Latest news from FE Week | FE Week

What’s the best way to measure board effectiveness?

Dr Sue, director of policy and external relations at Holex, answers your questions, backed by her experience as principal of Canterbury College and in senior civil service posts in education and skills.

Question One: Are we an effective board?

We are about to evaluate our effectiveness as a board. I am aware of the proformas available, but are there key questions we can ask, to help cut through what can otherwise feel like a bureaucratic exercise?

Answer: I know what you mean about board performance exercises; they can get very mechanistic. The Code of Good Governance for Colleges was about governance values as much as rules, but sometimes that is lost. Demonstrating good governance is coterminous with college performance, so here are my key questions for determining whether a governing body is effective:

Was the agreed vision and plan implemented, and did the college meet your key targets of student recruitment, retention and achievement? How do you know?
Did you meet your financial forecast?
Were there surprises? Were divergences from the plan brought to your attention and mitigation agreed?
Do board meetings have a balance of support and challenge? When challenged do you get constructive, informative answers or is the behaviour defensive?
Can governors give five examples of where the board had impact?
Do board members leave a meeting feeling they have contributed to the discussion; are their views sought by the chair and does the executive react in a positive manner?
Does the board seek the views of students and staff and does the board act on them?
Do you correlate what you hear in meetings first-hand with visits and meetings with staff, stakeholders and students?
What does Ofsted say about the board?
What does the community you work in say about the governors and the college?

Question Two: Monitoring our HE provision

We a have a lot of HE students, some funded direct from loans and others in partnership with two universities. The universities monitor student experience and course performance but should we take an active interest?

Answer: Yes, is the simple answer. For those that are directly funded, you should have challenge and scrutiny processes and a robust system for reviewing the student experience. Your college may have taken part in the new HEFCE run Teaching Excellence Framework pilot, and if so would have just been told whether it was awarded with a bronze, silver or gold. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education sets out the quality code, and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator how they deal with student complaints.

Induction weaknesses often result in early drop-out

For students enrolled as part of a partnership agreement, you should revisit your agreement with the universities and review your responsibilities. Some universities expect you to conform to their quality policies and processes; others may be satisfied for you to continue with your own. However, either way, the university is ultimately responsible for the quality of the partnership students.

You should also be briefed on the role of Office for Students. This new public body will be the market regulator in place of the HEFC and the Office for Fair Access.

The areas you should consider are enrolment and retention: induction weaknesses often result in early drop-out. You should regularly review the HE student experience survey and see what it tells you about each course. Is there correlation between drop-out and how they rate their experience?

When thinking of the type of questions you should be asking, you should look at the Committee of University Chairs’ material plus the guidance on the HE Leadership Foundation website.

Digital designers bring primary school drawings to life with modelling software

Interactive media students have brought primary school pupils’ monster drawings to life using animation and modelling software.

A group of 25 schoolchildren from King Edward Primary School in Mansfield were asked to draw what they thought a monster looked like, with the designs then handed over to a team of student designers at West Nottinghamshire College.

Wai, left, and Isabella with the monster design

The students, who are on BTEC level three and HND courses in interactive media, spent turned original drawings into digital 3D creations and revealed them to the pupils.

Year 3 pupil Isabella Rhodes designed the Love-heart Monster, which was adopted by 26-year-old Wai Hung Tsang, who spent 15 hours bringing it to life.

Wai said: “When I first saw Isabella’s creation, I thought ‘what is that exactly?’ – I hadn’t seen anything like it before. But I began to analyse it and tried to visualise what it was going to look like in 3D form.

“I decided to turn the curly hair into a mane, and give it a sort of lion’s head and a teddy bear’s body, with love-heart wands in its hands. I’m pleased with how it has turned out, and even happier that Isabella has given it the seal of approval.”

College team win gold award at BBC Gardeners’ World Live

A team of students and staff from Oaklands College have won gold for their garden design at BBC Gardeners’ World Live.

The team from Hertfordshire took one of just three golds available in the ‘Beautiful Borders’ category, which recognises new and emerging talent within the industry.

Their design, called Garden Eden, included species of plants that were sown, grown and nurtured at the college’s St Albans Campus, and woven around a willow frame centrepiece.

Judges also praised the garden for its nod to presenter Monty Don, with wooden versions of his dogs hidden in the foliage.

The group, made up of tutors and students from the level three landscape construction and garden design course, also received an award for the best interpretation of the theme, which was this year based around the show’s 50th anniversary.

It was the first time the college has entered the annual event, with plans to enter more frequently following their success.

Tee Robertson, the college’s landscape construction and garden design coordinator, said: “To be at the show alongside other budding horticulture enthusiasts, colleges and fresh industry talent and be able to sing about our successes is fantastic.

“It’s been an incredible first foray in to Gardeners World Live.”

Main photo: Tee Robertson (centre) and the team with the award

College uses student’s art project as a learner recruitment tool

A book created by an art student documenting her experience at Bradford College is being used to recruit future learners.

Inspired by an alumnus of the college, Ladybird illustrator Ernest Aris, BTEC art and design student Kristy Barrett created her own Ladybird book, called ‘Kristy Goes to Bradford School of Art’.

The book, which she submitted as coursework, tells the story of her educational journey from a high school pupil to an art student at the college.

Copies of the book will be produced by the college and distributed to homes across the region, particularly to people who have shown an interest in starting an art course in September.

“We were asked to design something about Bradford College and inspired by a past student,” said Kristy. “I researched our famous alumni and discovered that Ladybird book illustrator Ernest Aris studied here in 1900.

“I feel really proud that potential new students will be receiving my book. I hope they like it.”

Nikki Sheen, a course tutor for level three art and design, said: “When I was assessing Kristy’s work I nearly cried as it made me so happy.

“She has written it herself and done all the illustrations. It’s a beautiful piece of work.”

Main photo: Kristy and her book

National Achievement Rate Tables are not a reliable quality indicator

Government should expect quality from the skills programmes it funds, but the National Achievement Rate Tables are not the only measure, argues Nichola Hay

This week’s FE Week contains a full analysis of the government’s newest National Achievement Rate Tables 2015-16 for apprenticeships and education and training.

Our own company shows a 19 per cent decline in its achievement rate from the previous year, but I would argue taking that figure in isolation as an indicator of quality is dangerous, and I believe there may be other providers identified in the analysis who have good reason to feel the same.

In February of this year, as part of an overall grade two judgment, inspectors from Ofsted found that Outsource Training and Development was “ensuring good assessment practice which promotes a consistently high standard of apprentices’ skills. The quality of teaching and learning remains good.”

They also said that “your data indicates successfully reversing a short-term decline in apprentices’ achievement”.

This shows that while data will always be an important starting point that might prompt a need for further investigation, it is Ofsted inspections and ESFA risk reviews which should be the ultimate arbiters of a provider’s quality. Our NART numbers took a short-term hit because under the QAR data, learner transfers count negatively as leavers.

Headline data on its own cannot tell the whole story

In 2015-16 Outsource had two cohorts of learners who were transferred for reasons that were taken in learners’ interests – even though they negatively affected our provider data.

In the first case, both the ESFA and an employer asked us to take on a group of engineering apprentices even though we don’t operate in the sector.

We engaged a third party to carry out the technical delivery and an engineering assessor to do the assessment. When the third party was ready, the apprentices were transferred to that provider, but in the process, we were penalised in our QAR data.

The second case involved a contract that the employer put out to competitive tender. We were not prepared to deliver without a realistic employer contribution so withdrew from the contract. We worked closely with the incoming provider to transfer existing learners, ensuring that the learners were not disadvantaged and there was a seamless transition.

Ofsted looked at both cases and talked to the employers and learners involved. It agreed with us that when the transfer data was ‘removed’, Outsource’s QAR was above the national average. It accepted that the right action had been taken for learners – and for the right reasons, not just ESFA box-ticking.

This clearly shows that headline data on its own cannot tell the whole story – there is context for every cohort. There are also frameworks that always have high national success rates irrespective of provider, due to the nature of the sector and learner.

We want every apprentice from varying backgrounds of prior attainment to succeed across different sectors and levels. An individual provider’s QAR can be made up by a mix of apprenticeships, which is why AELP is asking Ofsted to consider national benchmarks for each standard and framework.

Rule changes this year for the data, particularly in respect of breaks in learning, have muddied the picture. It’s true that in some cases, BIL can disguise a poor success rate and it is right those providers should be challenged. However in many cases, there are valid reasons for a decrease in the rate, and we are seeing Ofsted’s risk-review approach identify providers where inspectors have subsequently gained a clear understanding of why the data has shifted.

NART must not deter providers and employers from delivering challenging standards or recruiting disadvantaged learners, e.g. without English and maths, or from difficult backgrounds. Otherwise we will end up with a narrow range of on-paper high-quality apprenticeships that fail to fulfil what UK industry needs, and a higher set of barriers for those individuals who will need training most in a post-Brexit Britain.

The country should expect a lot from government-funded skills programmes, but we should have the right measures with the right understanding. NART can only ever offer a starting point.

Nichola Hay is director of Outsource Training and Development

Gold standard for 14 colleges with HE teaching

Fourteen FE colleges have achieved gold status for higher education teaching in the first ever Teaching Excellence Framework ratings.

The feat was doubly impressive for the sector’s high achievers, as more than half of Russell Group universities – traditionally considered to be the best in the country – missed out on the best mark.

A total of 295 higher education providers are included in the TEF, which was conducted by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Of the 106 colleges that took part, 14 were awarded gold (listed above), the best grade, while 46 achieved silver and 31 were rated bronze.

The other 15 received a “provisional” rating.

The TEF assesses higher education institutions on the quality of teaching and the outcomes they achieve, taking into account factors such as teaching quality, student satisfaction and graduate employability.

This is a trial year for the ratings, but they might in future affect the levels of fees universities are able to charge, and could be a measure on which students base their university choice.

David Hughes, the chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said he was “delighted” that the TEF “confirmed what we already knew – that colleges up and down the country are delivering high quality higher education which matches the best”.

He continued: “This is the first set of full results for the TEF and I am sure that colleges and HEFCE will have learned a lot from the experience.

“We will work closely with the TEF team to ensure that the metrics and the assessment work well for colleges which tend to have more part-time and older students who are working whilst learning.”

But other voices in the sector have opposed the new performance indicator.

Sorana Vieru, vice-president for higher education at the National Union of Students, said the publication of the TEF is “another meaningless university ranking system no one asked for, which the government is introducing purportedly in the name of students”.

“The government has ignored the concerns of students, academics and experts across the country who have warned against the introduction of the TEF, arguing that its measurements fail to capture anything about teaching quality.”

She added that until the measurements are addressed, “this ranking system is nothing but a Trojan horse to justify raised tuition fees and treat the higher education sector like any other market, to be ineptly measured and damagingly sold”.

Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union, also came out against the TEF.

“The TEF is opposed by both staff and student organisations and these results will have little credibility within higher education itself,” she said.
“The fear is that students, beyond the UK in particular, will use these results as the basis for deciding which UK university to attend, which could damage some institutions.”

A gold award in the TEF is given to providers who show the highest quality, silver is awarded for consistently exceeding national quality requirements in higher education, while bronze is reserved for those who meet the national requirements.

Madeleine Atkins, chief executive of HEFCE, said that the TEF measures things that “students themselves say they care about: high-quality, engaged teaching and a supportive, stimulating learning environment which equips them with the knowledge and skills they need to achieve their potential, and then to progress to a good job or further study”.

Investing in skills: a Keynesian approach for the 21st century

Neil Carmichael told our sister paper FE Week that before he lost his seat in Parliament, his next plan for the Education Select Committee was going to be “a big piece of work on training and skills”. Here he outlines his vision

When the United Kingdom leaves the European Union in 2019 the economy will require a significant overhaul to even come close to delivering our current standards of living. Indeed, a key test of the success of Brexit will be the impact it has on family and personal income.

This will be no small task when the UK’s relative economic success over the last 20 years has been shared by too few.

To her credit, the prime minister appears to get that a more interventionist approach may be necessary, and her government has already recognised this, in part, by formulating a new industrial strategy. It is rightly ambitious, and has encouraging parallels with the active economic management pursued by Edward Heath’s government as it prepared the economy for the opportunities that lay ahead as members of the European Economic Community.

Mr Heath’s endeavours were rooted not only in consensus politics but also in the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes, at a time before monetarism was in vogue and when concerns about economic productivity were as paramount as the need for the economy to compete in export markets.

The modern economy will require greater investment in teachers

Keynes was an all-encompassing thinker who encouraged governments to invest in public areas in order to stimulate economic activity. This was often manifest in huge infrastructure projects, a theme that has seen a welcome return in the industrial strategy.

If we take Keynes as our guide, we must, of course, take into account the new economic circumstances we face. The education select committee recently visited South Korea and Finland, and its experiences provide a revealing insight into what might lie ahead for the UK economy as we leave the EU.

Both Finnish and South Korean economies were in dire straits at around the same time. Finland emerged from the Second World War shattered and adrift, while South Korea was created after another gruelling conflict saw the partition of Korea during the early 50s.

Both countries were unable to rely on natural resources or raw materials to rebuild their economies. But they came to the same conclusion: maximise the potential of their people. Their fledgling governments had an unerring focus and commitment to investing in education and training as a way to drive economic growth and raise living standards.

Today, the success of this strategy endeavour is obvious to all as they have built innovative, productive and resilient economies. While both countries have encountered occasional economic bumps, their ability to respond effectively remains impressive and is an example many other nations would dearly love to emulate.

Returning to Brexit, one of the reasons Leave won the referendum was because of salient concerns over immigration and, in particular, the sense that jobs were going to foreigners rather than locals. There are, of course, record levels of employment in the UK but there was a truth to this charge – mainly due to a skills shortage that necessitated foreign labour to keep British businesses competitive.

The newly coined ‘just-about-managing’ designation illustrates this conundrum, as such people may often lack the skills to advance into higher-paid jobs.

To make the best of Brexit and, indeed, to address some of the primary factors in the Leave vote, the government should be considering a game-changing approach to education. Investment in the Keynesian way should be uplifted, alongside major structural reforms to ensure UK workers have the skills we need to push our economy forward. This could be a new brand of Keynesian economics fit for the decades ahead.

Our economy will benefit in multiple ways. Equipping our people with the skills and know-how to be successful in the modern economy will require greater investment in teachers and trainers – following in the footsteps of Finland and South Korea – and ensuring they are granted higher status.

The challenges are not new; governments and policymakers have grappled with them for some time. But more than ever we now have an obligation not to add a learning deficit to those in our country who feel they are already suffering from an economic one.

Neil Carmichael is a former MP, and chair of the education select committee

Salon hosts gentleman’s-only day to raise awareness of male cancers

Hairdressing students have raised awareness of male cancers by hosting a gentleman’s-only fundraising day at their college salon.

The group from Leicestershire’s Brooksby Melton College offered barbering services ranging from beard and moustache trimming to haircuts and scalp treatments.

For each treatment, the level three hairdressers asked for a minimum donation of £1.50, which will go to Orchid, a leading UK charity that funds pioneering research into testicular, prostate and penile cancers.

To date, the charity has awarded over £16 million in research grants.

Alongside treatments, clients were also provided with cake and refreshments, with everyone who made a booking in advance entered into a prize raffle.

By the end of the day, the team managed to raise over £100, exceeding their fundraising target.

Emma Balch, a hairdressing lecturer at the college, said: “Our aim was to raise between £50 and £100 on the day for the charity.

“The event also ties together well with their qualification, as they are required to organise a promotional event for one of their assessments.”

Main photo: The college salon

Government banning major levy provider will send a strong message to the sector

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.