Why doesn’t FE Week have more diverse representation?

Apparently, 55% of senior leaders in FE are women. I don’t believe it.

A large part of my job is to find interesting voices in the sector who want to express an opinion, challenge the status quo, or simply join in the wider debate.

Yet I would estimate that 80-90% of the emails I receive offering me expert features written by heads of organisations to run in FE Week are written by women – women who are putting a man forward to write the piece.

That’s not these women’s fault – it’s usually their job, and the person they are representing is often legitimately the most senior person at their organisation who is an expert in that topic. My heart still sinks every time.

That’s not because I don’t think men can write; just as with women, some can, some can’t. And it’s not because I don’t appreciate their getting in touch with me – it’s because every time I see an unsolicited email from a woman, I have hope that she might be putting herself forward.

She rarely is.

READ MORE: How to get more women into FE leadership

I know what it’s like to suffer from a lack of confidence, and I do empathise. Not everyone wants to be part of the public debate. But what really brought it home to me was a recent comment from Robert Halfon, the former skills and apprenticeships minister, who told the FE Week team that in his time as minister, not a single day went by when our newspaper wasn’t discussed in some context in his office.

That’s huge.

To have the ear of those is power is a weighty responsibility on our shoulders. It means we need to be sure we are representing the full spectrum of informed views and groups across the sector, and I’m not convinced that we do.

Women leaders in FE exist – I know they do. Women with strong opinions have contacted me – occasionally – about writing for us. But not in anything like the volume that men do.

The stats also tell me they are out there. Fifty-five per cent of senior managers in FE are women, according to the latest Education and Training Foundation data.

Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) figures are a little more disheartening: while 14% of the population registered as non-white in the latest census (and this is an underestimate for England, as Wales is also included in this data), only around 11% of college staff in England are BAME, a figure which drops to 5% for independent training providers. The percentages for teaching staff in both types of provider are similar, but only 9% of college managers are BAME, while the ETF couldn’t even provide data for ITPs as the number of responses was too low to give a robust figure.

Most people hate to think they are being approached due to their skin colour or genitalia

Whenever I go to conferences, I try to meet women and people of diverse ethnic origin. That can be a little awkward. Firstly because everyone harbours some degree of mistrust towards journalists, and secondly because if I ever casually mention that I’m looking to improve the diversity of our publication, most people hate to think they are being approached not because of their innate merit, but due to their skin colour or genitalia.

That’s not the case, but the problem exists. We have far more white men’s opinions represented in our paper than is representative of the sector. And while they may be supremely qualified to write about their subject, there are also women and BAME people of all genders who know what they’re talking about.

In order to diversify our contributors, I need to throw the net out wide. And one or two of those people will turn out to have the right combination of talent, insight (and the freedom to speak out) that is required to attract the attention of the decision-makers.

I see the Features section of FE Week as something of a bulletin board – curated of course, but still a place where people from all over the sector can have their say (that’s the Opinion section), tell people about exciting projects their college or institution has been up to (that’s the Campus round-up) or where they’re moving next (Movers & Shakers).

I’d just love it to be a more representative one. So I’m reaching out. Now it’s up to you to do the same.

@cathmurray_news

cath.murray@feweek.co.uk

Breaking: Apprenticeship pay survey exposes rise in proportion paid illegal wages

Nearly a fifth of apprentices at level two and level three are illegally paid less than the minimum wage, according to the government’s long-delayed apprenticeship pay survey.

Eighteen per cent were found to be paid below the appropriate national minimum wage or national living wage (for workers aged 25 and above), up from 15 per cent in 2014.

The survey, which aims to find whether apprentices are receiving the correct remuneration, was first announced in May 2016, and finally found its way online today.

Hairdressing apprentices are “by far the most likely to have received non-compliant pay”, the survey said, rising to 47 per cent in 2016 from 42 per cent in 2014, while “those on the management framework were least likely” – up to seven per cent in 2016, from three per cent in 2014.

Other sectors with significant non-compliance included construction and related, which rose from 24 per cent in 2014 to 28 per cent in 2016. Health, social care and sport rose from 12 to 17 per cent, electrotechnical was up from 17 to 24 per cent, while hospitality and catering went from nine to 15 per cent.

The 2016 survey was carried out through telephone interviews with apprentices between June 9 and July 25 last year.

In total, “4,963 interviews were conducted with level two and three apprentices in England, and 184 with apprentices on the new apprenticeship standards developed by ‘Trailblazer’ employer groups.”

The figures painted a largely worrying picture at level two and three.

For those aged 16 to 18 or in their first year of an apprenticeship, 13 per cent were paid below the NMW – up three per cent from the 2014 survey. And for ages 19 to 20 and in second year of their apprenticeship, the figure was 32 per cent for 2014, up two per cent last year.

It was a different story for those aged 21 to 24 and in their second year of apprenticeships – with 32 per cent earning below the NMW, down five per cent from two years earlier.

But for the 25+ age group in their second year of apprenticeships, the proportion was up from 23 to 31 per cent.

Non-compliant pay was more common among level two apprentices (20 per cent) than those on level three provision (16 per cent).

The report stressed that “when comparing compliance levels between 2014 and 2016, it is important to note that the lowest NMW rate for apprentices underwent a considerable increase between October 2013 and October 2015 (the rate applicable for the 2016 survey)” – from £2.68 to £3.30. This went up again to £3.50 an hour in April this year.

The new NLW rate came into force from April 2016, creating a new minimum £7.20 rate for all those aged 25 and over or in the second year of their apprenticeship or later.

It was also noted that although levels of non-compliance had increased since 2014, so too had the proportion paid over £9 an hour: 18 per cent last year compared with 15 per cent in 2014.

Commenting on these findings, Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said: “The survey clearly shows that if there is a long-term relationship between the apprentice and the employer, the apprentice will on average earn a salary well over the minimum wage.”  

But he stressed: “At the other end of the scale, there is absolutely no excuse for paying less than the legal minimum.”

Interim “high-level” results of the survey were released in October, as part of a report for the Low Pay Commission, the independent body that advises the government on minimum wage levels.

These indicated that the proportion of apprentices earning below the NMW had gone up, but months subsequently passed without a full report.

FE Week learned in April that the researchers who carried out the work handed a final draft of their report to the government way back in January.

Mark Winterbotham, the director of the firm which carried out the survey, told FE Week at the time that he didn’t know why it hadn’t yet been published.

He insisted his organisation had handed the final drafts of the reports over to the government in January, but admitted he had “not had any communication since early March” with the research team at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

The all-party parliamentary group on apprenticeships further recommended earlier this month, in its annual report, that pay for apprentices should be far more flexible, increasing in line with their experience and level of qualification.

It recommended that apprentices’ pay should be increased like this “to ensure that the apprentice route is attractive to as many people as possible”.

 

How World Youth Skills Day can help with social mobility

Inequality is a major problem for many 18- to 24-year-olds, but Neil Bentley believes WorldSkills UK can play a part in helping the disadvantaged move up in society

“Young people losing hope over life chances,” was the damning conclusion of the recent Social Mobility Barometer, which looked at public attitudes to social mobility in the UK. The report certainly makes for challenging reading for all of us interested in seeing young people succeed in work and life.

A poll of nearly 5,000 people across the UK, it revealed that nearly 48 per cent believe that where you end up in society today is mainly determined by your background and who your parents are. This is compared with only 32 per cent who believe everyone has a fair chance to get on regardless of their background.

In addition, the poll also reveals a geographical divide, with 71 per cent claiming that they feel that there are ‘fairly or very’ large differences in opportunity depending where you live in the UK.  

Clearly, we have a problem with social mobility in this country

However, what struck me most about the report was the feelings of social pessimism among young people. The barometer found that half of young people think the situation is getting worse, and only 30 per cent of 18- to 24-year-olds believe it is becoming easier to move up in society.

Clearly, we have got a problem with social mobility in this country, but I don’t want to lament the barometer’s findings because I’m not sure it takes us very far. The more interesting question, and the one we should all be focusing on, is how we can address the challenge.

Among the troubling data, there is more than just a glimmer of hope. While 18- to 24-year-olds are clearly very concerned about social mobility, the findings showed that they are actually the most optimistic that those from less advantaged backgrounds can get on in life.

I think that this greater sense of optimism is rooted in our younger generation’s innate ability to tackle a challenge and make the most of it. This was certainly shown at the recent turnout for the general election. The best estimates indicate that over 20 per cent more 18- to 24-year-olds voted than in 2015. This showed what those of us who have the privilege of working with young people already know to be true: they believe in and want to help shape a better future for all.

I certainly see this optimism when I meet members of Team UK and also young apprentices from around the world who are in training to represent their countries at WorldSkills Abu Dhabi 2017. Background is irrelevant when it comes to world-class competition and there really is a positive message when it comes to social mobility from these competitors.

Past and present members of Team UK are products of their local FE colleges, training providers and businesses across all industries. That in itself is a real statement about the ability of the UK’s education and training system to give our young people the start in life they deserve. But it is only half the story.

After they have finished their competition journey, members of Team UK continue to work with us visiting schools and businesses in their local communities. They are now hugely successful in their own right. Our skills champions include numerous entrepreneurs, key employees at well-known organisations and inspirational mentors. They have an important message to share: by investing in young people’s skills and building their confidence we can accelerate their progress in work and life.

That is also why, as a member of WorldSkills, WorldSkills UK, together with the 75 countries and regions that make up the international skills body, promoted ‘Skills for All’ on World Youth Skills Day on 15 July. This United Nations-designated day seeks to generate greater awareness of the importance of technical education and training in transforming the lives of young people around the world.

The members of Team UK are living proof of this.

Dr Neil Bentley is chief executive of WorldSkills UK

Exclusive: T-Level crisis exposed as DfE fail to appoint any advisory panel members

More trouble has erupted in T-Level planning, after it emerged that no-one has yet been appointed to the advisory development panels that should have met for the first time four months ago.

FE Week made a Freedom of Information request for the names of all the appointments made to these technical education panels, after the Department for Education repeatedly refused to say whether or not they had recruited to the paid positions.

In the response to the FoI request, a spokesperson said: “Following a search of the department’s paper and electronic records, I have established that we have yet to make appointments to the panels of professionals, so do not yet hold this information.

“We are currently reviewing proposals and expect to make appointments to the panels shortly.”

The DfE posted job adverts seeking industry professionals to serve as panel members or chairs back in January.

These were to serve on “panels of professionals” that would “develop occupational standards for new technical qualifications, as part of flagship reforms to England’s post-16-skills system”.

Panellists’ employers would be paid £1,000 a quarter, and the chairs’ employers would receive £2,000 a quarter.

According to the adverts, the DfE had been aiming to notify successful applicants “in the spring” of this year – and the first panels were expected to start work in March.

The front page of Edition 215 in June

But when FE Week asked for an update on the panels in June, as part of an investigation into whether T-level plans were in trouble, we were told that an announcement would be made “in due course”.

And when we asked again the following week – after education secretary Justine Greening urged businesses to get behind T-levels during a speech to the British Chambers of Commerce – we were told that further details were still unavailable.

Several major awarding bodies including City and Guilds have recently pleaded with the government to rethink the “impossible” T-level timetable, amid growing evidence that plans are already running behind schedule.

According to the skills plan published July 2016, and based on the recommendations from the Sainsbury review of technical education, the first two pathfinder routes are meant to be ready for teaching from September 2019.

But this depends on reaching a number of milestones on time, including setting up these panels of industry experts to help with the development of the new qualifications.

At the same time, the Institute for Apprenticeships is also establishing “prestigious employer-led groups” to help shape the future of the apprenticeship programme.

The names of the 15 chairs for the IfA panels were announced in April, while adverts for the panel members were posted in June.

Mark Dawe, the chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, last month branded the two separate sets of panels “a recipe for a lack of joined up decisions and inconsistent outcomes”.

Global STEM challenge exhibits at Formula 1 Live in London event

An international STEM competition for apprentices and young people, F1 in Schools, exhibited at the first-ever Formula 1 Live in London event last week.

The event brought together Formula 1 drivers, musicians and supercar fans, and was hosted in London’s Trafalgar Square.

F1 Live in London

Positioned in the ‘innovation showcase’ area of the event, F1 in Schools – which challenges young people to make their own Formula 1 cars – had former winners of the competition talking to interested youngsters about their experiences taking part.

The innovation showcase area aimed to promote opportunities available to children and young people interested in pursuing a future career in Formula 1, with engineering competition Formula Student and female engineer community, Dare to Be Different, also promoting their work.

Part of the F1 in Schools showcase also extended to the event’s ‘design and make’ area, where visitors were shown demonstrations of how the miniature cars used in the competition are designed, manufactured and wind tunnel tested.

The challenge, which is open to 11 to 18-year-olds, recently opened an apprentice category for UK competitors for 2017.

With regional, national and global heats, rewards for successful teams include tickets to the British Grand Prix, tours of the McClaren factory and scholarships and bursaries to some of the UKs top engineering universities.

Founder and chairman of F1 in Schools, Andrew Denford, said: “We never expected so many people to attend. There has been so much interest in what we do, how we’re involved with the sport and the opportunities that our students have to forge a career in Formula 1.

“The concept of F1 Live London was very ambitious, but it has been so well organised and given so many people the chance to experience Formula 1 and what goes on around it.”

Mystery surrounds late Learndirect performance breach

The nation’s largest FE provider has finally been hit with a serious performance breach notice, a month after its apprenticeship achievement rates plummeted below minimum standards.

But some in the sector are wondering why the notice did not appear earlier – or why it was only eventually included in the government’s notices of concern list on Friday.

The omission is particularly confusing because the issue date listed on the notice is March 14.

The provider giant’s apprenticeship achievement rate tumbled from 65.1 per cent in 2014/15 to just 57.8 per cent for the last academic year, according to national data released last month by the Education and Skills Funding Agency. This brought it below the minimum standards threshold of 62 per cent.

Commenting on this unusual delay, a spokesperson for the company said: “It is not appropriate for Learndirect to comment on a government publication.”

The DfE also declined to provide any comment.

The consequences of being issued a notice of serious breach can include a ban on recruiting new learners or applying for additional funding, according to the agency’s approach to intervention.

Learndirect was one of a number of providers to have fallen foul of recent changes in the way achievement rates are calculated, which led to a slew of notices of concern or serious breach sent to providers.

As previously reported by FE Week, 35 providers were hit with such notices in March for failing to meet minimum standards, according to an ESFA list published in April.

But Learndirect wasn’t among them – nor was it on the list when we reported on its falling achievement rates in June.

The reason for this delay is still unclear, although it could have been connected to firm’s reference number.

FE Week heard rumours back in June that the ESFA had formally informed Learndirect that it would be permitted to switch a new UK Provider Reference Number – which is now its only one on the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers.

Such a move would have allowed the provider, which had almost 200,000 learners at its most recent Ofsted report in 2013, in which it was rated ‘good’, to wipe the slate clean concerning low achievement rates.

However, both Learndirect and the ESFA have denied this had been allowed, just days before the backdated notice finally appeared on the list.

Two months before this, FE Week reported that Learndirect employees had been informed they were to be placed in a month-long consultancy period, facing potential job cuts.

A spokesperson told us at the time that this was because it was no longer going to offer GCSEs as part of its early-years courses.

But in June it emerged that up to one in 10 Learndirect staff could face redundancy as a result of a restructuring programme, initiated in response to “uncertainty relating to the outcome of the adult education budget procurement process, and a business decision to focus on levy-only apprenticeship delivery”, according to group chief executive Andy Palmer.

First degree apprentices in UK graduate

The first group of degree apprentices in the UK have graduated today, with seven out of the 11 gaining first class honours.

The Aston University learners were awarded bachelors of science degrees in digital and technology solutions, following three years of combined study and work with the global consulting, technology and outsourcing company Capgemini.

The other four all achieved second-class degrees.

Professor Ian Nabney, executive dean of the university’s School of Engineering and Applied Science, said: “Degree apprenticeships are a valuable option to applicants whose learning style is less suited to a traditional on-campus study route.

“The difference in delivery allows them to apply their learning in the workplace rather than the classroom. This offers those with the right skills and aptitudes a challenging but rewarding route to graduate-level jobs, while their academic achievement is recognised as being at the same high level as a traditionally earned degree.”

the skills and apprenticeships minister Anne Milton offered her own words of congratulation for the graduates’ graft.

“I am delighted,” she said. “The hard work and commitment involved is truly admirable and highlights the opportunities apprenticeships can bring.

“I hope this will encourage more people to consider a degree apprenticeship.”

Also recognised today at the ceremony was Sue Husband, director of the National Apprenticeship Service, who collected an honorary doctorate in science.

“I am absolutely delighted to attend the graduation of the first cohort of degree apprentices in the country, for what is a momentous occasion,” she said.

“Degree apprenticeships are a significant step forward, providing the opportunity to develop and nurture talented individuals, and are a key part of our apprenticeships reform programme.”

This good news will be welcomed by many involved with degree apprenticeships, which have endured a difficult time of late.

FE Week reported in June that many higher education leaders are issuing dire warnings about their very future.

The FE sector reacted in horror after the Education and Skills Funding Agency announced in April that it would pause the procurement process for providers delivering apprenticeships to smaller non-levy-paying employers, and would extend existing contracts instead.

It then emerged that many universities had been ruled out of delivering new degree-level apprenticeships to small employers from September, as they cannot be funded through the extended contracts.

It’s a situation that will risk the future growth of degree apprenticeships, according to Nicola Dandridge, the chief executive of Universities UK, the representative body for higher education leaders.

“Employers want degree apprentices to address key skills needs and to drive growth,” she said, adding that “any region that has many non-levy-paying employers, such as the south-west, will see very few degree apprenticeships supported from this procurement, regardless of employer demand or local enterprise partnership strategy”.

The problem arose because non-levy allocations for providers’ existing contracts were worked out on the basis of their previous delivery, a situation which will apply for the eight months between May to December this year.

As most degree apprenticeships are new programmes starting in September, they cannot be funded by existing contracts.

The pause has therefore meant that these new degree apprenticeships can only be funded through levy-paying large employers until December at least.

Five HE institutions – many of them modern universities, those that won their status after 1992 – and 20 FE colleges received funding through phase one of the Higher Education Funding Council for England’s degree apprenticeship development fund.

The cash, which totalled £4.5 million across 18 projects, was awarded in November with the specific aim of developing “new provision to support up to 5,200 new degree apprenticeships” from this autumn.

But Alan Palmer, head of policy and research at Million Plus, which represents modern universities, said the procurement pause puts  this commitment “at risk”.

 

Main image caption: James Gee, one of the Gapgemini degree apprentices

Almost 400 staff face uncertain summer through post-merger job cuts plan

Nearly 400 staff at one of the largest colleges in the country face an uncertain future while post-merger restructuring gets underway, a union has claimed.

Nottingham College, a new body formed formed between New College Nottingham and Central College Nottingham, which finally merged on June 8 after a 10-month delay, is currently consulting on a restructure over the summer while staff are on holiday.

The college’s chief executive, John van de Laarschot, admitted that merging two organisations is “never easy and rarely painless” but insisted the restructure was an “important and necessary step”.

“Staff have been aware for a while about the need for the college to merge structures, systems and processes in order to drive efficiency, remove duplication and respond to changing market forces,” he told FE Week.

“We have worked hard to propose a well thought-through structure for Nottingham College that meets the needs and expectations of our staff, our students, our partners and our employer community, and which, where possible, provides new opportunities for staff.”

As part of the plans, the college has admitted that at least 153 jobs will be lost in its bid to remove “duplicate posts” that are currently in place as a result of the merger.

John van de Laarschot

The University and College Union has claimed that this commitment will leave 378 staff in the running to lose their jobs and facing an uncertain summer.

In turn, the college said that the new structure would create 122 new jobs, but it is not yet known what types of posts these will be.

Some existing staff might be redeployed into the newly created roles, but voluntary redundancy will be offered to those who wish to leave the organisation.

UCU argues that many of the new posts could see staff downgraded and left with worse terms and conditions.

Nottingham College has told FE Week that compulsory redundancies could also play a part in the restructure.

Sue Davis, a regional official for the union, has accused the college of leaving staff in the dark by failing to publish full details of the proposed new structure.

“The whole restructure process is being rushed through without proper time for consultation,” she said.

“We are deeply concerned that the job cuts will lead to fewer opportunities and less support for local people to get the skills they need.”

UCU said that while its own consultation on voluntary redundancy closes on July 24, many of the job descriptions for new posts are still unavailable for staff to consider.

The timing of the college’s consultation, over the holiday period just weeks after the official merger which formed it, has also been criticised.

The union has now called on the college to halt the restructure process.

Ms Davis said: “Many staff are now being asked to make decisions about their future without appropriate information, while others face the choice of losing their job or accepting a new contract which leaves them with lower pay, and worse terms and conditions.

“Trying to rush through a consultation over the summer period makes meaningful engagement extremely difficult and is leaving hundreds of staff in limbo about their future.”

FE Week reported in May last year that Mr van de Laarschot, a former chief executive of Stoke-on-Trent city council, who had reportedly received a £230,000 pay-off for his own voluntary redundancy from the local authority just six months previously, had been appointed to lead the two merging colleges.

New College Nottingham was rated ‘good’ by Ofsted in January, and Central College Nottingham also received a grade two during the previous January.

With an estimated annual turnover of over £80 million, Nottingham College expects to employ 1,500 staff after the restructure and support up to 40,000 full- and part-time students into employment, higher-level apprenticeships or degree courses.

Statistics regulator pressured DfE into achievement rate U-turn

The government was pressured into its major U-turn on the publication of hidden achievement rate data in the wake of FE Week reporting, the national statistics regulation boss has revealed.  

The Department for Education last month released 2015/16 National Achievement Rate Tables for individual providers, a few months after it closed several significant “loopholes”, causing significant achievement-rate drops.

However, it refused at first to provide comparable figures for previous years, prompting many in the sector to accuse it of a cover-up.

Now, a letter written by Ed Humpherson, the director-general for regulation at the UK Statistics Authority, has revealed that his team effectively leaned on the DfE, apparently after reading FE Week’s reports on the scandal, before it finally agreed to publish the figures on July 27.

His letter, which refers to our first story from last month, explains that the UKSA decided that “not providing comparable data for individual providers means that users cannot make comparisons to previous years”.

“We have contacted DfE and discussed the provision of this data,” he wrote. “DfE recognised the need to provide historic individual provider-level data using the new methods.”

Ed Humpherson’

The letter, written to FE Week, then recognised that “since that discussion, DfE has published advice on its website on the appropriate use of historic data when making comparisons over time”.

“It has also made a commitment to publish the back series under the new method.”

NARTs, which cover apprenticeships, education and training, are published annually, though in recent years releases have been subject to delays.

Figures for courses ending no later than July 31 the previous year are typically published in March, but were delayed several times this year, for example by the general election purdah period.

Despite failing to publish the revised figures for 2014/15 back in June, DfE statisticians did admit that when the data was recalculated to remove the loopholes, some providers saw their achievement rates for that year fall by over 20 percentage points.

This prompted Jonathan Portes, an independent expert in government statistics and a professor of economics and public policy at Kings College London, to call for an investigation into this failure to be forthcoming with the necessary data, a situation he described as “incomprehensible”.

FE Week eventually requested the missing data via a Freedom of Information request submitted to the DfE.

A week later, the Department caved and announced it would now be assessing how how to publish extra information that “allows for some comparability at provider level” for earlier years based on 2015 to 2016 methodology.

We received our response to the FoI 20 working days after the request – and though it did not provide the requested data, it said it would be made public on July 27, as exclusively revealed by FE Week.

“The department intends to publish the information as additional information to the ‘national achievement rates tables transparency data 2013 to 2014 and 2014 to 2015’ publication on July 27, 2017,” explained the statement.