Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-159)
SIR ANDREW
FOSTER AND
DR ROBERT
CHILTON
16 NOVEMBER 2005
Q140 Jeff Ennis: Sir Andrew, I guess
a document which could be regarded as a sister document to yours
would be the Tomlinson report, which looked at the 14-19 agenda.
Unfortunately, the Government seems to have cherry-picked some
of the recommendations from within that report rather than implementing
the report in full. Is your report one which the Government ought
to consider implementing in full, or could that also be cherry-picked,
and if it was cherry-picked which bits would you like to still
be retained?
Sir Andrew Foster: Well, I have
just come this morning from listening to Ruth Kelly give a significant
speech at the Association of Colleges where her broad response
to the report was probably more positive than I could have hoped
for. Clearly, there is many a slip betwixt cup and lip. What she
has in outline said today is that the Government wants to bring
together some of what Leitch says with what the LSC has proposed
in the agenda for change and what I have said. I think
with what I am proposing you would need to do a substantial amount
of it if you were going to make it work. In choosing not to go
for radical change—and I do make it quite clear that I have
actually been through quite a lot of big public service reorganisations
in my life and I think I say in there somewhere I have seen them
take a long time, cost a lot of money, and sometimes not deliver—I
basically felt that going for evolutionary change where you work
on the issues which really matter with the different places in
the system is what I propose. If you started cutting back in any
significant way from some of that, I think you would be in serious
danger of not making it work. I think the most significant thing
that I say is about clarity of purpose, and for me saying that
you have an economic skills and employability mission as the prime
mission is probably the most important thing. We might go on to
that, because I do not say that FE should not do other things.
I think FE, however, is badly understood by employers, the media
and quite often by some politicians because it is not clear exactly
what it does and I think having a stronger focus could make a
big difference in terms of how it gets managed. So my answer is,
very important is the notion of purpose in mission. I think you
do need to look across how the whole system works and I would
have to say to Ruth Kelly or the Government, or whoever, if there
was a major cutting back of things I think you would be in danger
of the basis of my recommendations not working.
Q141 Jeff Ennis: You have not attached
specific timeframes to many of the recommendations within the
report. Presumably that was deliberate. Why have you decided against
that, milestones within the report?
Sir Andrew Foster: Yes, there
are some which do not have them, but I am generally in favour
of things happening as quickly as they possibly can. There is
a number which have 12 and 18 months attached to them. I think
that, if anything, quite a lot of public service change tends
to end up happening too slowly and almost people have forgotten
what its purpose was by the time they got round to it and somebody
is starting to say it has not worked. I am not particularly joking.
That does happen. So I would be in favour of rapidity and I think
that is a major merit for not going for big structural changes.
Most big public service structural changes take up to a couple
of years before you even reach the starting gate and several early
retirements, redundancies and political aggravation have happened.
I would want to argue, why does this not start to get changed
within the next six to nine months, because I think it aches to
be changed, because I think some of the arrangements are really
quite ineffective.
Q142 Jeff Ennis: The report focuses,
as the Chairman has already indicated, specifically on the role
of further education colleges. Given the fact that you were assisted
in your deliberations by the DfES and the LSC, has that influence
impacted on the recommendations within the report at all, do you
think?
Sir Andrew Foster: Yes, I think
the secretariat that I had were people who came from that. There
were six people altogether. The arrangement that I had was that
they were working for me during that time and I guess it would
be only human that they would sometimes put what would be a DfES
or an LSC point of view, but I think I was asked to do it because
I had a history of 10 years running a big independent watchdog
body and frankly I could not allow that sort of special pleading
to be a significant issue. So what is in there is the result of
people such as Bob and I having serious debate and discussion
about what we thought would be effective, not special pleading
by anybody.
Q143 Jeff Ennis: I am looking at
the report summary you have kindly provided and on p.2 it says:
"The causes of the contrast between achievements of FE colleges
and the lack of comprehensive impact are many." One of the
issues you focus on is that it says there is a mismatch between
the aspirations of FE colleges and available funding. I am sure
it has been pointed out to you, the current funding gap in sixth
form provision between school sixth forms and FE sixth-form provision?
Sir Andrew Foster: Yes.
Q144 Chairman: Will your report have
any influence on that particular agenda, the funding gap that
should not really exist?
Sir Andrew Foster: I would need
actually clarification of what the Secretary of State said this
morning. She did make an announcement saying that the Government
would plan to start closing some of those gaps over the next small
number of years, taking it to 8%, I think, within three or four
years.
Q145 Jeff Ennis: She said two years
last week, but go on.
Sir Andrew Foster: Okay. Well,
I am just in the main auditorium so I am not claiming to be absolutely
vouchsafe. I think there clearly are issues around that. I think
the Government clearly recognises it and I think it is desirable
to move to close it.
Q146 Jeff Ennis: Do you recognise
then that that further education funding gap is impacting on the
quality of the students' education at the present time in FE colleges?
Sir Andrew Foster: I certainly
think it is an issue, and I think it is an issue which needs attending
to. When we start to look at what affects quality, I suppose we
would get into an argument or a debate about causality, and when
we talk about quality for me the key issue about quality would
be the motivation of the learner, the student, and it would be
the professional development of the teacher, the lecturer. Those
would be the two key things which would impact on quality. So
we would have to start talking about the relationship between
those, in my mind, and the funding gap.
Q147 Chairman: You have been doing
this inquiry and you know this territory pretty well now, Andrew,
and if you were going to give a lump of money is the priority
for giving FE a lump of money to redress this particular balance
in the teaching of A-levels students, or would your priority go
somewhere else?
Sir Andrew Foster: I think it
is something which does merit investment. I think I would probably
phase it over a time. One of the things which stood out for me
from doing this study—and Bob may want to help me here with
this—is the need for further capital investment in FE around
the technology it has. If you are going to drive for world-class
technological skills, because the global economy is changing,
there is no point in training people on old equipment which does
not suit them for the jobs they go out to, and frankly some of
the FE estate is very tired. It has not had the same level of
investment. So I do make quite a strong argument here about investment.
Bob may want to add to that.
Dr Chilton: Quite often when people
talk about funding gaps there are, I think, probably at least
three which I have come across. There is the gap between what
a person teaching in a school is paid to teach at a particular
level and the person in FE. There is a funding gap between the
per capita allowance of each sector, but then there is
another one and this is the one which the report largely focuses
on, which is kind of a strategic issue. FE, as we know it today,
describes itself as an adaptable sector. It is very responsive.
It does an enormous number of things. If you tried to sum the
cost of doing all the things which FE could do, it would be quite
high. I actually do not know how high because nobody has ever
seemed to have measured it. If you then measured all the things
it should do, there would be a debate about what it should do,
but it would be a lesser figure. Then if you tried to assess what
it can do, it is probably a step down again. That is why you get
a lot of rationing going on, sometimes not explicitly. If somebody
seizes an initiative and says, "This must happen," something
else gets displaced. We argue strongly in the report that there
needs to be a model of this. There needs to be an assessment of
what actually is the national requirement of FE matched against
the capacity of FE and the funding. One of the frustrations of
this review is that we have not been able to lay our hands firmly
on that, or on another ingredient in the equation, which is how
well they use the money they already have, value for money, and
finding concise, sharp, incisive comparisons at that level. So
when you get to the first two funding gaps there is quite a noisy
debate about them, but in the absence of that financial context
it is not easy to be precise about what the answer is on the first
ones. Could they use existing money better? Are they doing the
right things? Have we made the right strategic choices? If we
resolve those matters, could you close the funding gap?
Q148 Jeff Ennis: My final question
continues on the theme of the funding gap to some extent and I
am going to take advantage of the fact that Sir Andrew is Chairman
of the Learning and Skills Council, or used to be according to
the cv. Have I misread that?
Sir Andrew Foster: I have been
Chairman of lots of things in my life, but not that. I was Chairman
of the Bureaucracy Review Group.
Q149 Jeff Ennis: I apologise. I misread
it. It was the Bureaucracy Review Group.
Sir Andrew Foster: That was how
I got to do this, but the year before I did this review I think
it was Margaret Hodge who asked me to look at bureaucracy in FE,
so I had a year before that.
Jeff Ennis: It is a bit misleading.
Chairman: Heads will roll, but if you
would like to be Chairman! There is a misprint.
Q150 Jeff Ennis: I am sure you are
well acquainted with the function of the Learning and Skills Council
anyway, Sir Andrew, and it is really on that theme because earlier
this year there has been a sort of tension, if you like, between
the Learning and Skills Council and certain colleges in terms
of the over-achievement of student numbers. That certainly applied
in one of my own authorities of Barnsley. If we implement all
these recommendations, will that tension in terms of the over-achievement
of student numbers be dissipated?
Sir Andrew Foster: I think it
is difficult to guarantee that, frankly. What we argue for is
a regional understanding of what "need" is and then
a greater influence at local level. I think that increases the
chance that you would not have that happen, but I do not think
I could guarantee it.
Chairman: Let us talk about now the purpose
and the focus of colleges. Before I do that, Stephen indicates
he has got a supplementary.
Q151 Stephen Williams: Just a supplementary
on Jeff's line of questioning. From my own visits to FE colleges
in the city—Bristol college is one of the largest in the
country, and there is a sixth-form college as well elsewhere in
the city—the principals are very, very keen to draw the
funding gap to our attention and we have questioned many other
witnesses about this in the course of Select Committee meetings.
I thought your report would give us much enlightenment, but it
is only paragraph 210 in a 100 page report where I could find
it referred to, which says: "During the course of the review
we received many representations about funding and the funding
gap and we understand these. However, we chose to take the position
in our work of maximising the use of existing resources,"
which is largely what you have just said. Presumably in order
to draw up this report you did speak to many principals up and
down the country?
Sir Andrew Foster: Absolutely,
including the principal of the Bristol college.
Q152 Stephen Williams: I am sure.
I am sure that all of them would have drawn your attention to
their concerns about the funding gap for A-level tuition. Why
is there not more in this report?
Sir Andrew Foster: Basically,
because I continue to believe that the prime priority is to drive
existing inefficiency which exists in the system and I think the
argument is already a made argument. I did not see as one of my
prime focuses the determination of extra funding to the sector.
I saw it as seeking to utilise the existing resources more effectively.
Frankly, all of my experience of doing this sort of work is that
where extra resources go is the prime heartland of political debate.
What I was trying to do was to look to see how you could manage
it more effectively. The argument about where more resources would
go is something which politicians have very strong views and feelings
about and it seems to me it is a political responsibility rather
than a review managerial responsibility.
Q153 Tim Farron: You say in your
report that a residual rump of around 10% of colleges have persistently
and continuously failed their communities. I am interested in
your views and your experience of what those failing colleges
have in common, and perhaps therefore what successful colleges
have in common too.
Sir Andrew Foster: The numbers
we are talking about are the 389 colleges. I think there are 37
over the last four years' worth of inspections which have fallen
into the least satisfactory category. The pleasing news is that
21 of those 37 have improved, which actually currently leaves
16 in the least acceptable category. I only say that because there
has been some contention about what the figures are. So it is
a small number, but if you are a learner in one of those that
is still not at all acceptable. I had a conversation only in the
last week with David Bell, who clearly would have been involved
in doing this, about what the characteristics are, wanting to
consider it along with my own experience. Very often these colleges
have poor leadership, very often they have poor retention rates,
very often they have had poor and badly defined programmes, and
very often they have had not very good satisfaction and success
levels. So those are some of the characteristics which come through.
In terms of what a successful college looks like, I think we have
actually got a box in the report drawing very significantly on
the Ofsted work, which does give a range of characteristics of
the most successful colleges, and frankly one of the prime ones
which stands out is about the quality of its own management, the
quality of engagement with learners (I draw your attention to
p.26, box 3), and then the nature of its engagement with local
employers. So it is quite clear (there are about seven or eight
points there of what are 29 excellent colleges) what the characteristics
are. So we do frankly know some of the characteristics of "poor"
and we do know the characteristics of "excellent", and
clearly the management task is to enhance the one and reduce the
other.
Q154 Tim Farron: That is very helpful
and the message is that bad colleges produce bad results. I wonder
how one gets to become a bad college in the first place. I suppose
I am looking at whether there are patterns with regard to catchment
areas, size and location?
Sir Andrew Foster: I am not aware
of there being completely consistent issues to do with rurality,
downtown or size.
Q155 Tim Farron: The affluence of
an area, for instance?
Sir Andrew Foster: Yes. I understand
where you are coming from, but I think the single biggest feature
is about the quality of leadership, as it is with many institutions,
which is, frankly, where are the future generations of principals
coming from? Are people coming from outwith? How strong is that
programme? It seems to me that if it is a critical success factor,
how you invest in the leadership of the sector, it is a very important
issue.
Q156 Tim Farron: I do not want to
re-hash the funding gap issue again, but it is just worth dropping
in that perhaps an issue there is down to salary levels and the
remuneration of managers in FE compared to HE, and indeed schools?
Sir Andrew Foster: Yes. I am not
at all unsympathetic to the funding gap argument, but if you look
at the best practice examples we have got here—and I have
literally just come from two days of talking with a lot of principals—there
are some excellent principals, if you look at the example in here
of Leicester, and I spent time over the last couple of days talking
with the woman who runs the big college in Newcastle. Even with
a funding gap, there are excellent leaders delivering wonderful
results and frankly our joint experience in the Audit Commission
was that quality of leadership in vacuo of resources can
still do excellent things. I am not, therefore, arguing for low
resources, but to say that resources is the key issue towards
excellent service is not correct. If you actually do a scattergram
about the level of investment relative to the quality of the product,
there is not a direct relationship between them.
Tim Farron: Absolutely. I am sure we
all know some incredibly well-paid bank managers.
Q157 Chairman: In colleges principals
are well-paid, comparatively?
Sir Andrew Foster: I suppose it
depends on what your comparison is.
Q158 Chairman: Well, in comparison
with university vice-chancellors there is not much of a gap between
them, is there, with the larger colleges?
Sir Andrew Foster: You are probably
talking about something from £100,000 per annum plus from
the larger ones, I guess, £100,000, £110,000, £120,000.
I do not have the absolutely bona fide information.
Q159 Tim Farron: Moving on to another
area of the report, you talk about the importance of FE having
a brand identity. You did talk about this a little earlier on.
I just wonder precisely what you mean by that and how you think
it would help FE?
Sir Andrew Foster: If I start,
and Bob may want to add to this. Effectively, it feels like FE
do three things. They already do employability and skills, they
do a lot of academic progression through A-levels and they then
do adult learning and leisure learning. If you ask, many people
are not at all clear where their focus is and I think one of the
reasons why FE loses out in the resource debate in Whitehall between
politicians is because there is not the same level of ownership
as there is for schools and universities. You will see we have
penned the phrase "the middle child of the educational family".
It just does not seem to have got the resources in the same way.
The argument of this report is that the economic skills and employability
argument is a massively powerful one because of what is happening
in the world economy and that we are falling behind as a country
in relation to the economies elsewhere in Europe and if you were
to put together a strong case around employability and skills
that would make it very much more understandable by everybody
in society what the prime role was and I think you could argue
that that would end up having an enhanced role in terms of the
level of resources which come FE's way.
Dr Chilton: Just as a postscript,
who stands up and champions FE outside FE? In the schools sector
there is a great parent body there; in the universities, the professions,
etc. FE is that neglected middle child and part of the problem
is that it is not easy for someone to identify with it because
it does so many different things. The emphasis on skills and employability
gives it a potential champion, which is the economy, the business
world, which is where it came from, but as it accumulated so many
additional functions that became diffused. I am not saying lose
those functions, but put a brand image out which builds alliances,
friendships, support and champions beyond the sector itself.
| 
