What I learned in my first 42 days as an FE lecturer

Having recently joined an FE college after 15 years of teaching in state schools, I was surprised by the lack of ambition across the campus when it comes to student success.

The culture seemed to come from management and to be thrust upon those of us teaching on the front line.

A recent article argued that progress should be a significant measure of success in FE. That may suit the college business model, but it is not an opinion shared by many staff at the coal face, who would rather see students succeed than simply make progress.

But does the college business model support greater success?

From what I have seen so far, no.

For most full-time 16-to-19 study programmes, a student must remain on their programme for 42 days to count as a funded start. If they leave before reaching that qualifying period, they generally do not count.

And from where I sit, there is an enormous management focus on getting students beyond that 42-day threshold.

Having just completed my first enrolment cycle, I have encountered an extraordinary range of students.

Many arrive keen to begin a new journey. Others are returning to the same institution after an unsuccessful previous year, seemingly biding their time until they can leave education.

Some arrive curious about the range of courses on offer, only to find themselves signed up to bricklaying.

That might raise a smile if I hadn’t witnessed variations of it numerous times during enrolment.

It can feel as though it is all about the numbers.

In an ideal world, a student beginning a one-year course without grade 4 English and maths would complete their vocational qualification while also achieving their English and maths targets.

The reality can be very different. Some students arrive a considerable distance from a grade 4. Experienced teachers can often identify early on those for whom achieving it within a year will be extremely challenging.

Yet the system keeps them on the same treadmill.

A student working at functional skills level or GCSE grade 1 or 2 is unlikely to reach a grade 4 after just one year at college.

I am not saying it is impossible. I have taught students who have made that leap. But they tend to be identified early by experienced teaching staff and require many hours of coaching, encouragement and additional support to get there.

For everyone else, failure can mean another year of resits and another year at college.

That risks creating what can feel less like an education model and more like a repeat-business model.

The distance between management and the classroom does not help.

As a maths lecturer, there are seven layers of management above me, all with their own responsibilities and priorities. But the further you travel from the coal face, the harder it becomes to see the problems confronting students and lecturers every day.

When was the last time a director simply dropped in to say hello to staff – let alone to the students whose education ultimately funds the institution?

Meanwhile, lecturers can spend the first half of the autumn term buried in administration, only to use the half-term break to complete the numerous tasks expected of them rather than refuelling for the weeks ahead.

And there, once again, is that number: 42 days.

By then, the qualifying period has been crossed and the students count as funded starts.

Colleges obviously need financial stability. Nobody working in FE can ignore the extraordinary funding pressures the sector faces.

But funding rules inevitably shape behaviour.

My concern, having crossed from schools into FE, is that we have allowed the 42-day threshold and the relentless focus on retention and progress to become more important than a much harder question.

Are we giving every student a realistic chance of succeeding?