APPENDIX 51 to House of Commons Select Committee 197/98

Education and Employment Committee Sixth Report

Further Education Volume II Minutes of Evidence and Appendices

 

Memorandum from the Lecturers, Employment Advice and Action Fellowship (LEAF)

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

The further education sector costs the taxpayer in excess of £2.5 billion a year, provides work for more than 100,000 people, and caters for 2,500,000 students. But the sector is in turmoil. Staff are in a state of despair and despondency, standards are falling and complaints are growing. There are a number of instances that have warranted police investigation of principals and their governing bodies and at least 100 Chief Executives of the newly formed corporations have suffered votes of no confidence.

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

 

This report considers the reforms of the further education service, pursuant to the F and HE Act (1992), by way of describing the chronology of events and the political strategy which lay behind these changes. The question of the accountability of FE corporations is assessed and the funding mechanism critically analysed in terms of its impact on the sector. The report also provides a commentary on the use of public funds by corporations, TECs and other providers. The concussive impact of the structural changes are reviewed in terms of their effect upon the quality of the service and further education standards. Teacher motivation, remuneration, tenure of employment and the nature of the changed relationship of staff and management since incorporation is critically assessed. A proposed new framework for the sector is put forward.

 

 

 

THE REFORMS OF THE FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION ACT (1992) AND THEIR EFFECTS ON THE FURTHER EDUCATION SERVICE

 

Prior to the 1 April 1993, colleges of further and higher education were funded and controlled by democratically elected local authorities. The local education authority (LEA) formulated an annual plan for the education services that it had a statutory responsibility to provide. Further education colleges represented a "budget head" in the overall corporate plan of the borough, or otherwise circumscribed area of the LEA's jurisdiction.

 

Prior to the 1 April 1993, local authorities throughout the United Kingdom employed all categories of staff who worked in colleges of further education. The terms and conditions of staff in the colleges were negotiated nationally between the recognised trade unions and the employer's representatives. Negotiations took place on an annual basis and resulted in national collective agreements.

 

To our knowledge, annual negotiations had taken place for at least 25 years. In some authorities, the national agreements were supplemented by local agreements, which met the specific needs of the service in that area of local authority control.

 

The letters of appointment of staff expressly incorporated the terms of the collective agreements into the terms and conditions of individual contracts of employment. Typically, letters made reference to the fact that any changes to collective agreements resulting from negotiations between the employers and the recognised trade unions, would be automatically incorporated into the terms and conditions of the employee's contract.

 

The first stage of the process leading to the removal of colleges from local authority control, and consequently a change of employer, was the Education Reform Act 1988 (ERA). This Act changed the size and composition of governing bodies of maintained further education colleges. It also gave the new governing bodies increased powers and responsibilities over budgets, staffing and general college policies. In most colleges, these reconstituted bodies were in place by September 1989, and took on their new responsibilities from April 1990.

 

The main effect of this change on staff was a period of considerable uncertainty as to who the employer was. There was confusion as to who had responsibility for certain decisions relating to staff. Typically, matters addressed to the Principal were deflected. Invariably staff would be told that the (LEA) was the employer and matters would have to be addressed to It. Similarly, the LEA would deflect any questions relating to staff, claiming that it was a decision for the College. It was, by design, a halfway house that led to a great deal of "buck passing" and to an enormous degree of confusion for the employee.

 

The White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st Century", was published by the Department of Education and Science (DES) on 20 May 1991. It followed a statement by the Education Secretary on 21 March 1991 announcing the Government's intention to introduce legislation to establish a new independent sector for post 16 education. The Paper set out changes to the arrangements for the funding and control of colleges of further and higher education. These changes principally involved giving corporations (FECs) delegated powers and setting up further education funding councils (FEFCs), through which the new college corporations would be financed.

 

Two "key objectives" set out in the White Paper, were to increase student numbers while reducing unit costs. These objectives were to have a serious impact upon the terms and conditions of staff as the train of events will show. Since 80-90 per cent of a typical college's budget, pre-incorporation, was related to salaries, these objectives could only be realistically achieved by worsening the terms and conditions of teaching staff. Any other savings would be at the margin. Indeed, corporate status brought with it the additional costs of an expanded administrative workforce to cope with the new corporate responsibilities.

 

These additional costs were not fully funded. Consequently this further factor has affected the financial viability of corporations in their efforts to reduce unit costs in line with FEFC demands. As an example, Harrogate College now has 88 full-time equivalent lecturing staff and 146 non-academic staff. Prior to incorporation, the staffing ratio was over 90 per cent lecturing staff. This pattern is reflected in colleges across the UK. This change has been drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State on previous occasions and to his predecessor, the Shadow Spokesman Bryan Davies, who expressed surprise and disbelief at the figures. The Committee will of course have access to this data.

 

The Further and Higher Education Act (1992), was presented to the House of Lords on the 4 November 1991 and received Royal Assent on the 6 March 1992. It is clear from the Official Record (Lords), and the proceedings of committee (F), that the Government intended the terms and conditions of staff to be worsened. When discussing Clause 26 of the Bill (the transfer clause), Lord Belstead for the Government said they wished to see colleges, following incorporation, be able to start with a "blank sheet" and not hidebound or constrained by agreements made with the previous employers. As a consequence, the transfer clause relates only to individual contracts and not to collective agreements.

 

The Government had speeded the passage of the Further and Higher Education Bill in time for the general election. The Act has 94 Sections, Three Parts and Nine Schedules. The Act removed colleges of further and higher education from local education authority control and conferred the status of statutory corporations upon colleges in the sector.

 

In autumn 1992, on "incorporation day", the new corporations were set up and run by new governing bodies. They were also eligible to receive transitional funding. The Governing Body of Havering College informed staff that no changes were anticipated in relation to their terms and conditions of employment when the transfer of employer formally took place. We believe that the advice given at Havering College was typical of the advice given in other colleges throughout the UK.

 

On the 5 October 1992, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE), sought a judicial review. Its objective was to clarify whether or not the impending transfer fell within the scope and effect of Directive 77/187. The Secretary of State for Education was forced to concede that the Directive covered the circumstances of the transfer of colleges, and the Court made an Order.

 

It became increasingly apparent to staff that there was a desire on the part of the Secretary of State, and consequently the UK Government, to avoid the obligations placed upon them by European law on the issue of the transfer of colleges from the LEA employers.

 

To the best of our knowledge, there were no consultations with the recognised union. Neither the transferor nor transferee attempted to set out what was "envisaged" either directly or indirectly within what may have reasonably been expected as "good time". To the best of our knowledge, the question of new contracts of employment arose at governing body meetings just prior to the date of transfer.

 

The details of the contracts, which had been designed by the body that had become the employers representative, the CEF, were not made available to staff. What is more, the reconstituted governing bodies, which had resulted from the ERA (1989), prevented staff governors from having access to those sub-committees that dealt with such matters. In short, the staff were kept largely in the dark as to the intentions of the Corporation when it formally took power and became the employer.

 

On the 1 April 1993 (Vesting Day). the corporations became "independent institutions" and assets and staff transferred to them from the LEAs. As a consequence, there was a change of employer. The transfer of those undertakings fell within the scope and effect of Directive 77/187, The Acquired Rights Directive.

 

The Further and Higher Education Act 1992, of course, also established Funding Councils for England and Wales, through which bodies, the financial budgets of colleges would be allocated. Members of the Funding Councils were appointed by the Secretary of State for Education and Science in consultation with the Secretary of State for Employment.

 

As a consequence, the Funding Councils, in this case the FEFCs, are generally viewed as Quango's. In other words they are under the influence or control of what is now the Department of Education and Employment (DEE). They unquestionably lack the degree of autonomy that existed under the former (LEA) arrangements.

 

That influence or control manifested itself in a "holdback" measure announced by the then DES, which the FEFCs were required to introduce. This involved the withholding of 50 million pounds from the allocations to colleges, unless and until the governing bodies of colleges agreed to introduce new and worse contracts for newly appointed staff. Those new and worse contracts were the same contracts which are "said" to have been devised by the representative of the new corporations--the CEF.

 

The holdback measure was directed at new and promoted staff and employers were careful not to force their will upon those staff who were protected by the Directive. However, plans to enforce the new contracts were being carefully laid by corporations throughout the UK, and a process of consultation exercises was gone through.

 

Ostensibly, this was to encourage a voluntary transfer to the new contract. However, it was clear that the employers were laying the ground, from a legal perspective, should they have to impose the contracts unilaterally on ETO grounds. They had certainly been carefully advised of that possibility by the CEF.

 

In every ministerial communication to the principals and chairs of the new corporations, there was a continuing underlying pressure to introduce contractual changes for "all" staff. These communications invariably referred to the financial consequences that may befall corporations that did not heed the advice of the minister.

 

That advice was echoed in virtually every CEF Bulletin and places the independence and integrity of the organisation in question. Some of the advice given by the CEF to the corporations suggested a range of strategies that could be used to force transferred staff off of their protected terms and conditions. In some instances, that advice, in our view, borders upon an incitement to breach contracts. Members of the Select Committee have been sent copies of Mr Ward's suggestions separately.

 

So far as those staff who had transferred from the local authority employer are concerned, considerable pressures were brought to bear upon them to agree to sign the same new and worse contract of employment. Since 1994, "transferred staff' have been placed under severe economic duress. Their salaries have been frozen and consequently their pension rights have been substantially affected. The only way open to them to keep pace with the inflationary pressures, is to sign a new and worse contract of employment. Thousands of staff across the UK who work in the FE sector have refused to do so and are suffering as a consequence. Many thousands of them who did volunteer to sign new and worse contracts are suffering the consequences of agreeing a contract which has resulted in a serious deterioration in their professional status.

 

In addition, the reduction in holiday entitlement and increased hours of work under the new contractual terms, has had a particularly devastating effect upon one parent families. This category of staff are being deprived of their ability to spend as much time, as before the transfer, with their children. At the same time they are incurring considerable additional costs for nursery provision or child minding facilities so that they can meet the demands of the new contractual conditions.

 

A multiplicity of other measures to force through changes have been applied by the corporations. It is our view that the strength of influence wielded by the Government placed upon the newly incorporated colleges. through the FEFC, was a funding mechanism, beginning in 1993, which required colleges to bid for funds in excess of 90 per cent of the previous years allocations. This meant that colleges were forced to expand their activity, since the additional units were paid at an average level of funding. "In essence, colleges could not stand still without being penalised through failing to meet targets for growth"

 

The Further and Higher Education Act has created a situation where colleges can become financially insolvent as a result of the "treadmill effect" of the funding process. The Department of Education has been reported as saying that a 20 per cent reduction in the FE sector would be desirable. The facts as they stand today are that 20 per cent of college corporations are said to be technically bankrupt and rescue packages have had to be organised. This process reflects the key objectives in the White Paper 1991, which concern, "increasing student numbers while reducing unit costs".

 

The practical outcome of these funding measures has been to increase student numbers by a very substantial amount over the period since incorporation. Colleges have been unable to opt out of this drive for growth without suffering a "clawback" of funds, which impacts immediately on the corporations' financial resource allocation in subsequent years. These measures are aimed at achieving unit cost convergence. The convergence figure is subject to annual adjustment by the DEE, which in turn is directly influenced by the Treasury. It seems that the overall objective is to reduce unit costs to the lowest common denominator.

 

From an economic standpoint, the funding arrangements have resulted in direct government control of the FE sector and have all the hallmarks of a monopoly. The power of centralised funding has led to a position in which college governing bodies have little alternative but to toe the Government line and bring about pressure on staff to accept substantial deterioration to their terms and conditions of service. That is, to get staff to do more for less.

 

The Government would not have been in a position to achieve this outcome, were staff in the employ of the LEAs. These are democratically elected bodies and as a consequence would not necessarily have acquiesced to the demands of central government. It is highly unlikely that the current strategy could have been effectively pursued on a national basis if control had remained with the LEAs.

 

While the Government may have been able to "wrest power" from the local authorities by new legislation, they chose to "distance themselves from events" by creating "apparently independent" corporations. However, that aspect of their carefully laid strategy, in our view, has placed the previous government in a position of infringing European law.

 

 

 

THE NATURE AND ROLE OF THE CEF/AOC

 

There are more than 400 colleges in the UK that now fall into the category of statutory corporations employing many thousands of staff. For the most part, the corporations are represented by an Employers' organisation known as the Colleges Employers' Forum (CEF), now the AoC. While the CEF was registered as an independent body with the Certification Officer, there are good reasons to believe that the CEF was not as independent as it would seem.

 

The previous Parliamentary under Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education, Mr Tim Boswell, in our view, influenced the adoption of the CEF as the representative of the Corporations. In almost every letter to the Corporations, he emphasises his agreement with the line that the CEF suggest. Primarily, these suggestions involved applying pressure to change contracts of employment to new and worse terms.

 

In our view, the Parliamentary under Secretary's apparent patronage of the CEFs Chief Executive, had a major effect upon the decision of the FECs to have the CEF represent them. The Minister and Mr Ward, to many observers, appeared to be "two men in one suit". The coincidence of their views appeared to be attributable to factors other than chance.

 

Documentary evidence supplied with this submission, we believe, supports that contention. Our firm belief is that Mr Ward, the Chief Executive of the CEF, was a "placeman" and was simply voicing the views of the Government and in particular, the minister responsible for further education.

 

The connection between the CEF and Government Ministers is highlighted in a document circulated by the Polytechnics and Colleges Employers' Forum, an organisation from which the Colleges Employers' Forum evolved. Indeed these organisations had the same person as Chief Executive, namely, Mr Roger Ward, who was made a CBE in the 1995 New Years Honours.

 

In a circular to College Principals and Chairs of Governing Bodies, dated 10 December 1991, under the auspices of the PCEF, the Chief Executive, Mr Roger Ward, comments upon the role of the Treasury in influencing pay and conditions and the implications of the transfer of employer upon the funding mechanism. He also explicitly sets out the policy to be adopted by the Government, in particular the use of "holdback".

 

In paragraph 18 of the circular, Mr Ward predicts the Governments response when colleges are transferred. That prediction was completely accurate as events transpired, and, was made sixteen months before the transfer took place and a mere six days after the first reading of the Bill in the House of Lords, before it had received its First Reading in the House of Commons. The point is important for other reasons. It is clear indication of what was "envisaged" would happen after incorporation, but staff appear not to have been consulted on the strategy that was intended to affect their contractual rights, which were protected by EC law. These intentions were also recorded in the "Mendip Papers", a series of discussions which took place prior to incorporation, published by the FEU in 1992.

 

The role of the CEF was not welcomed by all college principals. In a letter dated 2 February 1993, directed to all principals of further education colleges, the Principal of Hastings College of Arts and Technology picks up the same theme of concern that we have expressed in earlier paragraphs of this Submission.

 

In that letter, the Principal suggests that the views and opinions of the members of the CEF (i.e., the corporations), have been manipulated or ignored in order that Roger Ward's own objectives can be met. She goes on to say that, "if we do not respond we shall soon find that Mr Ward (our employee) is managing both us and our Colleges." She continues in a later paragraph to say that "Roger Ward might argue that we can interpret the contracts at a local level, but once a norm has been created, political pressures will make it difficult to deviate from that norm". We would question whether the objectives she attributes to Roger Ward, were in fact his, or those of the minister concerned.

 

The outcome of the various events described in this chronology, is that large numbers of lecturers throughout the UK who are employed by the new further education corporations, continue to face the prospect of dismissal unless they agree to sign a new and worse contract of employment. Thousands have signed under various forms of duress; economic and otherwise, including harassment and intimidation.

 

In addition, as a direct, and, we are convinced, intended consequence of the incorporation of colleges, further education lecturers have virtually no career structure, appointments are typically made on a "spot point", where there is no longer an incremental scale, performance related pay has replaced collective bargaining, and agencies have been allowed to operate in the sector for the supply of staff, many of whom are of low quality and who generally have no interest in pastoral affairs or matters of course organisation.

 

We contend that the spirit and purpose of the ARD has been seriously infringed, and that this was part of a complex and carefully laid prearranged plan by the previous government to worsen the terms and conditions of staff in the sector. We also believe that the process of incorporation of colleges and the centralisation and control of the funding mechanism was an integral part of that strategy.

 

College Corporations, on the advice of their representative, the CEF, are dismissing staff who fail to agree to sign new and worse contracts. They are using grounds for the dismissal of staff that avoid the scope and effect of the Directive 77/187, by claiming that there are financial reasons for doing so.

 

 

 

THE GROWTH OF THIRD PARTY PROVIDERS

 

One outcome of incorporation has been the development of the "third party" provider of staff. Once again Mr Ward and the CEF appear to be at the bottom of this development. Recent press reports, which unusually for Mr Ward, have gone unchallenged, suggest that he actively sought endorsement from the minister of the day for a single agency in the sector-Education Lecturing Services.

 

Since ELS was established, a large number of colleges employ all or a significant proportion of their part-time staff through the agency. The reasons that colleges give for choosing to obtain staff this way is that they believed that it enabled them to circumvent the rights of part-time workers. That advice was provided by the CEF.

 

The agency scenario is one further example of a monumental legal sleight of hand, which hinged, for political reasons, on the incorporation of colleges. It may be of interest to the Committee to know that the average cost of membership of ELS is around £10,000. This is made up of a joining fee of £6,000 and an annual IT fee of around £4,000 for the average college. The latter figure is said to relate to software, maintenance and training.

 

Given the pressure colleges have been under to dispense with existing staff, and the associated costs of achieving this, in order to employ cheaper labour, ELS and agencies of the like were promoted as an easy way to avoid obligations at law as an employer. There are clear indications that the Chief Executive of the CEF is, or was, or intended to be, a member of the board of ELS, a body which he promoted as a sole agency.

 

The Committee should understand that the agency has not simply been used to recruit part-time staff. Thousands of staff who worked on a part-time basis for colleges were effectively dismissed and simply handed over to ELS. For example, at Accrington and Rossendale College, the Principal sacked 350 staff in 1996. They were told that if they wished to be employed at the college in the future, they would have to register with ELS to do so. The College would not employ them directly. We have been informed by staff working at that college that they were verbally informed by the college's senior management that, if they attempted to assert their statutory rights, they would never be employed by the College again, either directly or indirectly. More than 10,000 staff have left the sector since incorporation. Dismissal, redundancy and early retirements are the main causes of this massive loss of human resources.

 

It is important to recognise the full extent of the impact of the agency scenario, which is linked to Mr Ward and the CEF/AoC boards. Many colleges continue to insist that all (or a substantial proportion) of their part-time staff, submit to a closed-agency arrangement, such as the ELS. For example, in December 1997, North Hertfordshire College declared its intention to achieve a 70-30 split between those employed by the college and those employed by an agency. There have been recently been 40 redundancies at this college, which took effect on 1 January 1998.

 

We wish to make the Committee aware of the concerted action of many colleges, under Mr Ward's influence, to implement a closed-agency policy for part-time staff. Often this is achieved under the threat of dismissal or after being dismissed. Education Lecturing Services and Nord Anglia feature prominently in this scenario.

 

The civil law of course promotes competition by pure market means, but reacts against any commercial activity which leans against perfect competition. In particular, the law reacts against any form of combination, whether it be a monopoly, oligopoly or cartel, and offers not only course of action, but legal redress. In relation to the above, any attempts to persuade a party to an existing contract, to break that contract, is incitement. Any agreement with a third party, for a party to a contract to break the same is conspiracy. Any act of intimidation designed to, or which results in such a breach, may be regarded as unlawful interference with an existing contract. We believe that, at the very least, there has been unlawful interference.

 

The principal influence upon the nature and stance of the CEF/AoC has been that of Roger Ward. The ramifications of his influence on policy/advice/methodology are dendritic in their insidious influence, the full effect of which we feel is yet to be revealed. Following the recent revelations, a full review is required of the "Ward influence" on college tactics and behaviour over the intervening years since incorporation. It is our sincere hope that the Select Committee will undertake this task with gusto.

 

It should be no surprise to the members of the Committee that those staff affected by being brushed off to a third party provider are sickened by their experience. They will have lost their statutory rights, any semblance of a career, the employers contribution to the teachers pension scheme for the remainder of their life, and have no security of tenure whatsoever. The impact of the agency scenario on these staff, does not end there. Learning is often a vicarious process and those staff still in the employment of the college corporation await their turn for the thumbscrews with great trepidation. Morale has been sapped by this step alone.

 

Is there any wonder that morale in the sector has dropped to an all time low? Indeed, it is difficult to see how much further it can fall--though no doubt the AoC and the principals and chairs of corporation will find further ways. Ward has engendered among many of them the "Captain Bligh" approach to human resource management. 'The advice it seems, is to "keep up the flogging until morale improves".

 

 

 

THE IMPACT OF THE CHANGE OF EMPLOYER ON TEACHER MOTIVATION, PROSPECTS AND REMUNERATION

 

The earlier sections of this submission have attempted to set out a chronology of events leading to the change

 

of employer. It has also concerned, in the main, the impact of the changes upon staff. We hope that the Select Committee will not consider this simple as self-interest. The effects of the changes to the terms and conditions of staff, together with the encouragement of a management style by Mr Ward which is more befitting to Attila the Hun is at the very core of the problems; not the only problem, but a very significant problem. Morale is a rather intangible concept, yet it is as plain as a pike staff to anyone who seriously wishes to get to the heart of the difficulties, that morale has reached an all time low since incorporation.

 

The principal reason is the dramatic worsening of conditions of service for little in the way of financial recompense and an extremely shabby human relations approach. It is worth considering the experience and situation of further education lecturers at the present time, in order to come to some assessment of the quality of the service.

 

Further education lecturers; those, that is, who enjoy a permanent contract of employment, are established teachers. Many have had previous experience in schools; a lot have had careers in industry, commerce or the service industries. They have entered further education for many reasons, but primarily to make a contribution to the education of people in a post-school setting. In this sense, they are idealists. They wish to add to the nations stock of knowledge, skills and adaptive ability.

 

There is much evidence to support this view of further education teachers' motivation. Furthermore, until April 1993, they enjoyed nationally determined conditions of service which were analogous to those of schoolteachers, with whom they share common pension arrangements. They also enjoyed a small favourable salary differential with schoolteachers (long since turned into the opposite), reflecting the benefits they brought through their experience and commitment.

 

Although the sector did not escape from the general criticism levelled at education from the mid 1970's onwards, no one seriously demurred from the view that further education gave value for money. We have been unable to find any authoritative reports which seriously criticised the commitment, expertise, quality of teaching or results obtained by FE lecturers. The service, an arm of the LEA, was adequately, if not generously, funded and many FE colleges were recognised as centres of excellence in the LEA-funded system. They provided high-quality vocational education and training, Advanced level provision as an alternative to the sixth form, non-vocational general courses for the public, day-release facilities (a much admired feature) short courses for the employed and unemployed, a focus for community education, adult education and a rich and diverse evening class provision, copied throughout the world. Further education lecturers had a high status, but they had earned it. Good teachers and potential teachers sought posts in colleges, which was generally a graduate profession. in-service training (life-long learning) was a feature of staff development, and great attention was paid to skill updating.

 

The reforms of further education were preceded by a general attack on lecturers' conditions of service, which began, rather obliquely, in the mid to late 1980's. Following the granting of 25 per cent of funding for non-advanced further education (NAFE) to the MSC in 1985, National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs), were promoted by the Government and particularly the CBI, as a solution to Britain's "skills deficit", was accompanied by implicit attacks on further education colleges, which were held to be too "inflexible" to deliver the new-style qualifications. Given that NVQs were originally designed to be qualifications assessed exclusively in the workplace, this was regarded by many in FE as an odd criticism--rather like criticising a fish for not growing legs and walking. It was, nevertheless, to the sector's credit that it responded to the new initiative in the way it had responded to previous ones, by attempting to adapt its provision to take account of the new qualification, and to gain the right to accredit and assess NVQs.

 

A number of authorities and colleges seconded staff and allocated resources towards making new arrangements with employers (the ostensible leaders of the new scheme), in order to be better able to deliver NVQs. What was notable about this period was the extent to which educationalists were kept at arms length from the development of the qualification--the development having been handed over to hastily put-together Lead Industry Bodies (LIBs), which were employer-led. One consequence of this was that the NCVQ (a government quango created to popularise the new qualifications), was able to produce promotional material which explicitly criticised the college lectures "restrictive" conditions of service, as a barrier to the "skills revolution" they sought to promote. The lamentable record of employers in contributing to employee training during the post-war years, was conveniently overlooked.

 

The scenario became characteristic of the Governments approach to the sector--to create straw men to knock down. In point of fact, further education had responded as well as it could possibly have been expected to have done, to the new vocational qualifications framework. By 1992-93, the time of incorporation, most, if not all, colleges had developed programmes leading to NVQ assessment. Many had met the requirement of NVQ assessors. This was in marked contrast to most of industry and commerce, which had shown little or no interest in the new qualifications, which were and are, explicitly employer led. At the time of writing, less than 10 per cent of employees use or intend to use NVQs. 100 per cent of FE colleges have NVQ involvement.

 

The attack on lecturers' conditions was next linked to globalisation, a concept which had become increasingly popular in official circles since the mid ]980's. Britain's relative lack of success in equipping its workforce with job related qualifications was explained, absurdly, as a consequence of lecturers conditions of service, which were said to benefit--only lecturers! Needless to say, this fiction was faithfully repeated on numerous occasions by the employers "independent" organisation, the Colleges's Employers Forum--later the Association of Colleges. As recently as November 1997, the employers Chief Executive repeated the claim in an article in the "Guardian" newspaper.

 

The truth was very different. The policies of governments during the 1980's and 1990's have been concerned with supply side reforms. In further education, this approach found expression in a marketisation (though not privatisation, as some have asserted) of the FE scene and a fragmentation of the system into over 400 competing units. The explicit aim of these changes was, as the White Paper made clear, to increase participation while at the same time driving down unit costs. The only way in which this could be achieved was to attack and destroy lecturers' lawful contractual conditions of service, and replace them with something much worse.

 

In worsening conditions of service, and rather brutally requiring teachers to work harder, for longer, for the same remuneration, the government, and its mouthpiece (for that is what it had become), the CEF, realised that standards of service delivery would fall. In the circumstances, standards could not but fall. Their response was to introduce a system for college inspections which could hide the fact. Funded by the same body which funds the colleges, the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC), the Further Education Inspectorate was set up. The concept of independent inspection was thus compromised from the very inception of college inspection post incorporation.

 

Although the inspection teams undoubtedly spend a great deal of time and effort on their work, they operate to specifications laid down by the funding body--which is in turn funded by the Government through the Treasury. The result has been a regime of inspection--highly bureaucratic, remote and preoccupied with completing recording systems which are designed to meet primarily financial targets set down by the FEFC. Many colleges which have seriously degrade their learning experience have "passed" inspections with high grades, for these reasons. The categories of inspection include "governance and management". A number of colleges which have experienced virtual civil war as a result of outrageous attacks by their management on their lecturers' conditions, with the result of a disastrous morale, have ridiculously gained grades 1 or 2 (the highest) for governance and management. An effect of the inspection regime is to have brought into being a "fools paradise", whereby a college which has a poor record of student retention and examination success, can gain an excellent inspection report.

 

The results of the round of inspections that have taken place, which have portrayed most colleges in a favourable light, simply do not tally with the overwhelming evidence of a poor performance in terms of student retention and achievement. This fact has been completely overlooked by the Chief Inspector of colleges in his last two annual reports.

 

 

 

THE VITAL IMPORTANCE OF STAFF MORALE

 

We will be particularly blunt and say that the morale of teaching staff in the majority of colleges today is practically non-existent. If the committee wishes to look at why the FE system is performing sub-optimally, it must consider the vital question of teacher morale and motivation. All attempts to improve the FE provision will be to no avail unless this key problem is tackled--quickly.

 

 

 

REMUNERATION OF FURTHER EDUCATION TEACHERS

 

Since 1993, lecturers on the national contracts of employment which transferred on incorporation, have faced relentless pressure to give up those conditions of service, pay scales, and other rights, for reasons we have already explained. A minority did so shortly after national negotiations broke down early in 1994. To our knowledge, none did so with enthusiasm, and all recognised that they had suffered a setback. A majority at the time resisted the employers (and Government's) entreaties and threats, and determined to retain their inherited lawful contracts.

 

It quickly became apparent that the employers' organisation, backed by the Government, had a carefully worked out plan to deal with this eventuality. "New Starters" and "promotees" were employed only on new model contracts, virtually identical in every important detail to the widely touted CEF model. A new pay review date of 1 August was created for this category of staff, distinct from the 1 September date of the majority. In September 1994, the date of the next pay review, virtually all employer colleges, acting on CEF advice/instructions, refused even a cost of living pay rise to their "Silver Book" staff. This move took place, of course, with full Government knowledge and support. The question was presented, in characteristic political language, as one of choice. This pay policy towards staff on the nationally-negotiated conditions of service, has continued unchanged up to the present day, with the predictable result that the majority who insisted initially on retaining their inherited conditions of service have dwindled to a minority, the rest having left in disgust, taken up new appointments, retired, or entered into new local agreements under the auspices of their recognised union. The minority who remain on frozen salaries and conditions are cynically abused by the employers organisation at every opportunity, as being "destructive of staff morale" (sic), "unrepresentative" or unrealistic.

 

The majority of lecturers who have now signed or been forced onto new contractual terms have suffered a large net pay cut in real terms, in the sense that in exchange for handing over to their employers complete control of the contractual situation, they have been compelled to work many more hours, days and weeks in the year, contractually. The maximum pay of a lecturer on the national conditions of service who is on the top of the scale (i.e., after 10 years or more of service), is fixed at £20,538--a paltry sum for a teacher who has committed his or her life's work to the service. Staff newly appointed on the new model contracts are routinely placed on a spot point on a notional scale, typically £13-14,000.

 

If this situation were not bad enough, the employer's organisation has assisted colleges in bringing further pressure on recalcitrant staff, and has encouraged a culture of intimidation and fear. If the new Government really wishes to make as its priorities, "Education, Education, Education ", then it has a moral duty to right these dreadful wrongs which, as the employer of the last resort, it is responsible for bringing into being. This union has submitted a test case to the Industrial Tribunal on the question of new contracts of employment. One of the points of our claim is that colleges of further education are "emanations of the State", as that term is understood in law for the purposes of employment legislation. We understand that the Association of colleges does not agree with this assertion. However, we are completely confident that our point of view on this matter will prevail.

 

The implication of colleges being declared to be "emanations of the State" are profound. It is our belief that European law has been deliberately flouted by college employers in several respects, including the matters of pay and conditions of service. We would like the committee to examine the Government's attitude towards its further education teachers during the past five years. We are sure that an honest assessment will be that the Government as employer has set no example whatsoever as a good employer. Quite the reverse in fact. We shall bring these matters to law if it proves necessary.

 

 

 

STAFF MORALE AND MOTIVATION

 

If matters remain as they are today, and we see no evidence to indicate any change of heart by the new Government, then staff on the national conditions of service will have their pay and pensions frozen. Their prospects for retiring in some comfort will have been destroyed. Nor will they, should CEF/AoC policy continue, ever be considered for promotion, unless it be on new terms. Additionally, they can expect to be overlooked for staff development and will, apparently, be made more vulnerable to redundancy.

 

We will vigorously challenge the legitimacy of this behaviour, which has received official tacit, i.e., Government support.

 

The culture of fear and intimidation, which is now all-pervasive in our colleges, has had a corrosive effect on the learning experience, by adding to the anxiety of the professionals working in the sector. From being a rarely invoked sanction (previously, professional peer pressure ensured that high standards were maintained), disciplinary action is now a routinely-used method of control. It has been estimated that in the five years since incorporation, over 8,000 disciplinary cases have taken place. This figure beggars belief as a true reflection of poor professional attitude. It is, in reality, a reflection of the crude use of the weapon to stifle legitimate opposition to the disastrous changes that have taken place in the past five years. We have evidence that demonstrates that the CEF was instrumental in emphasising the efficacy of disciplinary action as a means of counteracting genuine concern about the wisdom of some of the changes.

The upshot of this scandalous and Philistine approach to human resource management is, unsurprisingly, that the morale of lecturing staff has hit rock bottom. We have a great deal of evidence to demonstrate this lamentable fact. A further irony is that even those staff who voluntarily agreed to give up their professional conditions of service, perhaps imagining that it might put them in a "good light" with their employers, have in many cases had to endure a pay freeze in the last year. Their employers have not awarded pay increases to academic staff, pleading poverty. They have however, asked and required of their staff, that they work even harder in the last year. The sense of bitterness and betrayal is absolute and general. The cumulative effects of these developments have been catastrophic for the quality of teaching and service delivery. We shall offer comprehensive evidence to demonstrate this truism if called to give oral evidence.

 

MANAGERIALISM---A DYSFUNCTIONAL CULTURE REPLACING THE COLLEGIATE ETHOS OF ESPRIT DE CORPS

 

Perhaps one of the worst aspects of the new reality of further education is the culture of managerialism, which supplanted the old collegiate ethos. The CEF was instrumental in forging what it termed "strong institutional leadership" in the sector following incorporation. What was created, in fact, was a supine management stratum, which slavishly followed the policies of the CEF (and, ipso facto, the Government), to the complete detriment of the service. It could not have been otherwise, logically speaking, since one of the intended outcomes of incorporation and the new funding arrangements, was that colleges would compete ruthlessly against one another.

 

One of the central tenets of managerialism as an approach to the human resource management, is its belief that, in the public sector, the result of the absence of competition by providers, is inefficiency. The college senior management, though, would not have readily entered "intellectually" so to speak, into such a belief, from a history pre-incorporation, of co-operation and cross-borough planning, without strong incentives to do so. They had to be "won over" ideologically, to new arrangements; to be given incentives to change their approach.

 

One form the incentives took was negative; Government manipulation of the funding mechanism and "holdback" which threatened the very survival of the institutions. A further incentive came in the form of executive power in the "independent corporations", together with greatly enhanced salaries, and novel perks (to the sector), such as leased cars, interest free loans, mobile telephones, expense accounts and reserve funds for pet projects. A few brave individuals voiced their concerns. The majority accepted their new status gleefully and set about their tasks (carefully laid down for them by Mr Ward of the CEF), with gusto.

 

There were opportunities for ambitious staff during this period. Many a career leap has been made by individuals who have been prepared to sing to the (new) official song-book. This culture of managerialism has had the negative effect, though, of creating a caste of obsequious and self-serving "middle managers" for whom the real task of educating students takes a poor second place to their personal, financial and career interests. The fact that over 100 Chief Executives had received votes of "no confidence" from staff organisations, was airily dismissed as irrelevant by the employers' organisation. That is managerialism.

 

It is worth saying at this point, lest our views be regarded as merely "sour grapes", that we are not against staff gaining adequate monetary rewards for their efforts. Far from it. In fact, we will later in this report advance the case for the full remuneration of teaching staff. However, in the case above, we are referring to a different problem, which is systemic. That is, we assert that incorporation was followed by the deliberate creation of a stratum of managers (of doubtful utility) who have a material and career interest in the maintenance of a further education arrangement which is, from the standpoint of the national interest, wasteful and sub-optimal in performance. This must not be allowed to continue.

 

Thus was created in the sector a divide between "managers" and "lecturers" - between teachers and administrators, a divide which has since widened to a chasm. The prime concern of the "managers" has become the financial management of the enterprise, a priority which has assumed congruence with hostility to teachers. Without the existence of an effective system of accountability, the result has been an almost farcical scenario of financial misappropriation and management, nepotism, cronyism, and incompetence, which has brought the sector into disrepute. Academic freedom, to criticise these obvious wrongs, has, in consequence, come under attack from college managements.

 

We hold a catalogue of instances in which staff have suffered disciplinary action for exercising their right to speak out against mismanagement and other ill effects.

 

 

 

THE CORPORATE STATUS OF FE COLLEGES MUST BE REMOVED

 

The explanation for these dysfunctions is obvious, and the solution just as straightforward The power of "independent" corporations to create new categories of non-teaching staff and their freedom to duplicate and multiply non-reaching staff has to be curtailed.

 

In most institutions the ratio of non-teaching to teaching staff is very high, and in many the non-teaching administrators and support staff clearly outnumber the teachers. We have drawn this matter to the attention of Mr Blunkett, the Secretary of State. We also raised the issue with Bryan Davies (now Lord Davies, and the new Chair of the FEFC), when he was the shadow minister responsible for the sector. He expressed disbelief with our claims. They are completely true, nevertheless.

 

The demoralised state of the teaching staff lends itself to an ethos in which they are regarded as an impediment to the financial soundness of the colleges. Indeed, this explanation has been used in justification of staff dismissals for sham "E.T.O" reasons. Thus it is that in the annual round (for it is at least an annual event) of "cost savings", lecturers are always the first to suffer financially, either directly in the form of job losses or increased workloads, or indirectly in terms of cutbacks in equipment, resources, training or support, or in wage freezes.

 

Ever more ingenious ways have been devised to ensure that colleges can function with fewer and fewer teachers, relative to non-teaching staff. For example, a full-time course is now defined as one with a mere 16 hours of class contact time, thus enabling many more students to be allocated to their exhausted teachers, whose class teaching hours have increased relentlessly towards absolute physical limits. 'Trainers' instruct students in a rudimentary fashion and then allow them to work alone. The concept of "supported self-study" has been added to the growing vocabulary of euphemisms to disguise a collapse of real education.

 

Lecturers are now required to take on course management duties, personal tutor duties and many other major tasks, which increasingly spill over into their "own time". The contractual duties of lecturers in the new "model contract", list 23 separate major areas of work. Life for lecturers has become a purgatory of unrelenting toil and exhaustion.

 

For senior managers, the situation could not be more different. They have approached the problems of funding shortages from a different standpoint. Invariably, the management sector has grown unchecked since incorporation, to the point where a typical colleges' structure now resembles an inverted pyramid. Many colleges known to the authors before incorporation had typically a principal, vice-principal and chief administration officer. All of the colleges we have surveyed now have at least five senior staff designated principal or vice-principal, as well as other senior staff; all on high salaries and the usual perks mentioned earlier. The justification usually offered (increased administration/ financial workload) does not stand up to serious examination. An entirely new breed of administrators, marketing managers, personnel directors, human resources directors etc., now carry out these roles. Fully 1/6 or 1/7 of most colleges' entire funding is now used to pay for senior staff, their admin/support workers and secretaries (status demands they have a secretary each), as well as their offices, equipment and perks. This expenditure represents a colossal waste of taxpayers' money which ostensibly is directed towards education.

 

The point of this explanation is that these managers view their jobs primarily in terms of financial parameters--not educational ones. The concept of academic leadership, so integral to the collegiate structure, has been a casualty of incorporation. Moreover, these senior staff control and determine the colleges academic offer. The fact that, in response to recent criticisms, some colleges have trimmed back their management structures, only serves to prove our point, that they are essentially a parasitic outgrowth.

 

This group represents the main, and probably the only, voice arguing for the maintenance of the present arrangements, from within the system.

 

 

 

THE STUDENTS' EXPERIENCE OF FURTHER EDUCATION

 

An often-neglected viewpoint is that of the student who experiences the further education system first-hand. One of the chief concerns of this union is that the lecturers we represent are seen also to articulate the desires of today's' students, who are also taxpayers. Consumers, parents and today's' and tomorrows workforce.

 

A point made earlier was that the savage cost-cutting that has taken place (partly masked by breakneck expansion), has resulted in the number of hours made available to the students in direct contact time with their teachers in the classroom, has been pared to the bone. A typical 24-hour a week course, pre-incorporation, would now have 16 or 18 hours a week "class-time". This simple statistic illustrates more than any other the fraudulent claims made by the employers organisation, and the previous administration, that the result of incorporation has been an improvement in the offer. If many fewer hours of class teaching, in a degraded environment, with a demoralised and despairing lecturer, is defined as an "improvement", then we disassociate ourselves from the term "improvement".

 

In fact, other, genuinely independent surveys and analyses (as opposed to those commissioned or controlled by the FEFC or college employers), have revealed serious shortcomings in British further and vocational education. Structure and function are often intangible features in balance. It is clear that, though it may be a daunting prospect, serious and fundamental reform is necessary to achieve a harmony of purpose and structure.

 

The ill-conceived and intellectually bankrupt concept of "competence" behind NVQs was re-vamped in 1993 with the creation of General Vocational Qualifications (GNVQs). Leaving aside the obvious contradiction that presents itself in a general qualification based upon "competence", GNVQs have now become the most popular vocational option for most non-academic students.

 

The delivery of GNVQs takes place mainly in further education colleges. It is here that the impact of the worsening of lecturers conditions of service collides with the philosophy of breadth and depth which GNVQs are supposed to embrace. The key statistics which indicate student experiences of the system are, since attendance post 16 is voluntary, the drop out rates, completion rates and success rates. The employers and Government have been keen to present GNVQs as a success story, bridging the academic/vocational divide, and providing a vocational "A" level equivalent, for work or higher education.

 

On the surface, GNVQ success rates look impressive in some subjects, with pass rates of over 80 per cent. A careful examination of figures reveals a different story, however. A typical college statistical analysis will reveal a drop out rate of over 40 per cent of initial enrolments. Of the 60 per cent remaining, an 80 per cent pass rate has been claimed by some institutions. This figure can drop to 40 per cent or less. The figures for intermediate (Level 2) GNVQ are worse than for advanced. Thus 80 per cent success rates can mask an actual success rate of 25 per cent or less from original enrolment.

 

Advanced levels and GCSE programmes are beginning to suffer similar problems. The "cheapest" subjects, that is, those which can be taught most cost effectively, have expanded at the expense of more genuinely vocational areas. Thus, Business Studies, Leisure and Tourism and other "generic" subjects have grown disproportionately.

 

Although we maintain that most lecturers, for all their difficulties, offer a good teaching situation, it would be naive not to expect the learning situation to have been degraded in the atmosphere of ruthless cost cutting of the past five years. The responsibility for any worsening of standards or the learning experience, lies squarely with the Further Education Funding Council, and the Government.

 

 

 

A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR FURTHER EDUCATION

 

The present arrangement, we maintain, if allowed to prevail, will never lead to the establishment of a world-class system of education and training, which the Government has said it will bring into being.

 

The present arrangements, to any serious observer are chaotic and unplanned and the distribution of provision, sub-optional.

 

It will require careful planning and the judicious use of resources to repair this situation, and we would like to explain in detail to the Committee some of our proposals, which we set out in brief here.

 

...The reintegration of FE colleges into local or regional post 16 provision, which incorporates all training and education, sponsored or paid for directly or indirectly, by the state--the concept of independent corporations or TECS would disappear and an economy of scale would be achieved.

 

...The establishment of regional funding mechanisms which are sensitive to regional and local economic needs and educational priorities. The concept of funding "convergence" would be replaced by appropriate "weighting" figures to reflect the importance of education in providing opportunities for disadvantaged people and areas. This would make provision consistent with EU Regional Development Policies.

 

...The formula--fixing of post 16 funding to ensure it does not suffer the stop-go acceleration and retrenchment that has characterised recent years. This would allow planning and forecasting to embrace change.

 

...The recognition of the status of FE lecturers as able professionals, and their integration into a General Teaching Council.

 

...The reestablishment of National Conditions of Service guidelines for all Further Education teachers, and a national pay scale, annually reviewed in a joint national council of employers and recognised unions, to include LEAF. This will, at a stroke end the patchwork quilt of fragmented pay and condition scales, and the disputes that have gone with them. Additionally, it will recreate a career structure, enabling talented individuals to enter, leave and move around the system.

 

...The setting of targets for provision and attainment jointly by all sides involved in the exercise, Government, employers, staff organisations and students.

 

We believe that further education has taken several backward steps over the past five years. The Government, or past Governments, who initiated the changes, are responsible for institutions changes that have seen the service deteriorate markedly in many areas.

 

It is time for a new beginning. We believe our analysis and prescriptions, based as they are on the considered views of those who really work to make the service successful, represent the logical starting point.

 

 

David Evans

General Secretary of LEAF

 

David Robinson

National Officer of LEAF

 

January 1998

 

 

Return to top of Page