Conflict with schools policy
159. Pauline Waterhouse of Blackpool and the Fylde
College argued that a lack of coherent policy at national level
on the way that local provision at post-16 was planned often led
to practical difficulties on the ground.
"[...] last year we exceeded our funding target
with the LSC and effectively recruited more 16-18-year-olds and
more 19-plus students than we were actually funded for. That was
to the tune of just under £900,000 worth of education that
was delivered without any financial support from the LSC. We are
likely to exceed our targets significantly again this year. At
the last count we looked to be exceeding our targets by some 232
students. At the same time as we are in this situation in Blackpool,
we have discussions going on with the Local Education Authority
about the provision of a new 11-18 academy in Blackpool. My concern
would be why are we fostering and stimulating these debates from
DfES in respect of additional post-16 provision when the Learning
and Skills Council cannot fund the provision that exists already
in particular areas. That is of very, very great concern indeed,
that there is not a coherence and a discussion between what is
going on in respect of secondary schools and in respect of what
is going on in the college sector."[129]
160. In a similar vein, Jacqui Johnson of NATFHE
(and also a member of her local LSC board) told us that:
"We have set up all these strategic area reviews
nationally at an enormous cost and in the middle of that whole
process various things were thrown out by the Government which
made our position seem much weaker, things like yes, okay, schools
can set up new sixth forms and that has thrown the whole thing
up in the air. I could throw back the question what happened to
that whole strategic area review? We were looking for a real
analysis of post-16 education in this country and it seems to
have gone nowhere, which was very disappointing."[130]
161. We asked Ministers about inconsistencies over
who was responsible for what. Phil Hope told us that measures
outlined in the FE White Paper, as well as measures to be enacted
under the Education and Inspections Bill, would lead to a more
coherent system:
"What is critical here is that the collaborative
partnerships—and we are learning from the pathfinders that
we have established already and that are proving so successful—you
have two funding bodies, local authorities and LSCs covering 14-16,
16-19; and they need to work, and have a duty to work collaboratively—and
the bill reinforces that, if we ever get these clauses in the
bill. However, we felt that there was still that possibility of
a lack of the joined-upness despite that—so to reinforce
the importance of creating a clarity that one organisation takes
responsibility in a strategic way, an overall way, for the whole
partnership that is operating; and that is the role that we describe
in the White Paper. There will still be two funding streams but
there is an important [role] for the local authority to ensure
that that is all working together at a local level. The LSC will
still commission 16-19 provision, but will do so within a joint
strategy, broad responsibility for which will be the local authority."
162. The
intention is that school and college provision will be better
co-ordinated and planned, to enable all young people to access
to the full range of the new vocational diplomas and an appropriate
range of provision at 14-19. It is clear that attention is being
paid to policy development in support of this agenda. However,
inconsistencies remain between the funding and planning arrangements
for schools and FE colleges at policy level which translate into
paradoxical, and occasionally self-defeating arrangements locally.
We have heard examples of instances where the costs of provision
for additional 16-18-year-olds recruited by a college cannot
be met while at the same time, the opening of a new academy is
being considered for the same area. Further, it is not clear that
the expensive and time-consuming process of carrying out Strategic
Area Reviews to determine 16+ provision in an area was justified
when the conclusions arrived at were sometimes overridden by school
planning decisions emanating from outside the LSC. This does not
sound to us like the result of a coherent policy which enables
sensible local planning.
163. The Minister
told us that the FE White Paper would mean that FE colleges could
expand provision at 14-19 where there was a local need. We recognise
that the announcement of a presumption in favour of expansion
for colleges goes some way to levelling the playing field and
we hope that this indicates a reigning in of a policy that has
traditionally and by default favoured school expansion whether
or not this made sense in terms of local needs. The Further Education
White Paper also says that local authorities will take over the
main strategic responsibility for co-ordinated planning of 14-19
provision. However, we question how a situation where local authorities
have strategic responsibility, but are not acting as fundholders
will work in practice.
108 
