those on low incomes.
A spokesperson said the charge was introduced “in the light of unprecedented financial challenges” and reflects the average cost of providing contracted or public transport to post-16 students.
“The reality is transport for students with SEND actually costs significantly more than the amount charged, so the council considers its approach to be reasonable,” he said.
Warwickshire county council has been charging post-16 SEND learners for transport since 2004 and this year the cost reached £765, with a 50-per-cent discount available for families on low incomes. “The price quoted is in line with our mainstream post-16 charges,” said a representative. “There are no plans to consult on changing these prices.”
Surrey county council has been charging students £3.68 a day (£699 a year) for transport since 2016, but did not offer a comment when contacted by FE Week.
In Somerset the cost has risen from £335 when it was introduced in 2016 to £675 this year. According to the council’s SEND travel assistance policy, the cost will rise again next year until it is the same cost as an annual “Love the Bus” ticket.
Two councils introduced charges for the first time this year: Dorset, where learners face costs of £640 (50 per cent off for low incomes), and Suffolk, where the charge is £630 but will increase by £30 each year.
A spokesperson for the Dorset local authority said: “The decision was taken to ensure that transport provision for all pupils is fair and equitable.”
Suffolk county council said on average the council still subsidies each SEND learner by £5,293 a year.
Map showing where councils are charging SEND learners for transport across England (figures taken from table above)
Charges in cities across the country can also be high
Transport charges levied on SEND learners in some English cities can also amount to well over a thousand pounds a year, where they are not covered by county councils.
FE Week contacted a sample of metropolitan district councils in Greater Manchester and Merseyside, and discovered that there can be a huge disparity in charges in areas close to each other.
For example, Liverpool city council does not charge for post-16 SEND transport, but nearby Knowsley council first introduced charges in 2014. Students are required to pay £3 a journey (£6 a day) which, over 38 academic weeks can add up to as much as £1,140 for learners who study five days a week.
Also in Merseyside, St Helen’s council consulted on whether to introduce charges this year; the outcome is still pending.
In Greater Manchester, Trafford council provides travel assistance for adult learners with needs for free, but charges learners aged 16 to 19 £200 per term (£600 a year) with a 50-per-cent discount available for those on low incomes. The council rejected proposals to raise the costs to £750 in April this year.
Both Stockport and Rochdale councils introduced a charge of £510 this year, and Bury and Salford are consulting on whether to introduce one next year, but in Oldham and Wigan post-16 SEND transport is still provided for free.
Salford city council’s executive support member for education and learning, councillor John Walsh, said the council had lost 47 per cent of its central government funding since 2010 and needed to make another £11.8 million of cuts this year.
“We are having to look at all services to make those savings,” he said.
We also contacted eight London borough councils, none of which charge for post-16 SEND transport.
“We believe everyone should have a right to access further education and do our best support families where necessary,” said a representative for Barking and Dagenham council.
Local government ombudsman warnings
The local government ombudsman has warned that councils are not doing enough to ensure special needs learners get the help they need.
New Education Health and Care Plans (EHCP) were introduced in 2014 as a way of providing more holistic and efficient SEND support for learners up to the age of 25. They covers, for example, transport, as well as health and social care.
However, the ombudsman reported in October that the first 100 investigations have shown that, far from making the system easier for learners and their families to negotiate, some are facing a “disproportionate burden” to get the help they are entitled to.
The ombudsman warned some students are missing out on places in colleges and schools, and are “ultimately failing to reach their potential” due to the long delays involved in the process, which is not supposed to take longer than 20 weeks.
Complaints about the system have doubled in the last two years, from 109 in 2015/16 to 217 in 2016/17, with the number expected to rise further. Investigators have upheld nearly 80 per cent of complaints received compared with the ombudsman’s average of 53 per cent.
NUS says findings ‘particularly’ worrying
The National Union of Students is campaigning for free or subsidised travel for FE learners to tackle the “huge problem” of poor transport for students.
The NUS’ vice-president for further education, Emily Chapman, said our findings demonstrate the scale of problems she hopes to address through the union’s “My FE Journey” campaign.
“It is particularly worrying to see councils introducing transport costs for student with special educational needs and disabilities, local authorities should be providing vital services like this,” she said.
“Our campaign will lobby for subsidised or free travel for post-16 learners and apprentices ensuring everybody can access and succeed in education and transport to and from their place of learning is no longer a barrier.”
The NUS campaign follows a Conservative Party commitment to cutting travel costs for apprentices in their election manifesto, but there has been no evidence the policy is near to being implemented half a year on.
Colleges must justify staff who are paid over £150,000 a year, according to the University and College Union, which says oversight is “desperately needed”.
Seventy-one college leaders earned salaries of that size or more in 2015/16, according to FE Week analysis of DfE accounting records.
This rises to 132 (over two thirds of all colleges) when pension contributions were included.
The government is beginning to crack down on high pay for academy chief executives and university vice-chancellors.
The new Education and Skills Funding Agency boss Eileen Milner joined the universities minister Jo Johnson this week to order both types of institution, which often pay salaries of more than £150,000 a year, to justify the excessive remunerations.
They were echoing the words of the former education minister Andrew Adonis, who called in August for university heads’ pay to be capped at that amount.
Sally Hunt
Colleges have however so far not received the same scrutiny, and the Department for Education this week refused to tell FE Week whether it would request similar rationalisation from FE providers.
Sally Hunt, UCU’s general secretary, said the bumper salaries enjoyed by many principals show that “too many college leaders are out of touch” and demanded more accountability on high pay.
“While staff pay is being eroded and colleges are struggling to recruit because of low pay, these pay awards show it’s one rule for staff and another for those at the top,” she told FE Week.
“The recent scandals over pay and perks in universities show the desperate need for proper accountability of senior pay in all education institutions which receive public funding, including FE colleges.”
Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said principals lead “large and complex” organisations, and it is “right” that their pay should be “commensurate with the significant level of responsibility involved in these extremely demanding roles”.
Ms Milner wrote to 29 academy trusts which have just one school, asking them to defend high salaries for their chief executives.
She said this is needed because of the “considerable scrutiny” over taxpayer-funded executive salaries that has emerged “in recent months”.
In August, Mr Johnson asked the same of vice-chancellors, after it emerged that dozens of university heads were earning £300,000, and some were on more than £400,000.
“While it is essential that we have the best people to lead our colleges if we are to raise standards, it is also important the system commands public confidence and delivers value for money,” said a DfE spokesperson.
“That is why colleges must disclose senior staff pay annually in their audited accounts. Disclosure requirements are kept under review by the ESFA.”
It is not only chief executives and principals who are being paid such exceptionally high salaries.
FE Week looked at the accounts of the colleges (see table) with the highest salary and pension packages in 2015/16, and found that more than one person was on £150,000 or more at four: NCG, Loughborough, Gateshead and Stafford.
The board of the Hart Learning Group said a “significant element” of its chief executive’s pay was based on “performance, including some long-term measures”. The group comprises North Hertfordshire College, Hart Learning and Development, and the Hart Schools Trust.
The Manchester College said the chief executive of its parent company, the LTE group, was the person receiving a pay packet of £242,000.
A spokesperson said the group is one of the UK’s largest skills social enterprises, and operates five separate organisations in over 120 locations with a combined turnover of more than £180 million in 2016.
He added that the principal of The Manchester College earns a salary of £141,050 excluding pension contributions.
Nevil Croston, the chair of governors at West Nottinghamshire College, said the remuneration package for principal Dame Asha Khemka is commensurate with her “skills and expertise, her profile and reputation within the sector, the significant influence she has on government policy, and the success she has brought to the organisation over the past 11 years”.
A Weston College spokesperson said: “Unlike other college groups, Weston College’s multi-academy trust accounts are consolidated within the overall college group accounts. To compare like for like, approximately £31,000 should be removed from these figures for the accounting officer work on behalf of the trust.”
FE Week did not list colleges where chief executives’ pay topped £200,000 if there were overlaps in principals or one-off severance payments.
No sign of government’s pay transparency pledge
The Department for Education has not acted on a promise once made by a former skills minister to increase pay transparency for senior management positions in colleges.
Nick Boles hinted that growing numbers of college staff were receiving excessive salaries in a review of post-16 education released in March last year.
Even though colleges have to publish what they pay senior staff every year in their audited accounts, they are not required to detail exactly how much they pay or who receives it.
Mr Boles said the DfE would explore accountability measures to publish the salaries of the three highest-paid members of college staff, to ensure value for money.
But the government appears not to have made any headway in this area in the last 20 months.
A DfE spokesperson said that senior staff pay disclosure requirements “are kept under review by the ESFA” when FE Week asked about progress on accountability.
FE Week found four colleges – NCG, Loughborough, Gateshead, and Stafford – had paid more than £155,000 in 2015/16 to more than one employee, after we combed college accounts.
NCG paid its chief executive £278,000, its group director for finance, estates and IT up to £210,000, and the principal of Newcastle College up to £160,000. These amounts included pension contributions and bonus payments.
A spokesperson pointed out that CEO Joe Docherty’s remuneration also included a car allowance. He is responsible for the whole group, which has six FE colleges and two private training providers, with a combined turnover of circa £170 million.
The NCG spokesperson added that none of the trio have received any increase in salary for the last three years.
Stafford College meanwhile paid its previous interim principal Ian Clinton £155,000, and one other unnamed interim vice-principal above £200,000 in 2015/16.
Loughborough paid £254,000 for its principal in 2015/16, but said this was because of an overlap in leadership between Esme Winch and Heather MacDonald. Another of its employees was paid up to £160,000, but the college would not be drawn on who or what role this was for.
Gateshead paid its principal Judith Doyle £244,000 and one member of its executive team up to £160,000, although a spokesperson would not reveal their identity when asked.
He did point out that senior pay is determined by the college’s remuneration committee which follows “robust governance procedures”.
The FE Commissioner has become embroiled in the battle to save a college campus for residents dealing with the fallout of the Grenfell Tower fire.
Richard Atkins visited Kensington and Chelsea College this week to review its proposed merger with Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College, which had been set for January 2018.
It is understood he was sent in by skills minister Anne Milton, after she met with members of the Grenfell Action who are campaigning to stop KCC’s Wornington Road campus from being redeveloped for housing.
Verena Beane, a retired KCC employee and leading campaigner, said a major reason the group was determined to stop the merger was because they think the resulting super-college would be less likely to retain the campus used by the sort of less privileged residents affected by the fire at nearby Grenfell Tower.
She added the group “put to the minister very strongly how the community felt that the loss of their local community college would be a step too far”, during the meeting arranged following requests by the group’s founder, Grenfell-survivor Ed Daffarn, to Nick Hurd, the minister for Grenfell victims.
The Wornington Road campus, one of the college’s two main sites, was recently sold under a lease-back deal for £25.3 million to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which then outlined plans for the site that would at best result in greatly reduced teaching space.
This provoked a furious local reaction, and residents clashed with college and council leaders during a heated public meeting in September.
They claimed this was an example of “social cleansing” where services for poorer people could make way for costly housing.
Kim Taylor-Smith, who took over as deputy leader of the council in July and is lead member for Grenfell recovery, said afterwards that he had listened to the complaints the following week, and the campus redevelopment plans had been paused.
KCC was rated as ‘requires improvement’ in its most recent Ofsted report, published in March, while EHWLC had only come out of FE commissioner intervention in September, having improved from an Ofsted grade four to a grade two in May.
“A merger at this early stage of recovery is just crazy,” Ms Beane said.
She acknowledged that the “high profile” of the area following the tragic events of June 14, which led to 71 deaths, had helped the group to get the minister’s ear.
“We were fighting it before Grenfell, and we were getting small wins, but the whole thing has become a centre of focus in North Kensington,” she said.
“The one thing we’re asking for is that these things be done as a form of reparation.”
The Department for Education would not be drawn on whether it was giving special treatment to the college, nor would it say whether Anne Milton had asked the FE commissioner to intervene.
But a spokesperson did confirm that Mr Atkins was carrying out a review into the decision by KCC to merge with EHWLC.
“The commissioner will take into account the educational and financial case for the merger, and consider any wider issues surrounding the Wornington Road site,” he said.
The two colleges said in a joint statement: “We welcome the FE commissioner’s decision to review the merger and we look forward to receiving his feedback.
“We have responded to the concerns raised through the public consultation as part of the proposed merger and we are confident that the merger will secure the future of Kensington and Chelsea College, its staff and students as well as serving the needs of local residents and employers through its Chelsea and North Kensington sites.”
Two FE providers have seen their ratings tumble, and two others have received ‘requires improvement’ grades, in the latest reports released by Ofsted.
The independent training provider London Skills and Development Network (LSDN) fell from a grade two to a grade three, with its apprenticeship provision described as ‘inadequate’, in its most recent inspection on October 17.
The provider mainly caters for adult learners working towards qualifications in rail engineering or transport operations, but also provides apprenticeship frameworks in early years, digital media, accountancy and finance. A high proportion of its learners previously served time in prison, and a small number are currently released from prison on license.
According to the report, published on December 6, apprentices do not receive “all elements” of their apprenticeship training programme at LSDN, and too few develop good skills and knowledge or continue into higher training or supervisory roles.
The regulator also criticised “repeated instances of poor behaviour”, low attendance, undemanding teaching and poor careers guidance.
However, it added that a high proportion of learners achieve their qualifications, and the rail engineering programmes particularly help learners who have previously struggled with employment find work. It also commended the “wide range of additional qualifications” on offer including alcohol awareness and heavy lifting.
South Devon College also experienced a drop this week, falling from ‘outstanding’ to ‘good’ with its full-time provision for 14- to 16-year-olds marked ‘requires improvement’.
The report, published on December 7, warned that the college does not take action quickly enough to prevent weaknesses including poor attendance and declining qualification outcomes, and the proportion of learners achieving functional skills qualifications or completing apprenticeships has fallen over the past four years.
The college provides 16-to-19 study programmes, adult provision and apprenticeships, and full- and part-time education is provided for 14- to 16-year-olds through the South Devon High School located on its site in Paignton.
Its school for 14- to 16-year-olds takes on a number of pupils who have struggled at other schools and have “a range of social, emotional or behavioural needs”, but the report warns that staff “are too ready to use learners’ prior difficulties or negative experiences at other schools as a reason for underachievement”.
Ofsted criticised teaching, warning that staff do not plan their lessons well enough to meet different needs and do not push learners to reach their potential or have high enough expectations.
However, it commended the college for a strong focus on progressing learners into higher education, focusing on the needs of the community and offering “a wide range of high-quality work experience placements”.
Sussex Downs College kept its grade three rating in a report published on December 8, which warned that too few students are achieving qualifications, particularly level two maths, or attending maths and English lessons.
Ofsted said teachers do not help students progress or have high enough expectations, and too few have the opportunity to take work experience placements. However, they develop “very good practical skills” and the quality of teaching, learning and assessment was commended for adult students, apprenticeships and high-needs students.
Inspectors also noted “very good” behaviour from students, and said leaders and managers had improvement actions in place which were beginning to have a “positive impact”.
The college, which was inspected on October 31, caters for 5,600 students and has three main sites in Eastbourne, Lewes and Newhaven.
Northumberland-based Skills North East, which also delivers courses in Kidderminster, Doncaster and Hull, received a grade three on its first inspection on November 1.
Ofsted warned that learners are not making “enough progress” to develop skills and are not given enough opportunities to advance in English and maths, nor is enough done to make sure they understand the risks of radicalisation and extremism.
The provider currently has 50 learners on level three programmes, the majority on courses in nail services and nail technology which have a high proportion of learners achieving their qualifications and progressing to employment or higher study.
The regulator also commended the “culture of respect and tolerance” created by leaders, who collaborate to meet the “regional priorities” in each of the provider’s locations.
The long-awaited non-levy tender results, for funding apprenticeships with small (non-levy) employers, have been revealed by the Education and Skills Funding Agency this evening.
It follows a worrying few days for providers, after it was announced on the Bravo tendering site last Friday that after a temporary ‘postponement’ they would be out some time this week.
The actual notices of decisions have not yet been made public, and it only emerged that the results had been shared with providers shortly after 10pm.
FE Week has already launched a survey inviting providers to share their experiences, which can be reached here, and will be reporting further tomorrow.
The survey asks ‘how much was your levy tender cap’ and ‘how much non-levy tendering (January 2018 to March 2019) did you actually bid for’, along with questions on how much they received and how providers feel about it?
FE Week reported on November 17 that the second attempt at tendering for the £650m tender round had been postponed yet again.
The ESFA said at the time this was due to it needing more time to evaluate the high volume of applications.
The process had though been plagued with problems, with providers submitting nearly 1,000 clarification requests.
The ESFA also needed to verify provider tender cap calculations within individual submissions, which in many cases they challenged.
The UK’s careers so-called “strategy” is to ditch trained, independent professionals in favour of volunteers, warns Dr Deirdre Hughes
The long-awaited careers strategy is finally in the public domain. There will be a huge sigh of relief from the DfE – and a sharp intake of breath for those at the coalface trying to deliver careers support to young people in their local communities.
There is certainly some good news for those working with adults: “All adults should be able to access free face-to-face advice, with more bespoke support for those who most need it.”
What’s more, career learning pilots and a national retaining scheme will be funded in support of lifelong learning. But careers support for young people continues to form part of a high-risk experiment in England.
Careers support for young people continues to form part of a high-risk experiment in England
The government plans to allocate more funds on top of the initial £30m+ investment to the Careers and Enterprise Company (CEC) to embed all eight Gatsby benchmarks throughout England. These key ‘good guidance’ principles were introduced in 2014. The CEC has been very slow to embrace the careers profession at board and operational level.
In 2017, two of the eight National Careers Service contractors achieved an ‘outstanding’ grade from Ofsted; the rest were rated ‘good’. These included the Inspiration Agenda, which supports teachers and young people’s encounters with employers and experiences of workplaces. The Education and Skills Funding Agency has now informed National Careers Service providers that funding for this work will end in September 2018. Trained and professional careers advisers face uncertain futures.
There will instead be 20 new careers hubs, led by CEC. But how will these differ from partnerships that are already established in communities? And CEC is to be involved in primary school activities, competing with other well-established providers. But there is no mention of careers advice for young people in training.
Research published alongside the careers strategy shows that of the 2,000 young people asked who helped them make decisions about what to do after year 11/13, only two per cent pointed to a CEC enterprise adviser. Forty per cent spoke to an adviser at school or college. Although most young people are willing to access information online, they prefer face-to-face help.
A parallel DfE report indicates that staff feel that there are enough tools and resources available, but that more personnel are required. Both reports are a reality check – many young people want greater access to face-to-face careers guidance, no different to adults.
The DfE proposal is to train 500 careers coordinators, now called “careers leaders”. Will they be existing or new teachers? There are over 3,000 schools and 280 colleges.
This is a unique experiment not evident in other OECD countries; we over-rely on volunteers and employers, and have a major void in the system when it comes to government investment in careers professionals’ work. Ironically, as more young people face more complex education and labour market choices, their access to independent and impartial careers professionals is left to chance in England, in contrast to other parts of the UK and further afield.
Some good news is that the Education and Training Foundation will provide professional development for those working with special educational needs and disabilities. But what of those young people not in schools and colleges? Does the CEC role now extend to cover those in apprenticeships/traineeships?
Delivery and implementation in communities is what really matters. Local partnerships will do their best to make things work. Over the next 12 months, it will be essential to monitor closely what’s happening at both a national and local level. Fortunately, the minister has promised a review, so watch this space.
Deirdre Hughes is an associate fellow at Warwick University’s Institute for Employment Research, and former chair of the National Careers Council
This Conservative government certainly talks the talk when it comes to social mobility. But, as Emily Chapman explains, it doesn’t walk the walk when it comes to FE students.
Social mobility has become a bit of a buzzword for the current Conservative government. Justine Greening claims that education is at the heart of social mobility, Anne Milton sees the careers strategy as central to ensuring social mobility for all, and last year Theresa May set out her vision for a truly meritocratic Britain, where social mobility meant that “everyone has a fair chance to go as far as their talent and their hard work will allow”.
This vision took a bit of a beating last week when the Social Mobility Commission released its damming ‘State of the nation’ report, highlighting the stark regional differences that exist in Britain today. It sustained an even bigger blow when all four members of the committee quit last week, with Alan Milburn claiming that he has “little hope of the current government making the progress I believe is necessary to bring about a fairer Britain”.
This is something I’ve been reflecting on myself since I started as vice-president for further education at the NUS six months ago. The findings in the report were incredibly disappointing and concerning, but I would be lying if I said they’d come as a surprise. In my role, I meet students all across the country. The huge gulf that exists between those that have and those that don’t is particularly stark when considering FE. Yet I’ve seen little evidence that this government is truly committed to supporting FE students to become socially mobile.
The huge gulf that exists between those that have and those that don’t is particularly stark when considering FE
FE students disproportionally come from deprived backgrounds; they need the most support to access education, but you wouldn’t know it from the current discourse around education funding.
As is often the case, higher education dominates and the issue of maintenance support in FE is glossed over.
The much-anticipated tertiary education funding review is expected to cover age 18 and above, and let’s be honest, we’ll be lucky if it addresses the significant drop in advanced learner loans or the serious lack of maintenance support adults get to access FE. Last week, Anne Milton was asked a written question about the frankly inadequate maintenance support that 16-to-18s in FE receive.
Her response suggests that the Department for Education is happy with the postcode lottery that discretionary bursaries create.
This issue is a particular feature of the commission’s report, which found that the effect of one’s postcode on one’s prospects is particularly acute for young people, and that disadvantaged youths in urban areas tend to benefit from better outcomes than young people in other areas.
A huge range of factors contribute to this, including a lack of access to higher education institutions. One recommendation it made is for local authorities to offer travel bursaries to enable poorer young people to study degree courses.
Transport is an issue that consistently comes up as a problem for learners, and so I agree that they should receive financial support. But I don’t believe this should be limited to people who want to access higher education. Transport provision and costs vary considerably across different regions in England, but one constant is that plenty of people suffer from poor, unreliable services with little to no financial support.
Last month I launched the #myFEjourney campaign, which lobbies for subsidised or free travel for post-16 learners and apprentices, so that everybody can access and succeed in education, not just those at university.
Further education does so much to support social mobility, but this is often in spite of government policy, not because of it. The government claims to be committed to creating parity of esteem between further and higher education and to ensuring social mobility for all.
To achieve this, though, there needs to be an honest discussion about financial support across the entirety of tertiary education – not just higher. Without this, the government’s great “meritocracy” is nothing more than a buzzword.
Emily Chapman is vice president of FE at the National Union of Students
