The Skills Funding Agency has published a new version of the College Accounts 2010/11 spreadsheet detailing the salaries of every FE college principal.

The top ten salaries, shown above, contain some inaccuracies however.

Loughborough College has told FE Week the salary for their principal in 2010/11 was in fact £124,000.

A statement from the college reads: “The salary for the Principal of Loughborough College for 2010/11 reported as £242k in FE Week, 3rd April 2012, is incorrect.

“This figure (242k) represents the total salary for 2010/11 for the three senior postholders of the college.”

A spokesperson for Loughborough College told FE Week the reason for the inaccuracy was because of a mistake in their data submission.

The salary published by the SFA for the principal of Barnfield College is also said to be inaccurate.

“Pete Birkett is chief executive and principal of the Barnfield Federation, which is made up of more than Barnfield College alone,” a spokesperson for Barnfield College told FE Week.

“The Federation consists of an existing four academies, three subsidiary companies, the College and five new academies who will be joining the Federation before September.”

The spokesperson added: “The turnover for the Federation is circa £60 million.

“There is a shared contribution towards the salary shown, so the figures quoted should be viewed from a Federal perspective.

“Within the accounts there is a qualifying statement explaining this.”

Barnfield College says the correct salary for Mr Birkett should be £193,000, with an additional £15,000 in benefits.

Dr Lis Smith, principal of Preston College, has contacted FE Week and said the figure used for her salary is also inaccurate.

“The figure that has been quoted, is a figure which has been taken from the accounts which also includes the previous principal’s salary as well,” she said.

“So my salary is £120,000.”

Dr Lis Smith says the amount published by the SFA is in fact a consolidated amount due to an overlap with the previous principal last year.

Warwickshire College and Sussex Downs College have also contacted FE Week and said that their 2010/11 figures are inaccurate because of a handover period with former principals.

Sussex Downs College has clarified that their salary figure should be  “around £160,000.”

Warwickshire College, meanwhile, say their figure should be changed to £170,000.

Derby College has clarified that while the figures published for 2010/11 are correct, the 2009/10  figures have since been restated due to the college’s merger with South East Derbyshire College.

A spokesperson for Derby College told FE Week that the principal’s salary for 2009/10 was actually £185,000, with benefits in kind of £1,000 and pension contributions of £26,000.

The Newcastle College Group (NCG) has confirmed the salary published by the SFA is correct for Jackie Fisher, chief executive of NCG and not Bev Robinson, principal of Newcastle College.

A spokesperson for NCG said: “Her basic salary was £192,000 and the rest is bonus.

“The reason for the reduction of £29,000 was that Jackie Fisher was given a one off retention payment last year relating to the period August 2007 to July 2010.

“This payment was agreed by Governors to provide continuity and stability within NCG during a period of significant growth and development, NCG’s merger with Skelmersdale & Ormskirk College and the acquisition of Intraining.”

West Nottinghamshire College has also confirmed for FE Week the £205,000 figure is correct for 2010/11.

FE Week is continuing to contact colleges for confirmation of the published figures.

The College Accounts 2010/11 spreadsheet can be downloaded from the Skills Funding Agency website here.

The previous spreadsheet, detailing the College Accounts for 2009/10, can be downloaded here.

(Note: The table above has been created using government data and may include anomalies. FE Week will amend any data which is confirmed as inaccurate in the SFA spreadsheet.)

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

5 Comments

  1. William

    Surely the 9/10 Pension/Benefits column headings are mixed up?

    How can Loughborough College submit incorrect data that shows a 100% increase in Principal’s salary? Surely someone in charge of the finances would spot that? Unless of course THAT isn’t an error.

    Preston College 63% Increase
    Birmingham Met 22% Increase
    Derby College 19% Increase
    Warwickshire College 14% Increase

    And how does Warwickshire College Governing Body justify a 14% pay rise as *well* as Benefits in Kind equal to a full time Lecturer’s top salary?

    Yes – Austere Times indeed!

  2. Charles Whinney

    These are all drawn from college’s published accounts – I think it’s important to point out that SFA isn’t, in this case, trying to deliberately deceive. FE Week is well aware that these are accounting figures, and don’t necessarily represent the take-home pay of principals, and should have made that clear in their original article.

    For example, in the case of my college, we had a long-term-illness+acting-up situation, so the published figure in the accounts is double what anyone ever got paid. We’re not big enough to trigger alarms, but could have easily been in the (implied) guilty corner.

  3. Lord Lucan

    It may be a good idea if FE week checks the figure for 2009/10 for Principals pension contributions and benefits in kind as well. The columns have been transposed. Come on people, Journalists are supposed to check the accuracy of their source. Is this a story about a) the accuracy of the College finance record, b) the accuracy of the SFA’s published data, c) the ability of FE week to publish a story with accurate facts, or d) another attempt at highlighting how much College Principals are paid in order to prompt further derision of the sector?

    • Another example of f e week’s irresponsible and incorrect journalism maybe it’s time questions were asked about who funds you mr linford. Maybe f e week could find out which of the Colleges are succeeding and which ones aren’t Scott Upton VP has a lot to say about other providers grade 3’s. Keep wearing the t shirt Scott…….

  4. Scott Upton

    Hi Sandra (don’t know who you are because you haven’t elaborated). Can you provide a specific example of where I have criticised a provider for having a grade 3?