The challenges facing further education college governors in England

The decline in quality as judged by Ofsted inspections

The Chief Inspector in his 2014/15 Annual Report (Ofsted, 2015) was clear that the pace of improvement in FE sector has slowed and that ‘in general FE colleges in particular, performance has declined’ (p. 9). The proportion of FE colleges judged by Ofsted to be good and outstanding was lower in 2014/15 than previously, with just 35% of colleges ‘judged to be good enough’ (p. 52). Further, ‘One in three of the 48 general FE colleges inspected this year dropped at least one grade and a further 16 failed to improve from requires improvement or inadequate’ (p. 52). There are two elements to this ‘challenge’. One is the impression by Ofsted of a poorly performing FE sector. This impression impacts on the sector’s overall reputation with related consequences for morale, relationships and investment in the FE sector. Secondly, there is the apparently heightened risk of an individual college receiving an unfavourable inspection outcome.

Many FE colleges – and their governors − are thus facing direct and immediate pressure to increase the quality of their educational provision. This focus may be justified and clearly will benefit learners. However, the pressure to meet the standards set by Ofsted and, as we discuss later, to avoid the FE Commissioner’s intervention, may militate against the implementation of changes to secure sustained improvements in quality. Colleges and their governors may opt for short term solutions.

The recruitment, attendance, retention and success of learners

The recruitment of students, their continued attendance and their success in gaining qualifications are all crucial concerns for FE college governors. Following reasonably steady levels of student recruitment, in the last year student numbers declined by approximately 10% (Ofsted, 2015, Skills Funding Agency, 2016). Any reduction in student numbers has implications for the income of the college from the various funding sources. Failure to maximise funding for learners in any given year can have very serious effects in subsequent years – a situation currently exacerbated by declining funding as we discuss below.

Further, there is a strong case for arguing that the practice of teaching, the characteristics of the learners, and the nature of and rationale for curriculum provision can be particularly complex in further education settings (Gleeson et. al., 2015). Teaching in the post-compulsory sector can pose complicated pedagogic challenges (Bathmaker and Avis, 2007; Huddleston and Unwin, 2013) with the sometimes varied nature and motivations of students, particularly those studying for vocational qualifications adding a further level of complexity (Fuller and MacFadyen, 2012). These challenges have further implications for college leadership and management, which again has many problematic aspects (Jameson and McNay, 2007; Elliot, 2015) . As a result of such challenges, achieving consistently high outcomes for learners can be very difficult, which again has implications for the way the college is seen by the students and other stakeholders, which again will affect recruitment. Governors will be monitoring learner data and seeking to address those areas of college where attendance and retention are causing concern. The college governors have to intervene in what is a vicious cycle linking declining student recruitment, the resulting increasingly problematic issues of attendance and retention, the subsequent declining quality of outcomes for learners, and the consequent reduction in recruitment. Given the link between teaching quality and learner achievement, governors ensuring that an effective performance management framework for college teachers is in place is important but again, likely to be challenging.

A significant development in student recruitment is the government’s ambitious target for three million apprenticeships by 2020 (Delebarre, 2015). Meeting this target is requiring many colleges to substantially re-configure their programmes, organisational structures and relationships. This requirement to reorganise is in part because the funding for apprenticeships is dependent on the establishment of effective partnerships with employers and the timely achievement of apprentice qualifications, as judged by employers. This change which is, in effect, a re-working the business model of colleges is significant. It exacerbates the complexity of the recruitment issue as an increasing number of young people are being attracted by the ‘earn-as-you-learn’ apprenticeship model, and is again an additional challenge for those responsible for a college’s conduct.

The general certificate in secondary education qualifications in English and Mathematics for students aged 16 – 18 years

A condition of college funding is that a college must provide courses leading to General Certificate in Secondary Education (GCSE) qualification in English and Mathematics for all students aged 16 – 18 years who do not hold at least level C GCSE qualification in those subjects. Given the nature of the students in that age range, a large number of students are now required to attend GCSE English and Mathematics courses in addition to any other programmes of study they may be following. (Ofsted, 2015). Perhaps understandably, student attendance and punctuality can be a problem as indeed can the quality of teaching, especially when compared with teaching in other parts of a student’s learning programme (Ofsted, 2015). There are implications for judgements of the quality of these GCSE courses in English and Mathematics for overall judgements of college quality: ‘Problems with the delivery of English and mathematics was the most common reason colleges were judged to be good rather than outstanding’ (Ofsted 2015, p. 52).

Colleges are clearly under considerable pressure with the provision of English and Mathematics GCSE courses, and the issue has become a fundamentally important one for colleges (Porter, 2015). The challenges include: recruiting and retaining good quality teachers: maintaining learner interest and motivation, creating workable timetables for vocational staff and GCSE staff; and finding accommodation for teaching provision and, given the likely size of the cohort, examinations.

Many governing bodies have responded to the challenge by establishing working/task groups specifically to oversee this GCSE English and Mathematics provision and to ensure any weaknesses in provision do not impact negatively on learner success as happened in summer 2014 and summer 2015. Ensuring the high quality provision of GCSE Mathematics and English programmes is very significant and is a new focus of attention for many governors. Arguably it is the most significant educational task many governors have ever faced in their role as a governor (AELP, 2015). The issue has raised awareness about the extent of the literacy and numeracy capability of students in the 16 – 18 year age group generally, and the work not only of FE colleges post-16 but also that of secondary schools pre-16. It could, ultimately, lead to better secondary school/college liaison and collaboration in English and Mathematics provision. In the meantime, however, it presents a significant and pivotal challenge for FE college governors.

Increased competition for students

Increased competition with other neighbouring educational institutions is a significant challenge for FE governors in their role of overseeing the proper conduct of their colleges (DBIS, 2013). These other institutions may include: free schools, academies, university technical colleges and specialist further education colleges. Also, when once there was a territorial approach to post-16 learners, with competition only within a college’s assumed geographic boundaries, student recruitment is no longer constrained in that way. Coincidentally, marketing and publicity budgets in FE colleges have had to grow substantially to order for colleges to compete in the now extended ‘learning marketplace’.

In addition to the reduction in student numbers and therefore income in any one year, competition also increases recruitment and financial volatility in the system. Assumptions by colleges about student numbers year-on-year become more variable and harder to rely upon and predict. Thus colleges are having to devise human resource management models which provide maximum flexibility and also consider use of sub-contracting of staff, using contracts which can be set up or terminated as necessary. Increasingly, colleges are having to wait until the very start of the academic year in September to gauge actual learner numbers and to implement appropriate provision.

Resources for learning

A recent media report (BBC, 2015) reported that 70 further education corporations (out of 231) are expected to post financial deficits for the year ending 31 July 2016. These financial challenges facing FE colleges have been voiced by others, for example, Ofsted (2015), NAO (2015) and AoC and Doel (2015). The stage has not yet been reached where further education corporations are ceasing to be ‘going concerns’ although there is anecdotal evidence of some colleges approaching that point. However, the financial horizon for FE colleges offers little hope and is increasingly unpredictable, which is a very significant challenge for college governors. The unit of resource for learners is declining, competition for learners is increasing, and the movement is towards student loans rather than a block grant. Further pressure on funding is anticipated from revised funding methodologies for the FE sector and minimum standards funding cut-off (GOV.uk, 2015) both from 2016/17 onwards. Governors with business experience are often bewildered by the seemingly constant change and complexity in funding mechanisms which, they would claim, diminishes the governors’ planning and monitoring role. Furthermore, this type of funding regime is of the ‘just in time’ variety; the funding arrives very shortly before it is needed. Sensible planning, responsible innovation, secure investment, and well thought-through development are very difficult to achieve when funding is insecure. Some believe that increasingly larger colleges are the answer because they give economies of scale and may be ‘too big to fail’. But such mega-colleges may lack the responsiveness required of the sector, and may be difficult to manage and govern effectively (The Guardian, 2015)

The ‘Prevent duty’ and the Equality Act responsibilities for further education colleges and equality responsibilities

The governing bodies of FE colleges have had a long-standing requirement to address key aspects of the prevention of terrorism and the propensity to radicalisation (HM Government, 2008), the so-called Prevent duty, and also to safeguard all learners under 19 years and vulnerable adults attending their colleges under Equality Act 2010 (Government Equalities Office, 2010). Guidance for the implementation of the recently passed Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (HM Government, 2015), assigns FE colleges a significant role in ‘in helping prevent people being drawn into terrorism’ (p. 17). It also makes clear that compliance with ‘relevant legislation and any statutory responsibilities associated with the delivery of education and safeguarding of learners’ (p17). There is however, no additional funding for ensuring the college complies with the Prevent agenda. Many governing bodies now have nominated governors with a specific responsibility to monitor their college’s Prevent duties.

The Equality Act 2010 (Legislation.Gov.UK, 2015) placed a duty on college governing bodies to promote an equality agenda. There are issues for the admission of learners, the curriculum, victimisation and harassment, exclusions, disability discrimination and, importantly, positive action. This responsibility is addressed by Ofsted inspection and, as with the Prevent duty, some governing bodies have nominated governors to specifically oversee of their college’s response to the requirements of the Equality Act 2010.

The Prevent duties and the responsibility to promote the equality agenda position colleges as key players in communities where integrated approaches are attempting to form and address emerging social issues. Colleges are required to play a leading role and Ofsted inspects the quality of college performance addressing these themes. Ensuring conformance to requirements is a significant challenge for FE college governors.

The new role of the further education commissioner

The FE Commissioner has quality monitoring and intervention responsibilities in the post-16 sector (DBIS 2013a, DBIS/DfE, 2013). The first FE Commissioner, David Collins, took up his post in November 2013 and has already published two reports. The FE Commissioner’s 2014/15 report (DBIS, 2015) highlighted five main areas for improvement: the role of the Clerk, governance, leadership and management, educational quality, and colleges’ financial health. All of these areas will be significant concerns for governors; they are at the core of the conduct of any college.

The possibility of intervention by the FE Commissioner has elevated the previous monitoring by funding bodies to a more direct and accountable position with the publishing of Commissioner’s reports identifying the weaknesses of colleges. For some governors this process has been an impetus for governing and leadership improvement; the advice to the colleges’ sector from the Commissioners has been heard and responded to by many governing bodies. Governors’ performance is in sharp focus when the Commissioner becomes involved. The watchful gaze of the FE commissioner and the prospect of intervention and the consequent reputational damage represents a significant new challenge for FE college governors.

Post-16 area reviews

Post-16 area reviews were established in July 2015 by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department of Education to facilitate a restructuring of the further education sector (DBIS/DfE, 2015) in England. The reviews, to be undertake in a number of geographical regions, are underpinned by substantial ambitions for FE colleges, which are to establish:

clear, high quality professional and technical routes to employment, alongside robust academic routes, which allow individuals to progress to high level skills valued by employers … and better responsiveness to local employer needs and economic priorities (DBIS/DfE 2015, p. 2).

Senior college leadership: Raised expectations and performance management

In the face of the considerable challenges listed above, governing bodies are naturally expecting very effective leadership and management practices from the college principal/chief executive and the senior leadership/management team (AoC, 2014). Such expectations will inevitably produce further demands and robust performance management objectives. These raised demands could lead to a sense of frustration about the circumstances and apparent the challenges for principals/chief executives in improving college performance. It could lead to the retirement of experienced college leaders/managers who no longer have the motivation to rise to the challenge. If college performance dips, and in the complex and in many ways un-manageable context we have described such a dip could be beyond the control of the college management, intervention could occur, reputational damage could result and governor- principal/chief executive relations would be put under considerable pressure.

Governing body performance and the code of governance

Finally, as at any time FE college governing bodies will be trying to make sense of the environment in which they operate; that is a key task for governors, arguably of any institution. Good FE college governing bodies will be attempting to undertake their duties as usual in the face of the considerable additional challenges they are currently facing. An additional and recently applied pressure for governors is the requirements of the Code of Good Governance (AoC, 2015). The Code was recently published by the Association of Colleges (AoC, 2016), an organisation which ‘exists to represent and promote the interests of colleges’ (p. 1). The Code sets out what FE governing bodies must do to comply with statutory requirements together with expectations of good/enhanced governing practice. The Education Funding Agency and Skills Funding Agency (2016) accounting requirement for colleges for the year ending 31 July 2016 states (at Appendix 1)

Colleges must either

Comply with the Code or

Thus, College auditors will be checking that the Code has been adopted and complied with by governing bodies for the financial year to 31 July 2016 or that alternative provisions are in place.