College leader expects no commercial benefit after paying “immaterial” £8,000 to join Charted Institute for FE

There is no commercial benefit to joining the Chartered Institute for FE, the principal of a college which has just become a member told FE Week today.

Dudley College of Technology is the seventh member of CIFE and the fourth college to pay the £8,000 fee to join up, a cost which principal Lowell Williams (pictured above) described as “immaterial”.

Mr Williams told FE Week shortly after the announcement that the college’s decision to apply for chartered status was not made in pursuit of “commercial investment” or a “business return”, but because “it’s the right thing to do”.

“I don’t think there’s a commercial benefit per se for the college – if we ended up investing in helping to make the chartered institute work, then that’s an investment we’re happy to make,” he said.

“We are trying by our application to support the concept of the institute as a charter mark for our sector.”

Mr Williams added that he sees “an over-reliance on the Ofsted framework” as the sector’s “gold standard” for performance, whereas the CIFE’s criteria have “a wider remit”.

“It has a greater recognition of the contribution colleges make to the skills agenda in their communities, there’s a greater recognition of your strategic planning and the way you manage your business and your finances and that’s the direction I think the sector needs to be going,” he said.

Mr Williams described his hope that bringing together a range of FE providers under the umbrella of the institution might “grow a voice for the sector”, allowing for a “more profound influence” on how FE is developed, managed, recognised, and inspected.

He said: “We’re pleased to be an early adopter in that, and if that doesn’t happen it doesn’t happen, but we are doing it more from the point of view of trying to be at the forefront of an initiative for the sector than because there is a commercial gain for us.”

Mr Williams said focusing on the cost would be “a very narrow view” of what the CIFE and its members hope to achieve. 

“In terms of affordability for Dudley College, it’s immaterial really,” he said.

“I know different colleges are in different places financially, but maybe the fact that a number of high performing institutions who can clear the bar in terms of their financial commitment can get this thing going and then help drive the policy which will help to bring investment back in our sector.”

The CIFE, which charges a non-refundable £3,000 to process applications and £5,000 per year for membership, gained two additional members last week as well, when independent training providers Steadfast Training and Skills Group passed the entrance process.

But the institution’s three recent additions still only bring its membership to a total of seven in the 18 months since it opened for applications.

Other existing members are Hawk Training, Blackpool and the Fylde College, Bridgwater College, and Furness College.

In an exclusive interview last week, CIFE chief executive Dan Wright told FE Week of his plans to dramatically boost the body’s intake, with the aim of at least 80 members overall in the next two years.

National provider enters redundancy consultation with staff

Staff at the nation’s largest FE provider are on tenterhooks, as they wait to find out whether they will still have a job at the end of a 30 day consultancy period enforced this week.

Learndirect informed employees that they were being placed in the month-long consultancy period via a “script” delivered in a conference call on Monday, FE Week has learned.

A concerned staff member contacted FE Week on May 23 to say they and their colleagues were “expecting to lose our jobs in the next month or two”.

The provider subsequently confirmed the imminent job losses to us, stating that “some colleagues will leave Learndirect”.

Explaining the need for these cuts, a spokesperson said: “As a business we have offered GCSEs as part of our early years offer.   

“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, whilst looking at our customers’ ongoing requirements for functional skills.”

She added: “Sadly this may mean some colleagues will leave Learndirect. 

“Given we are in a consultation process it would not be appropriate for us to comment further.”

The staff member who contacted FE Week said a range of roles could be affected, including GCSE tutors, regional functional skills tutors, maths and English specialists and line managers, but Learndirect declined to comment further on these details.

The employee added: ““The way things are going not many of us are happy at Learndirect anyway.”

Concerns about the provider – which is a giant in the sector, with almost 200,000 learners logged in its latest available Ofsted report from 2013 – were raised just last month.

FE Week learned that although Learndirect had actually been inspected again by the education watchdog at the end of March this year, details of its new report would not be published for a further six weeks – with the “silence period” before the election given as the reason for the delay.

A government spokesperson said: “Ofsted, like other government departments, is subject to certain limitations on activity during election silence periods under guidance set out by the Cabinet Office.

“In line with the guidance, we will not publish the inspection report at this time because of the provider’s significance as a national provider of FE training.”

He confirmed Ofsted had “inspected this learning provider in late March 2017” and planned “to publish the inspection report after the general election on June 8”.

Meanwhile a Learndirect spokesperson told FE Week at the time: “We have recently been inspected and due to the scope of Learndirect’s provision we are still providing Ofsted with data.

“While this process continues, we have received notification from Ofsted that our report will not be published for at least the next six weeks.”

Learndirect Was rated ‘good’ by Ofsted in April 2013. The provider employed 1,685 operations employees and 444 administration employees in 2015, according to its most recently published financial statements from July of that year, while wages and salaries for 2015 came to £50,844,000.

 

UTC founds feeder school against Baker trust’s wishes

A university technical college that has struggled to recruit students is opening an 11-14 feeder school next door.

This comes despite opposition from opposition from the Baker Dearing Trust, responsible for overseeing all UTCs.

The school, which will be called ‘the Inspiration Academy@Leigh UTC’ will open in September, operating on the same plot of land and directly opposite Leigh UTC (pictured above) in Kent.

It will be run by the Leigh Academies Trust (LAT), which already sponsors 15 schools in Kent including Leigh UTC.

The school will take 120 students per year who will follow a STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths)-based curriculum, and who will win an automatic place at the neighbouring 14-19 UTC.

Leigh UTC has struggled to attract students on its own since opening in 2014. It is rated ‘good’ by Ofsted but less than a third of places are filled and it experienced a 17 per cent drop in student numbers this academic year.

Stephen Leahey, who will lead both the UTC and the Inspiration Academy, said student numbers at the college “will go up as a result of the new school”.

However the new system will go ahead without the blessing of the Baker Dearing Trust, which said it would not grant a licence for schools to operate as UTCs if they include students at key stage three, because “children should not be specialising under the age of 14”.

It is this barrier which forced the Inspiration Academy to open as a separate school, rather than simply creating an 11-19 UTC.

The trust sees the new system as a form of 11-19 UTC, though students are able to enter or exit the pathway at three ages – 11, 14 and 16.

If students reach the age of 14 and do not want to continue at the UTC, they will be offered a place at one of LAT’s other secondary schools, which are all rated ‘good’ or better by Ofsted.

But Kevin Courtney, the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, said it “does not make sense” to base a new school around efforts to preserve a UTC.

“The closure of UTCs up and down the country is evidence that this model of 14-19 education has failed. There is a danger here that decisions that will affect children’s education are being made to support structures rather than learning.”

Mr Courtney added that “potentially limiting” the opportunity for a “broad and balanced” curriculum at age 11 is “a backward step”.

But Mr Leahey said that while the new school will have a “specific focus” on STEM subjects, learners will be taught a “broad and balanced” curriculum and will study art, PE, languages, and a “healthy minds” programme.

He told FE Week that children aged 10 and 11 already “have a passion for STEM” and it was a “no-brainer” to build a school that “meets that need”.

A spokesperson for the Baker Dearing Trust said it hoped many pupils from the key stage three feeder school would want to move to Leigh UTC but “we would not wish them to feel that they were obliged to do so”.

The first cohort of year 7s at the new 11-14 academy will initially start in Leigh UTC’s building in September, with its new adjacent building due to be ready after Christmas.

Making the skills market work should be our priority – not ending it

The levy system is a long way from perfect – but the principles that lie behind it, in terms of building a functioning skills market, are valuable and worth fighting for, says Neil Carberry

The manifestos are out, and we are less than a month from ministers returning to work. The good news is that the past week has shown the idea of FE as the “Cinderella sector” is definitely passé – it is front and centre on innovation, inclusion, innovation and productivity.

But fine words – even if now backed by a bit more hard cash – won’t deliver real change. That requires a relentless focus on delivering reforms, and no longer re-inventing policy on a two year cycle that destabilises firms, providers and learner experience.

So it is time to start targeting the right things. Much has been made of the 2015 commitment to three million apprenticeship starts by 2020. Many of these starts will lead to great careers. But we all know that it is not the start of the apprenticeship that really matters – it is where it takes you. Technical and professional learning is always – first and foremost – about outcomes for learners.

Sadly, that is not always something that comes across in the targets that are set for the English skills system. Too often the mere existence of provision is deemed to be success – but training that does not help learners move on is wasted money and wasted time. We can do better than this – and now have the tools to do so.

The incentive that exists for employers is reclaiming the levy

For a decade, the holy grail of skills reform has been better matching supply and demand – meeting employers’ needs with high quality provision that is attractive to learners. Successive governments across the political spectrum have been promising this since the Leitch Review, and yet the Department has always paid the piper and called the tune.

For all the challenges with the levy system – and the CBI was clear about the risks of moving so quickly – current reforms offer us the chance to break out of this cycle. By putting real power in the hands of employers to spend levy money and design courses, provision should be better tailored to jobs that will provide better outcomes.

And for providers – whether college or private – the reforms offer the chance to build more stable, long-term relationships with companies. Over time, better clustering in local areas and in sectors will help form serviceable groups of smaller companies, too.

The incentive that exists for employers to drive all this is reclaiming the levy. So the CBI was disheartened to see AoC call for employer access to their own levy funds to be curtailed. This works against the whole principle of the reform. It risks a return to a top-down, government-driven approach that might help some providers, but would lead to subsidies for provision that fails to help learners progress. 

Of course, there is significant room for improvement. The CBI has called for flexibility on how levy money is spent, so it better suits employer needs. We were pleased to see this reflected in manifestos. But we have also said the Department for Education, whoever leads it, needs to invest in commercial and market skills, including at the Institute for Apprenticeships. This is vital because we are moving to a model of a managed market, and high quality work on incentives, provider sustainability and quality will be key to success.

So we will be looking for a new government to focus on longer term outcomes. This requires employers to be at the heart of the system, with a more stable policy framework than we have seen in the past. A focus on social mobility is also important – but this can only be delivered through engaged employers.

The levy system is a long way from perfect – but the principles that lie behind it, in terms of building a functioning skills market, are valuable and worth fighting for. Let’s hope the politicians jump for evolving the current approach and maintaining the idea that success is not just the existence of provision – it has to be about more than that.

 

Neil Carberry is Director for People and Skills at the CBI

Ofsted watch: Provider on apprenticeships register rated ‘inadequate’

A provider on the new apprenticeships register has been hit with an inadequate overall grade, in the only full inspection report to have been published this week.

But Norfolk Training Services Limited, which we reported had been added to the register in April, was given a grade three for its apprenticeships provision – meaning its place on the register of apprenticeships training providers is secure.

In a report published May 15, but based on an inspection in February, inspectors criticised leaders at the independent training provider for their “ineffective” efforts to “improve the weaknesses identified at the previous inspection” in February 2015, which resulted in a grade three rating overall.

“Leaders and managers do not identify most weaknesses accurately or plan to rectify them swiftly,” the report noted.

“Too few” learners “complete their qualifications” or “make good progress in their learning”, inspectors found.

“Much teaching” was deemed “inadequate”, with “too many tutors” lacking “skills in the craft of teaching to enable learners and apprentices to make rapid progress”.

But the report noted that a “majority” of apprentices “develop good work-related vocational skills”.

Norfolk Training Services was one of three main providers quietly added to the apprenticeships register in an unannounced update in April, a month after the list was first published.

FE Week reported that the decision to overturn the rejection related to the way the register’s Ofsted grade rules were being interpreted.

These state that a provider with a grade four for overall effectiveness can only apply to be on the register if they’ve been inspected since September 2015 and have at least a grade three for apprenticeships.

Meanwhile, Telford College of Arts and Technology was found to be making progress in almost all areas, in a second monitoring visit following its inadequate grade in June 2016.

The report, published May 17 and based on a visit on April 27, found the 19,500-learner college had made ‘reasonable progress’ in four areas, ‘significant progress’ in two areas – but ‘insignificant progress’ in one.

Three providers held onto their ‘good’ ratings this week following short inspections.

These were independent learning provider PGL Training (Plumbing) Limited, adult and community learning provider West Berkshire Training Consortium and employer provider Mercedes-Benz UK Limited.

 

GFE Colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Telford College of Arts and Technology 26/04/2017 17/05/2017 Monitoring

 

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Norfolk Training Services Limited 14/02/2017 15/05/2017 4 3

 

Short inspections (remains grade 2) Inspected Published
PGL Training (Plumbing) Limited 20/04/2017 17/05/2017
West Berkshire Training Consortium  27/04/2017 17/05/2017
Mercedes-Benz UK Limited 26/04/2017 15/05/2017

College student named as Manchester bombing victim

A Lancashire college has expressed its “enormous sadness” at the death of one of its students in last night’s terrorist attack in Manchester.

Georgina Callander, an 18-year-old health and social care student at Runshaw College, was the first named victim of the suicide bombing at the Manchester Arena.

The college released a statement this morning that said: “It is with enormous sadness that it appears that one of the people who lost their lives in Monday’s Manchester attack was one of our students here at Runshaw College.

“Georgina Callander was a former Bishop Rawstorne pupil studying with us on the second year of her health and social care course.

“Our deepest sympathies, thoughts and prayers go out to all of Georgina’s family, friends, and all of those affected by this loss.

“We are offering all available support possible at this tragic time, including counselling with our dedicated student support team.”

Twenty-two people, including children, were killed and 59 injured in a suicide attack at the concert by singer Ariana Grande at Manchester Arena last night.

The lone male attacker died in the blast after letting off an improvised explosive device at 22:35, police said.

Can a college chair of governors job share?

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: Advice for chairs

I am new to FE but have chaired a charity and found the National Council of Voluntary Organisations useful. Where should college governors look?

Answer: Colleges are exempt charities and the Charities Commission website should be your first port of call.  You already know about NCVO and much of the material on their website is useful, but because colleges have a strong business ethos you will also find pertinent items on the Institute of Directors website. However, the material on these sites has not been contextualised for the FE college world. The most useful source is the material funded and supported by the Education and Training Foundation which sits on the Association of Colleges website. This material has been developed by college clerks and chairs and is an invaluable bank of information and advice. Your clerk can help signpost you to the subjects and areas most relevant.

There is also a relatively new organisation on the scene called the Association of Chairs. They have been formed to support chairs and vice chairs of charities and non-profit organisations in leading their boards effectively and ensuring delivery of their organisation’s mission. They provide peer network, chair-focused seminars, speakers and briefings and resources specifically for chairs and vice chairs. They have also published a supportive document called the Chair’s Compass, which offers guidance on the role and impact of chairs.

 

Question Two: Job share

My role as chair of governors is becoming more substantial as I work full-time. I have a governor colleague who wants to job share. Is this possible?

Answer: I can see that in circumstances like the one you describe job sharing or co-chairing could offer a suitable, practical and effective solution. Although not widely practiced in the FE sector, school governing bodies have had the option to do this for a while. First you need to check your college’s Instrument and Articles to see whether it expressly disallows co-chairing. If it is silent on the issue then I see no reason why you shouldn’t go ahead. However, the board would need to ensure that any role-sharing arrangement does not lead to a loss of clarity in its leadership. In order for co-chairing to work, there needs to be transparency and trust and probably some work with the clerk to produce a formal programme on who does what.

 

Question Three: Election advice

As we receive most of our funding from public sources, are there any election guidelines for governors to follow?

Answer: Colleges are exempt charities and the Charities Commission has produced a clear guide. In summary, campaigning and political activity can be legitimate and valuable activities for charities to undertake. However, it must be undertaken by a charity only in the context of supporting the delivery of its charitable purposes. Unlike other forms of campaigning, it must not be the continuing and sole activity of the charity.

Charities can campaign for a change in the law, policy or decisions where such change would support the charity’s purposes. Therefore, as long as you are even-handed, don’t financially support in any way and/or do not try to influence results, there is no reason why as a trustee or governor you cannot make your views known to prospective MPs. Ensuring the financial stability of your college is a clear part of your role and prospective MPs need to know what impact government policy or proposed policy changes have on colleges. Remember any material used must be factually accurate and have a legitimate evidence base.

Too much flexibility, not enough foresight

Decades of policy turbulence have left a sector that is resilient but not necessarily forward-looking, and this needs to change, says Ruth Silver

All three major parties have launched their manifestos, with Labour and the Liberal Democrats committing extra funding to colleges, while the Conservatives pledge to ‘give Britain the technical education it has lacked for decades’. All recognise FE’s critical role in improving Britain’s low productivity.

This attention is all very welcome, of course, in a sector subjected to continuous reform over several decades, and which has seen its funding cut and its curriculum narrow.

In tough and unpredictable times, it is gratifying to see politicians finally groping their way towards a genuine vision for the future of a sector they have often struggled to properly understand or appreciate.

It is crucial that the sector and the politicians responsible for it are forward-looking in their thinking. There is no doubt that FE and skills currently face a complex array of issues, from area-based reviews to localisation, which rightly absorb the attention of its leaders. But it is increasingly clear that fundamental new challenges are emerging, which can only be addressed by seeing beyond the day-to-day concerns that have, for many years, been a barrier to far-sighted sector leadership.

Our sector is bright enough and bold enough

This is not to point any finger of blame at sector leaders. Decades of restless policy turbulence and ministerial churn have resulted in a sector that is resilient, flexible and seriously good at stretching resources – but not necessarily used to scanning the horizon for the trends that will shape provision in the decades to come.

That is why the latest report from the Social Market Foundation and the Further Education Trust for Leadership, called ‘Rising to the challenge: the further education and skills sector over the next decade’, matters.

It outlines some of the key competitive challenges FE and skills will face, and proposes a number of ways in which the sector might make a place for itself in a diverse and increasingly competitive market.

These challenges include increased competition from schools and universities as budgets dwindle and EU student numbers decline, the changing role of employers in driving the skills system, and the development of educational technology.

To these we might add the UK’s ageing population and the changing face of a labour market increasingly characterised by self-employment and intense global competition for skills.

The OECD’s ‘Skills Outlook 2017’ report, also published this month, has meanwhile highlighted the urgent need to invest in the skills of adults and young people, particularly in those higher-level specialised skills that are necessary to compete in global markets. It also stresses the importance of a wide curriculum and ‘skills for social progress’ including so-called ‘soft skills’ such as communication, organization and readiness to learn.

So while there are challenges for the sector in this new environment, there are also huge opportunities. Brexit will inevitably mean a much greater need for homegrown talent, particularly in highly skilled professions in which we have previously tended to rely on immigration, mostly from Europe, to plug skills gaps. The case for a strengthened role for the sector post-Brexit could not be clearer, though it must still be made.

The SMF argues that the sector must evolve in response to these challenges, with colleges and independent providers rebranding themselves as ‘local champions and engines of social mobility’, and transitioning from ‘physical learning and physical estates to virtual learning’.

The report, finally, calls for greater security of funding and stability in policy to support the sector in realising its potentially central role in this brave new world. For some time now, public policy in this area has been headed in the wrong direction, reducing funding where greater investment is required and shrinking the curriculum to focus on a narrow definition of employability alone.

We are at a point where there is more risk in remaining the same than in accepting the need for change. But I believe that if we can get the policy environment right, our sector is bright enough and bold enough to rise to the challenges.

 

Dame Ruth Silver is founding president of the Further Education Trust for Leadership, and co-chair of the Skills Commission

ESFA is jeapordising degree apprenticeships

The ESFA’s approach to the allocation of apprenticeship funding for non-levy employers undermines the apprenticeship reforms and specifically, degree apprenticeships, says Adrian Anderson

The apprenticeship reforms put the employer in the driving seat. Employers develop apprenticeship standards that define the knowledge, skills and behaviours required for an occupation, and they decide which to use to develop the performance of their workforce.

A key feature of this approach has been the development of standards for higher-level occupations, in particular the new degree apprenticeships. This is hardly a surprise: to be competitive, employers and the UK economy need to invest in developing higher-level skills.

Degree apprenticeships have been encouraged by government, LEPs and professional, statutory and regulatory bodies. For individuals it’s good news: they offer a debt-free route to and through higher education to the professions, and appeal to individuals who may in the past have been put off by the debt associated with HE. It ticks the social mobility box, and demonstrates to any parent, young person or teacher that apprenticeships aren’t just about low-level skills or for those who don’t go to university.

ESFA has put the non-levy paying employer back in the passenger seat

Unfortunately there’s a problem: the Education, Skills and Funding Agency. It has based its recently announced allocations for funding for non-levy paying employers on historic patterns of apprenticeship delivery rather than patterns of future employer demand and the apprenticeship standards developed by trailblazers. Yet degree apprenticeship is a new type of provision, requiring new providers – specifically higher education institutions.

Regardless of future demand and the effort involved in applying to the register of apprenticeship training providers and tendering, HEIs without a prior SFA apprenticeship contract have not received funding to deliver degree apprenticeships to non-levy paying employers.

For HEIs on RoATP with a prior SFA apprenticeship allocation, the new allocation has been negligible because degree apprenticeships are a new programme and the ESFA is basing allocations on historic provider patterns of delivery. Any ESFA claim that apprenticeship budgets follow employer demand is untenable. Existing providers with extended contracts cannot simply step in to deliver degree apprenticeships. There will be gaps in the provider base and substantial occupational and geographic gaps in provision.

The situation is made even more bizarre when the Degree Apprenticeship Development Fund is considered. DADF funding was allocated, through a competitive tender process, to support the development of degree apprenticeship provision. The ESFA allocation process means some HEIs that have developed degree-level provision may not be able to deliver starts from September. Non-levy paying employers that have worked with such funded institutions could be denied access to the higher-level skills provision their business needs.

It’s also interesting to contrast the apprenticeship offer for levy-payers with non-levy paying employers. Levy-payers will be able to use apprenticeships that are of maximum benefit to them and degree apprenticeships could boom. In contrast, non-levy paying employers’ use of degree apprenticeships will be severely restricted.

Big business and the public sector can invest in and use any apprenticeship it wants, but a non-levy paying organisation will have its choice contained and skewed towards the apprenticeships delivered by the ESFA’s existing provider base. The ESFA has put the non-levy paying employer back in the passenger seat.

The University Vocational Awards Council has raised these concerns with both the ESFA and IfA, and outlined options that would ensure non-levy paying employers can use degree apprenticeships.

We await a response. The ESFA must demonstrate its commitment to the higher-level skills agenda in general and degree apprenticeship in particular. It must also ensure SMEs have access to the degree apprenticeships they have been promised, which are critical to the future success of their organisations and in turn, to the productivity of the UK economy.

 

Adrian Anderson is chief executive of University Vocational Awards Council