THE MANAGEMENT OF GROWTH IN THE ENGLISH
FURTHER EDUCATION SECTOR
STUDENT
RETENTION
AND
ACHIEVEMENT
44. In 1995-96 the achievement rate at colleges was
highly variable. Of the 3.2 million qualifications aims of students
some 2.1 million (67 per cent) were achieved. But the average
achievement rates for individual colleges varied between 24 and
99 per cent.[60] We asked
the Funding Council how many colleges had an achievement rate
of less than 50 per cent. They told us that just under 40 colleges
came into this category, representing some 10 per cent of
the sector.[61] We went
on to ask the Funding Council about the scope for varying colleges'
funding according to results. The Funding Council said that they
already did this, but were reviewing further the connection between
funding and achievement. They told us that a study carried out
by the Further Education Development Agency into why students
leave their courses, particularly those leading to General National
Vocational Qualifications, had indicated that in many cases, particularly
with adults, there were financial reasons. They also referred
to the work of a group currently chaired by Graham Lane of the
Local Government Association which was looking at the whole question
of support for students. They said that support for students had
suffered over a number of years, particularly with the reductions
in local education authority discretionary awards. The Funding
Council's view was that the whole area of student support needed
to be addressed, and said that this as one of the reasons why
the Government had increased the Funding Council's access funds
by 50 per cent for 1998-99.[62]
45. We asked the Department whether incentives should
be targeted at students rather than colleges. They agreed, but
emphasised the need for caution. They said that probably up to
20 per cent of people undertook a National Vocational Qualification
with the intention and need to obtain particular units, but did
not want, and would resist quite strongly, seeing it through to
achievement of the full qualification. Those people were recorded
as failures, but care needed to be taken not to dissuade these
people from entering further education in the first place, which
would be bad for them and the economy. The Department told us
that the statistics could also be misleading in other ways. For
example, people who transferred from one college to another in
the course of their qualification or did part of their qualification
at college and the remainder with an employer, would be recorded
as failures.[63]
46. We asked the Funding Council which college had
the 24 per cent achievement level and what they were doing about
the problem. They told us that it was Hackney Community College
in London and that the situation was complicated. For instance
the college had an 80 per cent achievement rate in their General
National Vocational Qualification level three, and a 69 per cent
achievement rate at higher level qualifications. The low levels
of achievement, at 18 per cent, were at entry level and level
1, the most basic qualification. The Funding Council stated that,
whilst this was no excuse, the proportion of students coming out
of Hackney schools who were ready for further, higher or intermediate
levels of qualifications was extremely low. The college had large
numbers of students within the highest deprivation area. Additionally,
a large number of students on entry and level one qualifications
might have achieved units towards those qualifications but the
Funding Council was only able to fund whole qualifications. The
Funding Council told us that they had been monitoring the situation
very closely and that the college had improved its achievement
rate to 33 per cent.[64]
47. The Committee asked whether most of the 40 colleges
with achievement rates of less than 50 per cent had similar extenuating
circumstances or whether they were simply inefficient. The Funding
Council replied that the extenuating circumstances were only part
of the story and that there were colleges which, when benchmarked
against similar colleges, were under-performing. Asked whether
there were any positive steps they could take to improve the performance
of such colleges, the Funding Council emphasised that they looked
very seriously at the question of low achievement and that there
were a number of steps that they had taken. They recorded the
data very closely, so they had very specific details, and they
published year on year achievement rates across colleges. Also,
achievement was now part of the inspection grade. When low achievement
rates showed up in college inspections they required the college
to come up with specific action plans to improve their performance.
If the college got below a certain level they were required to
improve that inspection grade within a year, otherwise the Funding
Council would put restrictions on their growth. They re-inspected
them a year later and had done this with some 52 colleges over
the last three years. They had found that all but one of the colleges
had improved their performance.[65]
48. The Funding Council also told us that they were
publishing benchmarks in June 1998 and from autumn 1998 they would
be setting targets for every college. The Committee asked what
would happen if colleges did not meet those targets consistently.
The Funding Council replied that one of the most effective sanctions
they had applied was to not allow a college to grow and therefore
their cash remained constant or declined. It had a very serious
financial effect on the colleges. They stressed that the main
objective must always be to improve the achievement levels, because
many students had no choice other than their local college.[66]
49. The Department added that one of the things that
might help was if the Funding Council were able to focus their
attention more on the colleges that really needed it, and referred
to the development of accredited status. Where the Funding Council
had identified colleges with good quality systems in place and
strong self-assessment, they would be able to step back a little
and focus their attention on those that really needed it.[67]
The Department also said that the Funding Council were focussing
on trying to improve the quality of teaching within colleges.
This included the move towards ensuring that lecturers were appropriately
qualified within two years of appointment.[68]
Conclusions
50. We view the significant variability in the levels
of student achievement across the sector as disturbing. We are
particularly concerned that 10 per cent of colleges have student
achievement rates of 50 per cent or lower, although we accept
that low levels of student achievement may in part be due to factors
outside the college's direct control, such as local deprivation.
We welcome the Funding Council's intention to review the relationship
between funding incentives and student achievement.
51. We note the action being taken by the Funding
Council to assist the worst performing colleges as regards students'
achievements and the initiatives in hand to identify successful
strategies for student retention and achievement, to examine and
improve student support, and to improve the quality of teaching.
We support the Funding Council's decision to introduce targets
for colleges as regards rates of student retention and achievement.
We urge them to make these targets a searching challenge for colleges,
with a view to substantial improvement in student retention and
achievement being reached nationally over the next few years.
52. We believe that whilst the relatively low levels
of achievement in National Vocational Qualifications are a matter
for concern, they may be misleading in relation to the value of
the training provided. This is because the modular nature of vocational
qualifications means that many students who do not complete their
course are nevertheless likely to have received some practical
benefit. Currently these students are recorded as having not achieved
their qualification. We recommend that the Funding Council look
at the case for modifying their data capture arrangements on National
Vocational Qualifications to reflect partial completion of courses.
60 C&AG's report (HC 259 of Session 1997-98) paras
3.19-3.20 Back
61
Qs 69-70 Back
62
Qs 23, 54-55 Back
63
Q56 Back
64
Qs 24, 65-67, 71 Back
65
Qs 24-25, 72-73 Back
66
Qs 25-26 Back
67
Q73 Back
68
Qs 51, 73 Back
|
