Reforms to prison education seem to be back on hold, as existing offender learning contracts are being extended for another year, FE Week has learned.
Currently, the offender learning and skills service (OLASS) is delivered by three colleges and one independent learning provider, whose contracts are managed by central government.
This state of affairs had been due to change in August, when prison governors were to have been granted powers to hire their own education providers.
However, according to Dr Paul Phillips, the principal of Weston College, which holds the OLASS contract for south-west England, these reforms have been tabled until at least 2018.
Dr Phillips told FE Week that HM’s Prison and Probation Service had informed him “that the existing OLASS contracts are to be extended for a further year from August 2017 to end July 2018”.
While this is “subject to formal post-election confirmation from the Cabinet Office and the Treasury”, Dr Phillips said, “the usual annual business planning process is underway”.
Putting in place a new system for prison education cannot be done in a hurry
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice, which manages the contracts, would not however confirm the extension.
“We are currently in discussions on the arrangements for academic year 2017-18,” said a spokesperson.
The plan to hand over control of education to prison governors was first set out by Dame Sally Coates (pictured) in her influential review of prison education, published in May 2016.
Prison governors, she wrote, should “have the freedom to design the right curriculum and choose the delivery arrangement that best meets the rehabilitation needs of the individuals for whom they are responsible”.
She recommended extending the existing OLASS contracts – which were due to expire in July 2016 – for one more year until July 2017, after which she expected “we will move to all governors having full freedoms over the choice of education providers for their prisons”.
Dame Sally’s recommendations were accepted “in principle” at the time by the MoJ, which said that “implementation plans will now be drawn up”.
The reforms even got a mention in the Queen’s Speech last May.
She said at the time: “Prison governors will be given unprecedented freedom and they will be able to ensure prisoners receive better education.”
They were not mentioned in this year’s Queen’s Speech, on June 21, in which the only nod to FE was a mention of “major reform of technical education”.
Nina Champion, head of policy at the Prisoners’ Education Trust, which works to support learning by people in prison, has now urged David Lidington, the new justice secretary, to “make progress in implementing Sally Coates’ recommendations”.
But she warned that putting in place a new system for prison education “cannot be done in a hurry”.
“There are many charities, organisations and employers who can play a vital role in improving the quality of prison education as well as offering opportunities for learning, training and employment after release, but only if the commissioning process is designed well to enable this to happen in practice,” she said.
The OLASS system was first rolled out across the country in 2006 and the fourth round of contracts were agreed in August 2012.
The process was managed by the Skills Funding Agency until October 2016, when responsibility was handed over to the MoJ.
The four current contract-holders are Manchester College, Milton Keynes College and People Plus, formerly known as A4E, along with Weston College.
Manchester College delivers prison education in five regions: London, the north-east, north-west, Kent and Sussex, and Yorkshire and the Humber.
The east Midlands, west Midlands and south central are covered by Milton Keynes College, while People Plus holds the contract for the east of England.
All three providers declined FE Week’s request for a comment on the contract extension.
The nation’s largest FE provider has been badly shaken by the changes in the way achievement rates are calculated, recording a 7.3 per cent drop that puts it below the government’s minimum standards.
Learndirect’s achievement rate tumbled from 65.1 per cent in 2014/15 to just 57.8 per cent last academic year, according to national data released by the Department for Education on June 15.
This brings it below the minimum standards threshold of 62 per cent, and should mean it will no longer be allowed to deliver apprenticeships until it improves.
But in spite of its poor performance, Learndirect has still not been issued with a notice of concern for failing to meet the minimum standard – even though it is 4.2 points below the threshold.
“We don’t make comments on individual companies, but the list of our notices of concern is regularly updated by the ESFA and will continue to be regularly updated,” said a spokesperson for the Education and Skills Funding Agency.
Learndirect is a giant in the sector, with almost 200,000 learners logged in its latest available Ofsted report from 2013, but it has had a rocky time in recent months.
In May, FE Week reported that Learndirect employees had been informed that they were being placed in a month-long consultancy period.
A concerned staff member contacted us to claim that they and their colleagues had been given the news via a “script” delivered in a conference call, and were “expecting to lose [their] jobs in the next month or two”.
FE Week asked Learndirect on the potential for job losses and where cuts were needed.
“As a business we have offered GCSEs as part of our early-years offer,” said a spokesperson.
“There has been a significant lobby to have mandatory GCSE requirements removed from the level three apprenticeship framework, with employers favouring the acceptance of functional skills qualifications.
“As a result, we have decided to remove the GCSE offer from the Learndirect portfolio, while looking at our customers’ ongoing requirements for functional skills.
“Sadly this may mean some colleagues will leave Learndirect.”
The National Achievement Rate Tables for 2015/16 showed significant declines in apprenticeships performance for a number of providers – a drop which may have been caused by the DfE closing “loopholes” in the way the data is collected.
FE Week’s analysis of the latest figures identified 18 providers whose apprenticeship achievement rates had fallen by 30 points or more between 2014/15 and 2015/16.
The biggest drop was by 71.3 points, and half of those providers registering a decline are at the moment rated ‘good’ by Ofsted.
It is believed that many results will have been affected by the DfE’s decision in February to revise achievement rate figures, which it took in an effort to ensure any learners who disappeared or who did not have a completion status for their course were definitely recorded as a ‘fail’.
Previous uncertainty over such learners had been artificially inflating achievement rates for around 10 per cent of providers.
Now the latest adjusted data is in the public domain, FE Week asked Ofsted whether it would be suspending grades for these providers, in order to do a full investigation into the falling achievement rates.
We also asked how the watchdog intends to protect the sector’s confidence in its inspection process without this kind of scrutiny.
Ofsted didn’t answer the questions directly, but did issue a simple statement.
“Ofsted can inspect any apprenticeship provider where there are concerns, including declining performance data.
“This also applies to ‘outstanding’ providers. Ofsted’s risk assessment process takes into account all publicly available data and other intelligence and we keep this under review.”
Ofsted’s chief inspector has reiterated the “real challenge” faced by the education watchdog following the influx of new training providers who deliver apprenticeships.
Amanda Spielman described the issue as a “big problem” during an interview with Laura McInerney, the editor of FE Week’s sister paper FE Week, at the Festival of Education and Skills today.
But she also revealed that she doesn’t expect the inspectorate to need more resource to deal with the issue, saying she will retain the same number of employees to work in the post-16 system.
After being asked how the inspectorate is coping with the new providers, Ms Spielman said: “First of all my expectation is that some of those will never actually translate into actual provision.
“But as you can imagine it is something that we have got live discussions with government about to make sure that we have [enough resource] and understand where the apprentices are actually being trained to make sure we prioritise the places where there are significant numbers.”
She went on to say that FE Week editor, Nick Linford, has “picked us [Ofsted] up in the past” for inspecting small providers, “but the way the data is held in the system can make it remarkably difficult to be sure that we are going to the places where big numbers are being trained,” she added.
“So there is a real challenge. We have got some unpredictable movements in where the apprentices are over the next couple of years so we will be doing our best to make sure that we track and put our inspection resource into the right places.”
Ms McInerney then asked if as a result of the scale of these new providers, there is a risk that money or staff will have to come over from Ofsted school inspectors to deal with the influx, or if the inspectorate would get more resource to deal with the issue separately.
“Well there are the same number of bodies in the post-16 system so in the first instance it is thinking about how to allocate it to make sure we are putting the effort where people are,” Ms Spielman said.
Amanda Spielman describing the ‘real challenge’ faced by RoATP
Ms McInerney pressed the chief inspector to clarify whether this meant any more resource would be needed, but she replied: “I’m not making any assumptions in the current environment about resources.”
A council-run adult and community learning provider has managed to shake off its previous inadequate rating this week, going up to a grade three.
And a college boosted its rating from requires improvement to good across the board, in the week’s other main highlight.
Leaders at Wakefield Metropolitan District Council’s adult and community learning service were praised by inspectors for having “taken effective steps to re-shape the adult curriculum to support local and national priorities” since its previous inspection in November 2015, which resulted in an inadequate grade.
The latest report into the service, published June 21 but based on an inspection in March, found that “most learners are making good progress” but that “apprentices make slow progress because they do not have challenging targets to work towards”.
Management of the council’s apprenticeship programme was also deemed “weak”.
Milton Keynes College received a grade two across the board – up from its previous grade three – in a report published June 22 and based on a May inspection.
College leaders were lauded for making “rapid progress in building a culture of continual improvement with determination”, with the result that “staff across the college are enthusiastic and apply the improvement strategies effectively to their work”.
Inspectors found that “most students make good progress” as a result of extensive investment in “improving the standards of teaching and learning”.
Apprentices also “make good progress”, “gain valuable skills” and complete their courses on time, the report noted.
But the outcomes for other colleges were less positive this week.
Carshalton College fell to grade three from its previous ‘good’ rating, in a report published June 19 and based on an inspection in early May.
Inspectors noted that achievement rates on many college courses, “particularly GCSE English and mathematics” were “too low”.
College managers were also criticised as they “do not involve employers enough in the design, delivery or assessment of work-based apprenticeships”.
But the report also noted: “Managers help ensure that the college provides high-quality provision for learners with high needs.”
Guildford College retained the ‘requires improvement’ rating it was first awarded in June 2015, in a report published June 20 and based on an inspection in early May.
The “quality of teaching, learning and assessment” was found to be in need of improvement, while the proportion of learners achieving their qualifications was “too low”.
But the report noted that: “Governors and senior leaders now have an accurate understanding of college performance, are able to identify strengths and weaknesses and have clear and realistic plans to secure the improvements required.”
Meanwhile, independent learning provider The Consultancy Home Counties Limited boosted its grade up to ‘good’ from its previous ‘requires improvement’, in a report published June 22 but based on an inspection in late April.
Inspectors praised the Hertfordshire-based provider for having “worked assiduously” to improve provision since the previous inspection, in May 2015.
“Leaders have a passionate and realistic vision which transforms the lives of young people, many from disadvantaged backgrounds,” the report said.
Two adult and community learning providers held onto their ‘good’ ratings following full inspections this week.
Apprentices at Rathbone Training make “good progress” and develop “good vocational and employability skills”, according to a report published June 23 and based on an inspection in mid-May.
Leaders at the provider, which is part of the Newcastle College Group, were also commended for having “nurtured highly effective relationships with many small- and medium-sized local enterprises, local enterprise partnerships, and large organisations nationally to provide education and training to meet sector skill priorities”.
Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council’s “good range of programmes and opportunities” was found to “successfully attract and engage learners facing the greatest challenges”, in a report published June 21 and based on an inspection in late May.
Inspectors noted that “support to ensure that all learners succeed is very effective”, and the “large majority of current learners are making good progress in their learning”.
Gateway Sixth Form College was found to be making reasonable progress in five areas, and significant progress in one area, in a monitoring visit report published June 22 – the second such visit since its inadequate rating in October 2016.
Just one provider held onto its good rating following a short inspection this week – adult and community learning provider Alliance Learning.
Providers have blamed “data glitches” for their absence from the latest national achievement rate tables.
The five colleges and one provider that make up Newcastle College Group are all absent from the 2015/16 tables published on June 15, as well as Croydon College and Middlesbrough council.
The six NCG members were supposed to have their achievement statistics published individually as part of a pilot project with the Education and Skills Funding Agency, but IT hiccups meant their fields were left completely blank.
NCG claimed that “glitches” had led to the information being “redacted”.
A spokesperson for the group told FE Week that it had been “working for the past year on a pilot project with the ESFA” to publish the data at an individual level.
“As part of the project, all the NCG colleges now have their own UKPRN and separate funding schedules, with an aim of enabling data to be published at individual college level,” she said.
“This has resulted in some temporary glitches in the data, which will be resolved in time for 2016/17 publication of achievement rates.
“The ESFA therefore felt it would be an unfair reflection of NCG achievements and made the decision to redact some of the data for 2015/16 publication.”
She added that the five colleges and the training provider division Intraining which make up NCG “have all been inspected in the last 12 months and all have been rated Ofsted Grade two”.
The five colleges in question are Kidderminster College, Newcastle Colleges, Newcastle Sixth Form Group, West Lancashire College and Carlisle College.
Data from Croydon College was also absent from the tables.
The college agreed with the ESFA that our 2015/16 achievement rates should not be published as a consequence of the error
A spokesperson for the college, which has an Ofsted ‘good’ rating dating back to 2014, said it had moved to a new student records system in 2015/16 but that “in the transfer apprenticeship achievement was incorrectly reported”.
“The error was caused by the way the new record system coded some of the apprentices transferring from the old record system,” he said.
After the problem was identified the college worked with the ESFA to “identify the impact of the error on our achievement rates for 2015/16 and to rectify the error”.
“The college agreed with the ESFA that our 2015/2016 achievement rates should not be published as a consequence of the error.”
The error has apparently now been fixed, and would not affect future years’ achievement rates.
Achievement rates from Middlesbrough council’s adult and community learning service were also missing.
A spokesperson explained that in mid-2015/16, the learning service had merged the data from two management information systems into one.
When the service received its interim results in December 2016, “it quickly became obvious that all apprenticeships and study programme learners had been counted twice, which impacted on the cohort size and more importantly for us on the success rate”.
“Quite simply, one learner record was open-ended with no completion and one had the completion – two records per learner,” he said – a problem he attributed to the different systems having a different unique number for each learner.
“After many conversations with the SFA data team and pursuing the complaints route we jointly came to an agreement that the Middlesbrough data would not be published for the 15/16 year.”
A spokesperson for Ofsted said that the inspectorate “does have access to 2015/16 performance data for NCG, Croydon College and Middlesbrough.
This data includes a qualification achievement rate report for all three providers and a level 3 performance report for NCG and Croydon College.”
Many colleges aren’t managing to fulfil their legal duties to publish 16-to-18 performance data – apparently because they don’t know they’re required to.
The Department for Education decreed last year that, from March 2017, all providers – including colleges and sixth form colleges – had to publish five new ‘headline accountability measures’ on their websites.
Colleges, however, don’t seem to have got the memo.
When FE Week checked the sites of the 20 biggest general FE colleges this week, we couldn’t find the data anywhere.
We discussed our findings with the Association of Colleges, and its director of education policy David Corke implied in his response that colleges were unaware of the new rule.
Including these five indicators in isolation … would not provide a meaningful summary of performance
“We will be working with colleges and DfE to ensure colleges provide the information needed,” he said.
DfE guidance for all 16-to-18 providers was first issued in June 2016, and outlines the five performance measures they must publish.
These include “the progress your students have made compared with students across the country” and attainment, shown by “the average grade your students get at key stage five” – both broken down by qualification type.
Providers must also set out the progress made by learners without at least a GSCE grade C in English and maths in these subjects.
The two other measures concern retention – the “proportion of students who get to the end of the main programme of study that they enrolled on at your institution”, broken down by qualification type – and destinations, which means the “percentage of students who continue in education of training, or who move on to employment”.
The measures were introduced for the first time in this year’s 16-to-18 performance tables as a way for colleges to assess how well they were doing – and also to compare the performance of different providers.
Colleges must also publish a link to the full performance tables for all providers.
James Kewin
This year’s performance tables were issued in January, but did not include all the data until March – which is when the requirement to publish the information came into force.
James Kewin, deputy chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges’ Association, inadvertently demonstrated the scale of confusion: he himself had been under the impression that the rule was for guidance only, rather than mandatory.
“Including these five indicators in isolation on a school or college website, without reference to the context of the local area, or comparisons with other providers, would not provide a meaningful summary of performance,” he said.
“Ultimately our members are best placed to present this data in a format that parents and students can easily understand.”
The DfE does not appear to be about to sanction providers for non-compliance; in fact, it appears at this stage to be focusing on spreading the word.
“It is the first year that colleges have been required to publish this data on their websites,” a spokesperson said. “We will continue to work with the sector to increase its knowledge and understanding of what it must publish.”
A major training provider claiming to have £130m of apprenticeship levy business has had its contract with the ESFA terminated, after an FE Week investigation found that one of its employees had been offering banned inducement payments to an employer.
Talent Training, based in South Tyneside, was caught offering cash amounting to as much as 20 per cent of government funding per apprenticeship directly to a firm considering whether to engage their services for training.
The money it claimed from the Education and Skills Funding Agency was meant solely for the purposes of training and assessing apprentices, but it was offering through an intermediary to hand as much as £200 in every £1,000 back the employer in question as a kickback.
The provider, which has now launched an internal investigation into the matter, appeared to try to circumvent strict government rules put in place explicitly to ban the practice.
FE Week was contacted by a whistleblowing employer, and secretly sat in on and recorded a phone call with a Talent employee during which the offer of an inducement was made.
We subsequently sent the information to Keith Smith, the director of funding and programmes at the ESFA.
The ESFA investigated, and a spokesperson told FE Week that “it is unacceptable for any training provider to abuse the system by offering employers cash incentives from the apprenticeship levy”.
He continued: “The ESFA has reviewed the information and taken action to protect the interests of learners and employers, by serving notice to terminate the levy agreement for Talent Training.
The ESFA has reviewed the information and taken action, by serving notice to terminate the levy agreement
“The ESFA is taking immediate steps to contact levy employers that have made a commitment with this provider.”
However, any non-levy apprenticeship contracts with Talent “have not been terminated”, he confirmed, adding: “As we have now served notice to terminate, we are unable to comment further on this specific matter during this time.”
This tough line has been backed by Association of Employment and Learning Providers’ boss Mark Dawe, who said: “The ESFA has been very clear that funding and taxpayers’ money should never be handed back to the employer in any form of unauthorised rebate or kickback, outside of the approved government incentive payments.
“Ultimately, anyone who is found to have broken or manipulated the rules should be held to account and dealt with appropriately by the ESFA.
“This appears to be the case in this instance, and it should send out a strong message to all providers and employers that abusing the system will not be tolerated.”
FE Week launched its investigation into Talent, which has insisted that no inducement payments have actually been paid to any employers, after we were approached by a concerned employer that asked not to be identified.
We were shown an email (below) sent in March from Barry Waller, then national business development manager for Talent Training.
It said: “Just to make you aware, we offer a financial incentive to employers of around 20 per cent of their levy spends, if partnered with Talent Training. Based on your levy bill, this could be a good financial draw down if chose to work with TT?”
Another email was sent to the employer a day later, offering to “go further into the rebates and revenue generation aspects of our models in further detail”.
Intrigued, FE Week arranged to listen in – and secretly record – a telephone conversation between the employer and the Talent employee.
During this conversation, the employer was told that when using levy-funding, it would be paid 15 per cent of the price in cash, and that with some firms, Talent went as high as 20 per cent. When the levy pot was empty, Talent would switch to the co-investment model, and the employer would pay 10 per cent, though it would then be given this back in full.
Our anonymous employer then asked whether a co-investment employer would get both the 15 per cent back on top of the 10-per-cent co-investment refund.
It should send out a strong message that abusing the system will not be tolerated
The Talent executive replied: “Yes, exactly that”.
They continued: “There’s no reason why you can’t have a project which potentially could be worth £1 million, which is your levy.
“But you could have a £4 million apprenticeship campaign or apprenticeship programme, and you would get 15 per cent on the £4 million, but your levy is only £1 million, and you wouldn’t pay your 10 per cent on the additional £3 million, because we would reimburse that.”
The employer later emailed Talent to ask whether revised ESFA funding rules – published after the telephone conversation – would alter the arrangement.
The same Talent employee replied, with a senior employee copied in, that this was “nothing that would change our model or process”.
The ESFA revised its funding rules in March, specifically to ban inducements like this, which were increasingly rife across the sector.
“We have been made aware of some emerging delivery models that are contrary to the policy intent,” it said on March 1. “For example, some providers are offering incentives for employers by paying or refunding them for certain aspects.”
Two weeks later, the agency made the following announcement: “We have strengthened the rules to prohibit the payment of incentives, inducements by providers or refunds of co-investment of any kind.”
Then on March 20, provider funding rules were updated.
“You must not pay incentives or inducements or any other payment not authorised by us to the employer, in relation to any part of the apprenticeship programme,” they said.
Talent initially denied that it had done anything wrong, but after being presented with FE Week’s findings, a spokesperson conceded it had been “greatly concerned by these claims and conducted urgent enquiries”.
It indicated that any rule-breaking appeared to have been done by a single “rogue, junior employee”– who had now been suspended.
FE Week pointed out that a senior employee of the firm had been copied into relevant emails that outlined inducements. Talent’s spokesperson insisted that said this person “did not necessarily take note” of these emails.
The spokesperson added: “No contracts have been entered into with any employer based on the employee’s alleged activities and no inducement payments have been, nor will be, paid by Talent to any employer as claimed.”
David Harper, chairman of Talent Training, which has over 200 staff, then admitted he was “shocked to hear that alleged offers may have been made in order to win business”.
Mr Waller said this when speaking to the potential customer:
“The xxxxxxxxxx project is four times the amount of their levy, because the money that they’re going to generate is, you know, very substantial.
“There’s no reason why you can’t have a project which potentially could be worth £1m, which is your levy, but you could have a £4m apprenticeship campaign or apprenticeship programme, and you would get 15% on the £4m, but your levy is only £1m, and you wouldn’t pay your 10% on the additional £3m because we would reimburse that.
“We’ve got a lot of recruitment companies where… and we’re doing stuff to really help them… I mean, they’re not going to be in our main portfolio of clients… but in terms of local support, you’ve got a lot of recruitment companies who potentially have got a relatively small levy, but they’re kind of going full hog in terms of the development, in terms of upskilling their staff in whether it be recruitment or sales or customer service, or customer experience qualifications, because they’re not paying for them. They are generating a commercial return on each of the qualifications on a monthly basis. It’s great cash flow!”
The statement: Talent Training in its own words
After being presented with FE Week’s investigation findings, David Harper, chairman of Talent Training, said: “I was shocked to hear that alleged offers may have been made in order to win business.
“We are investigating but can confirm these incentives would be against all our business principles and would not make it through our governance processes.
David Harper LinkedIN page
“We are taking all steps necessary to safeguard the interests of our clients, the good name of the levy funded apprentice programme, the regulatory authorities and our third party delivery partners.”
He added: “We are confident that no inducement payments have been paid to any employers.
“We are also sure our new levy -funded apprentice business model, Talent’s first class reputation, and most importantly the integrity of our team, will be vindicated when our enquiry is completed.
“Talent also wishes to thank our many clients who have urgently contacted us to express their continued support.”
The ESFA should be applauded for taking swift and tough action against Talent Training.
I expect this story and the associated concerns will be a hot topic at the upcoming AELP conference, but to be clear there can be no grey areas over how levy money should be spent.
It must all be used for training and assessment of the apprentice it’s linked to, and any attempts to hive off cash through employer inducements has to be cracked down on.
The National Audit Office has already warned it is worried the reformed apprenticeship system is wide open to abuse.
Our investigation, which I’m extremely proud of, exposed one such attempt at foul play – involving a major independent provider that previously had a good relationship with the government.
Let’s hope that lessons are learned through the internal investigation Talent is now carrying out.
The government and the sector as a whole must be on our guard. The new apprenticeships system, which has benefitted from a huge amount of welcome publicity and support from ministers, will be fatally undermined if the NAO finds widespread malpractice in the coming months.
The leader of Trafford Council, Sean Anstee, has been appointed as Greater Manchester’s lead for skills, employment and apprenticeships.
He will oversee plans to secure apprenticeships with better pay and career progression opportunities, and implement a university style application system.
He will also be responsible for upskilling local people and supporting the creation of jobs in the local area.
Mr Anstee has been leader of Trafford council for the past nine years, previously holding roles as the vice-president of the Bank of New York Mellon and relationships manager at the Royal Bank of Scotland.
“We need to give our young people a clear path to an apprenticeship and provide opportunities for them to set up a business or enter higher education,” he said. “Everyone must have the chance to gain new skills so they can get on in life.
“I’ll work with colleges, employers and people in every part of Greater Manchester to make sure our people have the right skills to get a good job and succeed.”
Andy Burnham, Manchester’s mayor, added: “If we are to ensure everyone in Greater Manchester has the chance to get on in life then skills, employment and apprenticeships need to be at the heart of our plans.”
Ashley Rose has been appointed the new centre manager at North Shropshire College’s Shipley campus in the West Midlands.
The campus, in Wolverhampton, offers a range of courses, from part-time floristry to its most popular full-time course, animal management, and houses over 50 different species of animals.
Mr Rose joins the campus as it looks to extend the qualifications it offers, including basic IT courses at times that suit people with family commitments.
He will be working closely with business development manager Jo White to build existing relationships with local businesses, as well as cultivating new ones.
“The Shipley campus is a fantastic venue with great facilities which is small and friendly and offers students of all ages a perfect learning environment, which is different to that of a bigger college,” he said.
“We want to offer new courses in terms of qualifications and leisure courses and we want the local community to support us in achieving this.”
The former principal of Salford City College, Martin Sim, has been appointed interim principal at Gateway Sixth Form College.
His appointment at the Leicester college follows the retirement of current principal Suzanne Overton-Edwards, after almost seven years at the helm.
Mr Sim, who led Salford City College to an Ofsted rating of ‘good’ during his tenure, will take up the role at Gateway College for an initial period of 12 months.
“Having started my career in a sixth-form college over 35 years ago, the invitation to return to the sixth-form sector and lead Gateway College was a fantastic opportunity,” he said.
“I cannot speak too highly of the staff, learners and governors here at Gateway and their determination to provide quality provision for the young people of Leicester.”
John Kirk, chair of the board of governors at the college, explained: “Martin impressed us with his passion for realising the potential in our staff and students and a desire to restore our ‘good’ rating at the earliest opportunity.”
If you want to let us know of any new faces at the top of your college, training provider or awarding organisation please let us know by emailing news@feweek.co.uk
An art student unveiled a pair of giant knitting needles as her submission to Wiltshire College’s end-of-year exhibition and used them to attempt Guinness world record, reports Samantha King
Betsy Bond, a level three art and design student brought out two giant knitting needles – 4.4m long and 9cm wide – at her college’s creative exhibition, which showcased work from courses such as creative media production, games development and music.
The 30-year-old student made the needles herself from drainage pipe filled with expanding foam, and transported them from her home to the college’s Chippenham campus on a trailer.
The point of the needle and stopper were then made at the college, using a 3D printer.
With the needles, she hopes to break the world record for the world’s largest working knitting needles, which currently stands at 3.98m long with a diameter of 8.25cm, and was set by Jim Bolin from the US in May 2013.
“I decided to go for the record as when I found out what it was, I believed I could beat it. I wanted to achieve rather than just aspire,” she said.
“Bringing all the components together, finding materials, methods and getting aesthetics right, took a lot of talking to the right people, research and imagination.”
As part of the record attempt, Betsy did a demonstration of large-scale knitting to the crowd, producing 85 stitches with 16kg of Stockinette – a stretchy fabric often used for bandages.
The mayor of Chippenham, councillor Mary Norton, was on hand to act as a witness to the record attempt.
She said: “I was thrilled to be invited but really couldn’t picture in my head what giant knitting would be or look like.
I was even more shocked when I saw just how big the needles were, and have nothing but admiration for Betsy and all her hard work. She is an exceptionally talented young lady.”
It was in 2010 that Betsy first came across giant knitting, having been initially taught regular knitting by her mum Gillian when she was a child.
“I found out about giant knitting and how projects grew very quickly, which appealed to my impatient nature,” she said.
Betsy, centre, with Mayor of Chippenham, right
“I started to knit in public places and it always struck up lots of conversation with strangers – some just curious and others wanting to have a go – which I love. Knitting has connected humans for centuries through practical applications and recreation.
“Through creating what I hope are the world’s largest knitting needles I can communicate more, create conversation, share and pass on traditional skills.”
Until she decided to break the record, the largest knitting needles Betsy had used were 60cm long with a 4cm diameter.
Betsy – who returned to college to pursue art having previously worked in hospitality – has now submitted evidence of her attempt to the Guinness Book of Records, and is awaiting the official verdict.
