Latest news from FE Week | FE Week

Institutes of Technology freighted with unrealistic ambitions

We’ve had a bit of clarity on the new IoTs, but Mick Fletcher doesn’t want to pop any corks just yet

The DfE’s latest on the Institutes of Technology doesn’t deserve three cheers – but it maybe warrants one and a half. The half is for the additional investment in FE: any extra cash is welcome though the sum is so small compared with the needs of the sector that a full cheer is out of the question.

More important is the confirmation that the new Institutes will build on existing infrastructure. After the Tories’ flirtation with focusing IoTs on universities, common sense has prevailed and the new institutions will promote rather than compete with existing colleges. It’s a small but sensible step.

Although it is a positive, results will likely still disappoint because the IoTs come freighted with unrealistic ambitions. There is more than just the normal hype associated with any loosening of the Treasury’s purse strings: people seem to expect that a small number of IoTs will lead a total transformation in higher technical and professional education (HTPE), will deliver a step change in the production of higher-level skills and revolutionise attitudes to sub-degree-level higher education. It won’t.

There’ll be little lasting change beyond a few plaques in college foyers

The sums involved are far too small. A total of £170 million spread over three years can do some good but no serious observer will see it as transformational. Moreover any impact will be further diluted by the approach we’re taking to develop IoTs: bids will be sought from consortia.

No doubt work is already under way to develop the “correct” type of consortium: a high-profile employer as figurehead, other employers promising support that will likely prove to be moral rather than financial, a big FE college coordinating the action as a hub and linked with a host of smaller colleges and training providers which reckon their best chance at a piece of the action is as a spoke. Once the hub has made a symbolic investment and each of the spokes has taken its modest cut, the impact will be minimal.

The DfE expects that, in addition to capital investment, any “transformation” will be driven by designating some institutions as “institutes”. This is likely to be undermined by the consortium approach. When one of the new national colleges, seen in some ways as prototypes for IoTs, describes itself as “a network of hubs” one can envisage how collaborative IoTs might develop. Like the Centres of Vocational Excellence promoted by the Learning and Skills Council some 15 years ago, giving them new titles will do no harm, but there’ll be little lasting change beyond a few plaques in college foyers and further confusion with nomenclature.

The DfE seems to envisage HTPE being delivered in a limited number of institutions with distinct specialisms – a set of monotechnics recruiting nationally. In practice HTPE is far more likely to thrive if it is available widely and on a part-time basis. It is not the case that the demand for most types of provision at levels four and five is geographically circumscribed.

Moreover, adopting a delivery model that looks very much like full-time undergraduate HE seems most likely to cause defection to the more benign funding and regulatory regimes of the HE sector. One has only to look at where almost all our art colleges and many agricultural colleges have gone in recent years to see the potential temptation.

Finally, the idea that to raise the status of technical and professional education requires a further stratification of institutions is a peculiarly English approach. It would be better to allow HTPE to grow naturally in a wide range of FE colleges than attempt to pick winners. To do so would add to the reputation of the sector as whole rather than give status to some at the expense of others.

Mick Fletcher is founder of Policy Consortium

How to embed Prevent in college life

It’s not enough just to do the bare minimum, argues Sam Parrett, who believes colleges have a true duty of care

With all the dreadful terrorist attacks on British soil this year, there has never been a more important time for colleges to ensure they are implementing an effective Prevent strategy.

Ofsted, quite rightly, demands that educators must comply in full. However, like many of these initiatives and new policies, this sometimes creates a tick-box culture, with organisations doing the minimum to meet requirements.

There is a huge amount of pressure on the FE sector at the moment and we all struggle to keep our heads above water with so many priorities that all seem to be urgent.

But Prevent is an issue we can’t afford to brush under the carpet. Rather than seeing it as a standalone policy, colleges should look to embed it in all areas of college life, including teaching planning and delivery.

The duty was introduced in 2015 with the aim of giving “due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”. Colleges and independent learning providers have a huge responsibility here and are under scrutiny not only from Ofsted, but from local communities, parents and students.

By widely and regularly promoting the right kinds of values, our aim is to minimise the wrong ones

A safe learning environment is the one of the most important objectives for any college, but in the current climate this has to be our number one priority. We need robust, risk-assessed safeguarding policies for Prevent and British values. And what about the management and business continuity implications of a terrorist attack in one of our colleges? I am sure principals will all be revisiting these issues at the start of term.

Last year we undertook a large consultation exercise with students and staff to create a set of unique values, which are separate from but incorporate fundamental British values. We have collectively identified the fabric of our college, and we are building these values into every aspect of college life, into tutorials, pastoral support and our enrichment programme.

We took a multi-agency approach to this work and engaged our local communities. We also recruited a college chaplain who uses a wide range of theatrical and therapeutic approaches to encourage even the most reluctant of students into this process.

Our student experience team holds debates throughout the year in which students have the opportunity to voice their opinions, thoughts and concerns on various issues, ranging from ‘Are you a global citizen?’ to human rights.

We also arrange visits to various places of worship for a number of faiths, and students have the opportunity to come back to college and discuss their experiences and any thoughts arising from the visits.

By widely and regularly promoting the right kinds of values, our aim is to minimise the wrong ones. Rather than focusing on explicit messages relating to radicalisation, we are working hard to promote a positive and supportive environment. We are ambitious about this spiritual and social aspect of college life and we have recently become a UNICEF rights-respecting organisation, which is also underpinning our approach.

This goes beyond a tick-box exercise to meet Ofsted’s requirements, or indeed the tutorial system and our pastoral approaches to the SMSC curriculum. We are aware of our responsibility and want students to feel safe and supported in their learning environment, allowing them to achieve their full potential. We also want them to feel empowered about speaking out, to be able to challenge and be challenged, and we want to be clear about what is and is not acceptable.

We have a responsibility to support any student at risk of radicalisation whilst protecting others. We have a much better chance of doing this if every single student, tutor and staff member is part of a collective drive to tackle this issue effectively in an environment where interventions to support the prevent strategy are invisibly woven into the values and behaviours of everyday citizenship and college life.

Sam Parrett is CEO of London South East Colleges

Colleges should call for Ofsted reform

Having spent considerable time examining Ofsted’s methods, Frank Coffield claims they are invalid, unreliable and unjust.

While “unjust” may seem like a strong way to describe an Ofsted inspection, I have a clear example to illustrate it. Take its grading scale, which attaches one adjective, such as ‘outstanding’ or ‘inadequate’, to a large FE college with 20,000 students, 1,000 staff and 30+ departments. This is a statistical absurdity, because research has repeatedly shown that there is always great variation within an individual college and one adjective cannot capture complexity, diversity or contradictions

The area reviews are creating even larger colleges, for instance Nottingham, which now has 40,000 students. That Ofsted can or would judge such a huge enterprise by applying one summary term to it is, I repeat, unjust.

Ofsted has had 25 years to improve its methods but, despite numerous changes, it is still unfit for the present, never mind the future. Using Ofsted’s own scale to evaluate its performance, I would probably award it no more than a grade three; it ‘requires improvement’. But that would be to treat Ofsted as unjustly as it treats educators; it would discount, for example, its role in challenging poor practices, monitoring national standards and its record in closing illegal schools. Complexity has to be responded to with complexity.

We could and should be doing so much better

We could and should be doing so much better. We need not only a better model of inspection but a better system of education. I am, however, reminded of the preacher who advised: “If you are awakened at midnight with a vision of how to save the world, do us all a favour and go back to sleep.” I will therefore restrict myself here to introducing ideas for a new model of inspection.

Let us revisit the admirable work carried out by the Further Education Funding Council in the 1990s. Instead of assigning a grade to a college, the main curriculum areas were assessed separately; dialogue between assessors and assessed was promoted by having a college nominee participate in the inspection process, including the inspectors’ meetings. An inspector was also attached to each college before, during and after inspection to ensure that inspectorial knowledge was accurate and their recommendations acted on.

Inspection has a legitimate and necessary role in education. My aim is to move it from a concentration on summative assessment (judging the measurable outputs of education such as test results) towards a balance of both formative (improving the quality of teaching, learning and assessment) and summative assessment. That shift needs to be based on educational principles such as education seen as growth (do students leave college as lifelong learners?), trust rather than fear, challenge matched by support provided by Ofsted, dialogue, and appreciative inquiry, which gives pride of place to everything that gives life to a college when it is at its most effective.

I want to help Ofsted by recommending that its remit be drastically reduced, by making it genuinely independent of government and by reintroducing a system of local and national inspectors, working hand in glove. In this way inspectors would once again become respected colleagues, acting as the cross-pollinators of tough ideas and novel practices in a joint search with tutors for improvement.

None of the above will happen unless tutors and college leaders begin to demand change. Ofsted may appear to colleagues as a remote and punitive arm of government, but in fact it belongs to all of us who pay for it. We have a right and a duty to call, not for tinkering at the edges, but for radical reform. This is the essence of an open, democratic society that offers its citizens the freedom not only to think differently but to demand justice.

Frank Coffield is emeritus professor of education at UCL Institute of education. His new book, Will the Leopard Change its Spots? A new model of inspection for Ofsted, is published by UCL IOE Press.

South Cheshire College’s ‘Academy’ restaurant and deli named AA College Restaurant of the Year 2017

South Cheshire College’s on-site restaurant, Academy, has been named AA College Restaurant of the Year 2017.

The training restaurant and deli received the accolade at the annual AA hospitality awards in London, which recognise excellence in catering across the UK.

Three college restaurants were shortlisted for the award, including Fareham College’s Avenue 141 and The Brasserie at Milton Keynes College.

As part of judging, the restaurant teams were asked to produce a three-minute video promoting the hospitality course at their college, and to design a business venture for Michelin-starred chef Tom Kerridge.

It is only the second year the hospitality awards have recognised college restaurants, with Runshaw College’s Foxholes restaurant winning last year.

“We hope that our reputation in the Cheshire community continues to grow and attract talented chefs who can now train at the best college restaurant in the country,” said Mark Parsons, director for retail, commercial, engineering and the built environment at South Cheshire College.

“This is an absolutely fantastic achievement for all the team and students who work at the Academy.”

Pictured: The college team collect their award

Seriously ill children have gig live-streamed to their hospital beds with the help of media students

Media students from Chesterfield College have helped children in hospital experience a live concert through a unique work experience opportunity.

Students helped to livestream a gig by indie band The Sherlocks from the O2 Academy Sheffield for nine seriously ill children being cared for at Sheffield Children’s Hospital, while the band delivered personalised messages to the patients during their set.

Accompanied by staff to help with production, the students filmed the gig at the venue, which was then accessible to the patients in hospital in real-time via iPads.

The project was initiated by a US charity, the Melodic Caring Project, which films and streams live music events and concerts to hospitalised children.

The charity, which has been running in the US for almost a decade, has now recruited college students and staff to lead a UK branch of the initiative, as it attempts to reach more patients in the future.

“We are thrilled to be working with Chesterfield College and its students,” said Levi Ware, the charity’s cofounder. “Their unique skills, talents and relationships will enable us to reach far more children than we ever could on our own.”

Pictured: Patient Natasha watches the gig from her hospital bed

Reigning champions of annual soapbox derby fight to defend their title

The reigning champions of an annual charity soapbox derby will attempt to defend their title this week.

Barnsley College, won the ‘most creative cart’ award at last year’s Bluebell Woods soapbox derby in Rotherham with their Fireman Sam-themed car, and their new entry is based on the character of Tow Mater from the Pixar film Cars.

The college is hoping to win one of the three prizes available, ‘most creative cart’, ‘best dressed entry’ or ‘the highest amount raised’, and will compete against 39 other carts in a race through Clifton Park in Rotherham.

The cart was made by Steve Willmer (pictured right), a tutorial learning mentor in the college’s business, warehousing and logistics department and will be driven by staff members Garry Lyon (left), Kerry Alexander and Joanne Potter.

The soapbox derby is a fundraising event organised by Bluebell Wood Children’s Hospice, which cares for children and young adults with life-shortening and life-threatening conditions.

Last year, the college raised over £750 for the hospice.

“We’re extremely proud to be a part of this event and fundraising for an amazing charity that will hopefully make a difference,” said Mr Willmer.

Researcher creates survey to find out what makes a successful middle leader

A new research project is looking at what skills and competencies middle leaders need to succeed in their line-management roles.

The project, led by a researcher from the School of Education and Childhood Studies at the University of Portsmouth, is looking for middle managers in further education to fill out an online survey, and will use the results to develop a competency framework to better support middle leaders.

Stephen Corbett (pictured), who is behind the project, said: “Middle management was an area I felt can be overlooked.

“We invest a huge amount of time in teacher training, but we don’t necessarily invest in the next stage of somebody’s career. We seem to bypass that and put a lot of effort into senior leadership training, but the middle is often missed.”

The anonymous survey will ask participants – who should be in a role with line-management responsibilities – about the training they received prior to starting in their positions, and what skills they felt they already had.

The survey will close at midnight on December 1 and can be accessed here.

Learndirect Apprenticeships tries to avoid the past with major rebrand

A firm set up by Learndirect as a separate entity to run its apprenticeships division has begun a significant rebrand as it looks to distance itself from the tarnished company that created it.

Since its inception in March 2016, Learndirect Apprenticeships (LDA) – a company owned and operated by the owners of Learndirect Ltd – has used the same branding and shared the website of the nation’s biggest FE provider.

But after months of troubles which have damaged Learndirect’s reputation stemming from a damning Ofsted grade four, LDA has begun to distance itself.

It registered a new website at www.mylda.co.uk on September 15, and has established a new Twitter handle: @my_lda.

In perhaps the most obvious departure from the Learndirect look, LDA has created its own logo.

LDA and Learndirect – which share a spokesperson – have both declined to comment on the rebrand.

New website under construction at the time of publication

News of the rebrand comes on the same day that Learndirect’s chairman made his first comments on the saga of his provider, which has fascinated the sector since August, when it was finally slapped with an ‘inadequate’ rating after it failed to quash it at a judicial review.

Ken Hills explained that it is the “board’s belief” that much of the press coverage by FE Week and the Financial Times “fails to understand the complexities of the situation and as a result the company’s position has been misreported”.

He added that he was “incensed” at the claims the provider is “too big to fail” and the board feels Learndirect has been “unfairly treated” (you can read a full Q&A with him here).

Despite receiving the watchdog’s lowest possible grade, Learndirect has had none of its contracts terminated by the government – a decision which has sparked outrage across the sector.

Its own apprenticeship provision had already received an Education and Skills Funding Agency notice of breach before that fateful inspection in March, because 70 per cent of its apprentices were below the minimum standard – but this will continue to be funded until July 2018.

And it was even awarded £45 million from the adult education budget for 2017/18 despite withdrawing from the recent procurement process.

Other providers who were successful in their tender were meanwhile left with a fraction of their previous allocations – one had its budget slashed by 97 per cent.

The scandal was subsequently referred to the National Audit Office by the Public Accounts Committee, after its chair Meg Hillier hit out at the “special treatment”.

Of most concern to any inquiry is the alleged misuse of public funding that occurred at Learndirect and which came to light during its judicial review hearing against Ofsted.

It failed to ensure apprentices received their entitlement to off-the-job training, which chief inspector Amanda Spielman said was the “most shocking” finding in an interview with FE Week which was on BBC News earlier this month.

During the court hearing, Ofsted outlined how managers at Learndirect were not able to provide evidence of what training was completed and there was total confusion on how data was recorded.

LDA has itself come into a spot of trouble recently.

It could find itself kicked off the purchasing system used by London hospitals after a joint investigation by FE Week and The Financial Times found multiple irregularities in a tender application.

In one recent bid to deliver apprenticeships at a London hospital, LDA took credit for activities that happened several years before it was even set up, which are understood to have been undertaken by Learndirect Ltd.

After being presented with our findings the London Procurement Partnership, which the NHS uses to manage the capital’s dynamic purchasing system, launched a review of LDA’s position as a provider.

This investigation is “ongoing”, it said, but LPP aims “to have a conclusion in the shortest time possible”.

The relationship between Learndirect and LDA has also been the subject of a public spat between the skills minister Anne Milton and Labour MP Wes Streeting.

Mr Streeting accused the minister of misleading Parliament when she told an education questions session that Learndirect was no longer offering apprenticeships, without adding that they were being offered by LDA.

Ms Milton did not correct the record, and even though a DfE spokesperson told FE Week that a statement would be made two weeks ago, it had not appeared by the time we went to press.

Mr Streeting has since told FE Week he is applying for a debate in parliament on the Learndirect “debacle”.

Chichester College raises over £82,000 to build a primary school in Kenyan slum

After 20 months of fundraising, a Sussex college has raised more than £82,000 to help build a school in one of Kenya’s poorest areas, reports Samantha King.

The new Walk Centre Primary School in Nakuru – one of the largest cities in Kenya – has been a long time in the planning, but finally came to fruition with the help of Chichester College.

After running regular volunteering trips to the area during the summer, the college’s student experience manager, Lisa Humphries, made a commitment to help a local education charity build a school for children living in Nakuru’s slums and rubbish dumps.

“I sat down and promised them £70,000 to build a school and then I had to go and do it. There’s a group of staff that visit regularly, and when we came back we won everyone over,” said Ms Humphries. “Then Brexit happened and building costs happened, so we actually had to raise £80,000.”

The whole college got behind the project, with fundraising events ranging from skydives, cake sales and a Four Peaks challenge, to selling roses on Valentine’s Day.

One of the more unconventional efforts was a sponsored fire walk, which challenged 24 volunteers, including the college’s executive principal Andy Green, to walk barefoot across hot coals.

“We knew it was going to be a massive challenge, but we are all about changing lives through learning, and what better way to do that than provide a permanent school that will change the future for a generation of Kenyans,” Ms Humphries explained.

One of the new school’s 10 classrooms is named after Josh Skinner, a Chichester College student who died in 2005.

His family donated money to the fundraising effort through the Josh Skinner Memorial Fund, and his parents visited the school in Kenya along with college volunteers to help paint the classroom’s walls.

Alongside its classrooms, the brick-built school in Nakuru has an office, a toilet block and a school hall, and it will be the first proper building many of its new pupils will have set foot in.

The launch of the new school was attended by the city’s minister for education, local families and headteachers from government public schools, who will help teach at the new primary, while the Chichester College volunteers were guests of honour.

Alex Maina, founder of The Walk Centre, said: “Lisa and I talked about what I would like to see happen with the centre, and I told her I’d like permanent classrooms – built of brick, not tin. I’d like to develop the centre into a school to help more children, but I didn’t think it would be possible to raise the money.

“She said ‘we can do that’ and now it’s like a miracle. We can’t say thank you enough.”