Monday’s NHS White Paper is likely to lead to NHS Foundation Trusts (FTs) being moved off the public sector balance sheet. I wonder if this may herald changes down the line in how academy schools (and free schools from 2011) are accounted for.
Academies are similar to FTs – they are independent, not-for-profit (or more precisely, not-for-dividend) entities delivering public services. Historically academies and FTs have found themselves accounted for as part of the public sector.
Google can help with most things but I have never found the Office for National Statistics’ justification for putting academies on the public sector balance sheet. I presume it is a reflection of Whitehall’s control over academies – and maybe the fact that they were originally proposed as “independent state schools”. The accounting treatment is quite different from that applied to Further Education Colleges and Sixth Form Colleges.
Does any of this matter? It’s not accounting anorakism. Sitting on the public sector balance sheet means that academies are consolidated into Whole of Government Accounts – and that requires additional information to be collected and returned by academies. Being an integral part of the public sector also reflects a mindset where the emphasis is on being state schools rather than independent schools.
If academies do follow FTs off the public sector balance sheet, maybe they will be allowed to borrow in the same manner as colleges have to improve their buildings. That may be very useful given the squeeze on capital funding in the public sector and the demise of Building Schools for the Future.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
The Big Tax rise for the Big Society
I try not to spout off on this blog. But I am concerned about the impact of the VAT rise on charities. (Colleges too will be hit.) The Charity Tax Group estimates the impact to be £143m.
As well as a campaign by the third sector to protect charities, there is an online petition in support of a proposed amendment to the Finance Bill. I urge you to sign it.
As well as a campaign by the third sector to protect charities, there is an online petition in support of a proposed amendment to the Finance Bill. I urge you to sign it.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Size can be bad for your (college financial) health?
The KPMG report on Delivering Value for Money through Infrastructural Change found “evidence that larger colleges may be more efficient and have the advantage of economies of scale”. The graphs certainly show administrative costs fall with overall costs. This finding was a key underlying hypothesis in the report. More perplexingly the report also found that when comparing the percentage of General FE (GFE) colleges’ surpluses against their total income: “It shows a slight negative correlation between total income and surplus as a proportion of this. This is an emerging finding which we will be exploring further.”
The report does not really explain this peculiar finding that larger GFE colleges have worse financial performance despite lower admin costs. The demise of the LSC and the squeeze on consultancy fees may have put the kibosh on a further exploration.
Was the analysis of the 2007/8 college accounts a historical anomaly? Maybe not. I cranked the numbers for GFE colleges using the 2008/9 accounts. (As I suspect that Greater London with its high costs and extra funding may distort the picture, I excluded London colleges. I also omitted Newcastle College which is so much larger than the rest of the sector.) What I found was a slight deterioration in operating surplus as a percentage of income as income increased.
The report does not really explain this peculiar finding that larger GFE colleges have worse financial performance despite lower admin costs. The demise of the LSC and the squeeze on consultancy fees may have put the kibosh on a further exploration.
Was the analysis of the 2007/8 college accounts a historical anomaly? Maybe not. I cranked the numbers for GFE colleges using the 2008/9 accounts. (As I suspect that Greater London with its high costs and extra funding may distort the picture, I excluded London colleges. I also omitted Newcastle College which is so much larger than the rest of the sector.) What I found was a slight deterioration in operating surplus as a percentage of income as income increased.
How can this be that larger GFE colleges have much lower admin costs and slightly lower surpluses? Maybe these colleges are shifting resources from admin to the front line. There is some evidence for this as success rates and inspection results suggest larger colleges perform better non-financially. (Of course, larger colleges are better able to prepare for inspection which may not always mean that the outcomes are so much better.)
Another explanation might be that larger colleges suffer other diseconomies of scale which eat up much of the benefit of lower admin costs.
I do also have a nagging doubt about the data. The KPMG report shows a huge dispersion in admin costs at almost level of overall costs (their proxy for college size). Have we measurement problem? The KPMG report writers sensibly included plenty of caveats in their report – not least on the unvalidated nature of the data that they were given to analyse. In my experience of looking at benchmark data in colleges and in other sectors such as housing, accountants have difficulty in categorising costs even when there is clear guidance.
Do problems in dividing costs between admin and other categories explain why we have these much lower admin costs and slightly lower surpluses? I wonder if these problems do explain some of the peculiar findings – maybe larger colleges, as a consequence of size, have difficulty in identifying the admin costs in the remote reaches of their empires and in distinguishing admin from other support in curriculum areas.
Any other explanations?
Thursday, July 08, 2010
KPMG on the college sector, financial health and “infrastructural change”
I am currently reading KPMG's report for the Learning and Skills Council, Delivering Value for Money through Infrastructural Change. The report was published recently by the LSC's successor, the Skills Funding Agency. It is more interesting than it sounds - at least to those working in the college sector. It reviews the FE sector, current delivery models and potential institutional change.
(I will forgive the report's use of the American term "organizations" and the misspelt reference to the "Robins Report" [sic] on Higher Education in the 1960s.)
While a wake-up call to colleges should not be necessary the Executive Summary warns:
The financial health of the FE sector is in general deteriorating rapidly, and requires urgent action.
The report provocatively notes:
Some Governing Body members may tolerate a more relaxed view of deficit and insolvency than in their day job in the private sector.
The report also believed that the regulatory framework was such that:
... there appears to be implicit in these statements [by the LSC about intervention], and the actions that have followed, the view that some degree of failure is to be tolerated and there are no immediately dire consequences of delivering a deficit budget; instead, a protracted period of dialogue with the LSC is envisaged. In our experience, the consequence of the time this process takes for some LSC’s and Principals and Governing bodies is that one or both may be complacent for too long, or strive to elongate the dialogue, before robust remedial action - by which time it is often too late to salvage the college. The option of closure for a failing college is not seriously contemplated by colleges as a consequence because it has happened so rarely.
The report goes on to suggest that the current regulatory arrangements also hinder new ways of working and structuring institutions in the "FE system".
(I will forgive the report's use of the American term "organizations" and the misspelt reference to the "Robins Report" [sic] on Higher Education in the 1960s.)
While a wake-up call to colleges should not be necessary the Executive Summary warns:
The financial health of the FE sector is in general deteriorating rapidly, and requires urgent action.
The report provocatively notes:
Some Governing Body members may tolerate a more relaxed view of deficit and insolvency than in their day job in the private sector.
The report also believed that the regulatory framework was such that:
... there appears to be implicit in these statements [by the LSC about intervention], and the actions that have followed, the view that some degree of failure is to be tolerated and there are no immediately dire consequences of delivering a deficit budget; instead, a protracted period of dialogue with the LSC is envisaged. In our experience, the consequence of the time this process takes for some LSC’s and Principals and Governing bodies is that one or both may be complacent for too long, or strive to elongate the dialogue, before robust remedial action - by which time it is often too late to salvage the college. The option of closure for a failing college is not seriously contemplated by colleges as a consequence because it has happened so rarely.
The report goes on to suggest that the current regulatory arrangements also hinder new ways of working and structuring institutions in the "FE system".
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Tenant Services Authority – stay of execution?
Today’s Financial Times reports that the Coalition is having second thoughts about abolishing the Tenant Services Authority.
The report indicates that practical problems are causing anxiety for the Treasury. There are worries about crystallising a £80m pension shortfall. There is also a risk that £50bn of housing association borrowing could be placed on the government balance sheet if the arms length regulator disappears.
The Coalition had already said that it recognised that independent economic regulation of social housing is essential for housing associations continuing to be considered low risk (and worthy of cheaper borrowing). Maybe the TSA will be kept as such a regulator.
The report indicates that practical problems are causing anxiety for the Treasury. There are worries about crystallising a £80m pension shortfall. There is also a risk that £50bn of housing association borrowing could be placed on the government balance sheet if the arms length regulator disappears.
The Coalition had already said that it recognised that independent economic regulation of social housing is essential for housing associations continuing to be considered low risk (and worthy of cheaper borrowing). Maybe the TSA will be kept as such a regulator.
Friday, June 25, 2010
The unachievable budget?
Over the last few days the Institute of Fiscal Studies has predominated in the commentary on the implications of the budget for public services. This is understandable when an independent and well-respected think tank warns of "the longest, and deepest sustained, of cuts to public service spending since (at least) WW2". The IFS also suggests that higher education, home office, justice, transport and housing could see spending cut by one-third over this parliament.
Less media profile has been given to the Social Market Foundation who have suggested the scale of cuts are unachievable:
The tax measures announced today mean cutting over £60 billion from public spending over the next five years. With universal benefits protected, the NHS needlessly ring-fenced and the unaffordable triple lock on pensions, cuts elsewhere will be swingeing which would undo their efforts today to protect the least well off.
The state's creditors want the deficit closed and they don't much care how it's done, so long as the plan is viable. The danger for the Government is that the country simply won't swallow this level of cuts to public services - hair-shirts have never flown off the shelves. It's therefore likely that the Chancellor will be back with more taxes before long.
Less media profile has been given to the Social Market Foundation who have suggested the scale of cuts are unachievable:
The tax measures announced today mean cutting over £60 billion from public spending over the next five years. With universal benefits protected, the NHS needlessly ring-fenced and the unaffordable triple lock on pensions, cuts elsewhere will be swingeing which would undo their efforts today to protect the least well off.
The state's creditors want the deficit closed and they don't much care how it's done, so long as the plan is viable. The danger for the Government is that the country simply won't swallow this level of cuts to public services - hair-shirts have never flown off the shelves. It's therefore likely that the Chancellor will be back with more taxes before long.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Today’s free school revolution?
There has been a lot of discussion about the academies bill (and a few postings on this blog!) which will potentially cut loose high-performing schools. There has been less attention (until today) given to the Conservative proposals for free schools - allowing parents, teachers, charities etc to set up independent state-funded schools.
While the free schools idea builds on provisions introduced by the Labour government for parent-sponsored academies, the new Coalition is planning to clear obstacles to such schools. In particular, they promise to make it easier to secure sites for new schools by allowing a wider range of sites, including residential and commercial property, to be used as schools without the need for ‘change of use’ consent and by creating a presumption in planning guidance in favour of setting up of new schools.
There is still a lot of scepticism about free schools and whether "parents really want to run schools".(Of course, in headteachers will play the leading role in running free schools albeit with accountability to parents.) Often the most sceptical are people who would normally be keen on co-operatives.
The examples of Swedish free schools and American Charter Schools show how free schools here offer an opportunity to transform education in this country - particularly if a pupil premium for disadvantaged children is given sufficient financial weight.
The government has published information on the Department for Education website and encouraged anyone interested to link up with the New Schools Network who already have hundreds of local groups interested in setting up their own schools.
While the free schools idea builds on provisions introduced by the Labour government for parent-sponsored academies, the new Coalition is planning to clear obstacles to such schools. In particular, they promise to make it easier to secure sites for new schools by allowing a wider range of sites, including residential and commercial property, to be used as schools without the need for ‘change of use’ consent and by creating a presumption in planning guidance in favour of setting up of new schools.
There is still a lot of scepticism about free schools and whether "parents really want to run schools".(Of course, in headteachers will play the leading role in running free schools albeit with accountability to parents.) Often the most sceptical are people who would normally be keen on co-operatives.
The examples of Swedish free schools and American Charter Schools show how free schools here offer an opportunity to transform education in this country - particularly if a pupil premium for disadvantaged children is given sufficient financial weight.
The government has published information on the Department for Education website and encouraged anyone interested to link up with the New Schools Network who already have hundreds of local groups interested in setting up their own schools.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Revised Charity Commission guidance on finance, risk and black swans
Last week the Charity Commission published four updated sets of financial guidance for charities. The documents cover risk management; financial difficulties and insolvency; reserves and internal financial controls.
The Commission says that the guidance has been revised to reflect new developments and the challenging economic climate that charities now face.
The updates include guidance on controls over internet banking and safeguards against fraud and financial crime (Internal Financial Controls) and a checklist of key questions for trustees to establish their charity’s financial position (Financial Difficulties and Insolvency).
Interestingly the Commission is warning charities to beware black swans – i.e. the high-impact, hard-to-predict and rare events spotted in Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s book.
The Commission notes (Charities and Risk Management):
If an organisation is vulnerable to a risk that potentially might have an extremely high impact on its operations, it should be considered and evaluated regardless of how remote the likelihood of its happening appears to be. Charities need to find a balance and they will need to weigh the nature of the risk and its impact alongside its likelihood of occurrence. With limited resources, the risks and the benefits or rewards from the activity concerned will need to be considered. It is important to bear in mind that on rare occasions improbable events do occur with devastating effect, at other times probable events do not happen.
Of course, the trickiest aspect of black swans is knowing what they are. High-impact and low-probability risks are often off the radar. Nevertheless rigorous risk management helps: the organisation with contingency plans for staff absence arising from pandemic flu will be more resilient when coping with absences due to volcanic ash grounding Europe.
The Commission says that the guidance has been revised to reflect new developments and the challenging economic climate that charities now face.
The updates include guidance on controls over internet banking and safeguards against fraud and financial crime (Internal Financial Controls) and a checklist of key questions for trustees to establish their charity’s financial position (Financial Difficulties and Insolvency).
Interestingly the Commission is warning charities to beware black swans – i.e. the high-impact, hard-to-predict and rare events spotted in Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s book.
The Commission notes (Charities and Risk Management):
If an organisation is vulnerable to a risk that potentially might have an extremely high impact on its operations, it should be considered and evaluated regardless of how remote the likelihood of its happening appears to be. Charities need to find a balance and they will need to weigh the nature of the risk and its impact alongside its likelihood of occurrence. With limited resources, the risks and the benefits or rewards from the activity concerned will need to be considered. It is important to bear in mind that on rare occasions improbable events do occur with devastating effect, at other times probable events do not happen.
Of course, the trickiest aspect of black swans is knowing what they are. High-impact and low-probability risks are often off the radar. Nevertheless rigorous risk management helps: the organisation with contingency plans for staff absence arising from pandemic flu will be more resilient when coping with absences due to volcanic ash grounding Europe.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Cuts, EMAs and alumni
This week’s Public Finance has an interesting article about by Conor Ryan about the Coalition’s education policies.
I was disappointed to read that Education Maintenance Allowances face an uncertain future under the Coalition. These grants were introduced to widen participation at 16-18 as well as promote achievement through linking payment to attendance. (A nudge before behavioural change became a fashionable policy agenda.)
When the independent and respected Institute of Fiscal Studies tracked the effects of EMAs, they found improved participation and achievement in education for disadvantaged students. In the case of minority ethnic there were “strong and significant improvements”. (The pdf can be found here.)
As the Coalition is committed to social mobility, EMAs should be safe in their hands. But if EMAs are to be reduced or abolished, perhaps some colleges might be able to do something.
I have always wondered why sixth form colleges, at least, do not see alumni as an opportunity. Might some old girls and boys be interested in contributing something to ensure that others share in the opportunities that they enjoyed? Universities do it – why not sixth form colleges?
I was disappointed to read that Education Maintenance Allowances face an uncertain future under the Coalition. These grants were introduced to widen participation at 16-18 as well as promote achievement through linking payment to attendance. (A nudge before behavioural change became a fashionable policy agenda.)
When the independent and respected Institute of Fiscal Studies tracked the effects of EMAs, they found improved participation and achievement in education for disadvantaged students. In the case of minority ethnic there were “strong and significant improvements”. (The pdf can be found here.)
As the Coalition is committed to social mobility, EMAs should be safe in their hands. But if EMAs are to be reduced or abolished, perhaps some colleges might be able to do something.
I have always wondered why sixth form colleges, at least, do not see alumni as an opportunity. Might some old girls and boys be interested in contributing something to ensure that others share in the opportunities that they enjoyed? Universities do it – why not sixth form colleges?
Friday, June 11, 2010
Michael Gove and academies: an update on numbers
The Times Education Supplement reports that only 200 extra new academies are expected in September as a result of the proposed Academies Bill. The timescales did look rather challenging.
I cannot find online the impact assessment for the Academies Bill that the TES quotes but I will add a link when I do.
I cannot find online the impact assessment for the Academies Bill that the TES quotes but I will add a link when I do.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Academies and free schools: practical problems?
As over 1,000 schools have responded positively to Michael Gove’s suggestion that they might like to become academies, it is inevitable some thought and media attention is given to some of the problems and practicalities.
Yesterday’s Times carried an article about the “complex problems” involved including staffing, land use and administrative capacity. As there are over 200 existing academies I am sure that many of these problems are neither new or insurmountable although I am sure that some of the smaller academies will struggle to cope with independence.
The Times article was strangely silent on the biggest issue of practicality: time. Is it realistic that secondaries and primaries making a decision now will be up and running by the start of the autumn term? Michael Gove is clever man so I assume that he has thought that through.
The media focus on the morphing of existing schools into academies has overshadowed the policy agenda around new providers – “free schools”. Last week the Guardian carried an interesting article about the application of European Union procurement rules to contracts to manage free schools. (Michael Gove has spoken of for-profit businesses managing the day-to-day affairs of free schools for not-for-profit governing bodies. In Sweden many of the free schools are run by for-profits such as Kunskapsskolan who operate over 30 secondary schools.)
Yesterday’s Times carried an article about the “complex problems” involved including staffing, land use and administrative capacity. As there are over 200 existing academies I am sure that many of these problems are neither new or insurmountable although I am sure that some of the smaller academies will struggle to cope with independence.
The Times article was strangely silent on the biggest issue of practicality: time. Is it realistic that secondaries and primaries making a decision now will be up and running by the start of the autumn term? Michael Gove is clever man so I assume that he has thought that through.
The media focus on the morphing of existing schools into academies has overshadowed the policy agenda around new providers – “free schools”. Last week the Guardian carried an interesting article about the application of European Union procurement rules to contracts to manage free schools. (Michael Gove has spoken of for-profit businesses managing the day-to-day affairs of free schools for not-for-profit governing bodies. In Sweden many of the free schools are run by for-profits such as Kunskapsskolan who operate over 30 secondary schools.)
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Revised Corporate Governance Code issued
This week the Financial Reporting Council launched governance the June 2010 revision of The UK Corporate Governance Code. While it is essentially obligatory for UK listed companies, its influence extends further as best practice or more – the previous versions have rippled through the public and third sectors informing both regulatory expectations and self-regulated codes of governance.
I will not try to summarise it prematurely. However, there do not appear to be any radical changes although some may ask why not given the recent problems at UK plc. For me a couple of issues stand out in the revised Code.
Firstly, the Code requires the boards of FTSE 350 companies to have externally facilitated evaluations at least every three years. This should, hopefully, lead to more rigorous self-reflection.
Secondly, the Code continues to promote board renewal with board members nudged to stand down after nine years. The Consultation queried the so-called “nine year rule”. (This still allows a degree of flexibility: non-executives can serve more than nine years but are subject to annual re-election.)
I will not try to summarise it prematurely. However, there do not appear to be any radical changes although some may ask why not given the recent problems at UK plc. For me a couple of issues stand out in the revised Code.
Firstly, the Code requires the boards of FTSE 350 companies to have externally facilitated evaluations at least every three years. This should, hopefully, lead to more rigorous self-reflection.
Secondly, the Code continues to promote board renewal with board members nudged to stand down after nine years. The Consultation queried the so-called “nine year rule”. (This still allows a degree of flexibility: non-executives can serve more than nine years but are subject to annual re-election.)
Friday, May 28, 2010
Academies: what the papers (and commentators) say
Following this week’s Queen Speech The Guardian usefully carried an article on “What is an academy?” For a more partisan introduction (as well as recent news about open and proposed academies) there is always the Anti Academies Alliance.
I am not aware of any media commentators saying much about the uncertainty around how many school heads will opt for academy status. It was interesting to read in the FT that Michael Gove had cautioned against what the “dartboard politics” of announcing targets. On the other hand he clearly wants academies to be the “norm” at some point.
The unions obviously think Michael Gove is serious. In yesterday's Times the leaders of NASUWT, NUT, ATL and Unison had a letter published voicing their unions’ opposition to the Coalition’s policy and academies more generally:
We believe that an essential principle for all education reform must be that it raises educational standards. All of the independent evidence confirms that academy schools do not deliver better educational outcomes for pupils, cost more money, and create widespread inequality and social segregation.
On his blog former No10 adviser Mathew Taylor described how experience overcame his doubts about academies but he also expressed some skepticism about the Coalition’s new moves:
What had reconciled me to the Academy policy was, first, the way it channelled new capital expenditure into deprived areas and second, that the extra element of diversity and innovation would be good for the system as a whole. The new policy is different in both aspects. The redistribution element has gone, indeed it must be most likely that it will be more privileged schools and sets of parents who take up the new freedoms and funding streams. Second, rather than putting grit in the oyster of the local schools system the policy is now to smash the oyster entirely.
An key issue is whether the academies push will affect the time, attention and resources given to the free schools policy. The latter policy promises (or threatens) a supply-side revolution with an influx of new providers.
We live in interesting times.
I am not aware of any media commentators saying much about the uncertainty around how many school heads will opt for academy status. It was interesting to read in the FT that Michael Gove had cautioned against what the “dartboard politics” of announcing targets. On the other hand he clearly wants academies to be the “norm” at some point.
The unions obviously think Michael Gove is serious. In yesterday's Times the leaders of NASUWT, NUT, ATL and Unison had a letter published voicing their unions’ opposition to the Coalition’s policy and academies more generally:
We believe that an essential principle for all education reform must be that it raises educational standards. All of the independent evidence confirms that academy schools do not deliver better educational outcomes for pupils, cost more money, and create widespread inequality and social segregation.
On his blog former No10 adviser Mathew Taylor described how experience overcame his doubts about academies but he also expressed some skepticism about the Coalition’s new moves:
What had reconciled me to the Academy policy was, first, the way it channelled new capital expenditure into deprived areas and second, that the extra element of diversity and innovation would be good for the system as a whole. The new policy is different in both aspects. The redistribution element has gone, indeed it must be most likely that it will be more privileged schools and sets of parents who take up the new freedoms and funding streams. Second, rather than putting grit in the oyster of the local schools system the policy is now to smash the oyster entirely.
An key issue is whether the academies push will affect the time, attention and resources given to the free schools policy. The latter policy promises (or threatens) a supply-side revolution with an influx of new providers.
We live in interesting times.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Housing and the Coalition: TSA lives on?
Before the election there was some uncertainty over whether Grant Shapps would have housing brief in a Conservative government. Last week Mr Shapps was given responsibility for housing in the Conservative-Liberal coalition. The tolling of bells for the Tenant Services Authority could almost be heard ...
Yet looking at the full coalition agreement, there is no reference to the abolition of the TSA. In fact there is not much about housing at all. A quick CTRL+F unearths a few references: abolishing Regional Spatial Strategies, converting farmyard buildings into homes, reviewing the Housing Revenue Account (again), using empty homes and promoting shared ownership.
I suspect things may get more interesting.
Yet looking at the full coalition agreement, there is no reference to the abolition of the TSA. In fact there is not much about housing at all. A quick CTRL+F unearths a few references: abolishing Regional Spatial Strategies, converting farmyard buildings into homes, reviewing the Housing Revenue Account (again), using empty homes and promoting shared ownership.
I suspect things may get more interesting.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Setting colleges free: the full coalition agreement
The full coalition agreement published yesterday does mention colleges.
The Government believes that our universities are essential for building a strong and innovative economy. We will take action to create more college and university places, as well as help to foster stronger links between universities, colleges and industries.
We will seek ways to support the creation of apprenticeships, internships, work pairings, and college and workplace training places as part of our wider programme to get Britain working.
We will set colleges free from direct state control and abolish many of the further education quangos. Public funding should be fair and follow the choices of students.
On quangos it sounds like the Conservative manifesto:
We will set colleges free from direct state control and abolish many of the further education quangos Labour have put in place. Public funding will follow the choices of students and be delivered by a single agency, the Further Education Funding Council.
While there is no explicit reference in the coalition agreement to reviving the FEFC, a re-arrangement of the funding bodies for post-16 education (excluding universities) may only be a matter of (legislative) time.
The Government believes that our universities are essential for building a strong and innovative economy. We will take action to create more college and university places, as well as help to foster stronger links between universities, colleges and industries.
We will seek ways to support the creation of apprenticeships, internships, work pairings, and college and workplace training places as part of our wider programme to get Britain working.
We will set colleges free from direct state control and abolish many of the further education quangos. Public funding should be fair and follow the choices of students.
On quangos it sounds like the Conservative manifesto:
We will set colleges free from direct state control and abolish many of the further education quangos Labour have put in place. Public funding will follow the choices of students and be delivered by a single agency, the Further Education Funding Council.
While there is no explicit reference in the coalition agreement to reviving the FEFC, a re-arrangement of the funding bodies for post-16 education (excluding universities) may only be a matter of (legislative) time.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
The new coalition and education
The new coalition agreement (pdf available) has a section on education. It talks about schools and universities - but no mention of colleges. Maybe we will soon learn what is to happen to general FE colleges, sixth form colleges and the quangoes that fund them.
Thursday, April 08, 2010
College accounts and principals’ salaries
The Skills Funding Agency has posted on is site, a spreadsheet of the 2008/9 college accounts for both general FE colleges and sixth form colleges. It’s sad but true that these attract most interest when it comes to principals’ salaries. These accounts do offer material for useful benchmarking.
On the subject of salaries, looking at general FE college principals and comparing like-for-like (some colleges have been merged out of existence and others have emerged), it appears that average principal has had a 4.4% pay rise in 2008/9.
Even if a few of those principals will be hit by the new 50% tax rate, I think here may be some pressure in 2009/10 for pay restraint amongst college senior post holders.
On the subject of salaries, looking at general FE college principals and comparing like-for-like (some colleges have been merged out of existence and others have emerged), it appears that average principal has had a 4.4% pay rise in 2008/9.
Even if a few of those principals will be hit by the new 50% tax rate, I think here may be some pressure in 2009/10 for pay restraint amongst college senior post holders.
Friday, April 02, 2010
Stakeholders, politicking and elections
Next week the election will almost definitely be called. Whoever wins in May, there will be a huge influx of new MPs as so many are retiring at the general election. Alongside the political turnover and maybe change, there are major developments in the regulatory landscape: in post-16 education there are new quangoes plus changes in the role of local authorities; in social housing a nearly-new regulator is introducing a new set of standards. All this poses opportunities and threats.
With all this going on, have the leaders and managers in public services been thinking about stakeholder management? Probably not in many cases. Even if you are busy, it is helpful to identify and strengthen critical relationships.
Last month Inside Housing had a excellent article on navigating relationships with national and local politicians successfully. It has relevance well beyond social landlords.
With all this going on, have the leaders and managers in public services been thinking about stakeholder management? Probably not in many cases. Even if you are busy, it is helpful to identify and strengthen critical relationships.
Last month Inside Housing had a excellent article on navigating relationships with national and local politicians successfully. It has relevance well beyond social landlords.
Monday, March 29, 2010
First class expenses?
It was only a matter of time before Freedom of Information requests would reveal that college managers had – shock, horror - claimed expenses.
The Hinckley Times found that the principal of North Warwickshire and Hinckley College had claimed expenses for first class train fares and a trip to Canada when she was invited, with a student, to be part of the Calgary 2009 Premiere Experience by UK Skills.
It’s hardly a duck house. In fact, it sounds bona fide. But it is a reminder that colleges (and others working in public services) need to manage potential risks to their reputations.
The Hinckley Times found that the principal of North Warwickshire and Hinckley College had claimed expenses for first class train fares and a trip to Canada when she was invited, with a student, to be part of the Calgary 2009 Premiere Experience by UK Skills.
It’s hardly a duck house. In fact, it sounds bona fide. But it is a reminder that colleges (and others working in public services) need to manage potential risks to their reputations.
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Spring of discontent?
I might have been a bit too busy to blog recently but I have been reading other people’s postings. As we see outbreaks of industrial unrest, it is worth having a look at Rene Lavenchy’s blog.
Rene Lavenchy writes for Tribune and appears to have excellent sources. Last year the blog was ranked ninth in the Guide to Union Blogging (pdf available). A few weeks ago I was doubtful when I read that a deal was set to be agreed between the Royal Mail and the postal workers’ union – then a modernisation deal was announced yesterday.
As public sector pay, pensions and jobs are in the line of fire, how unions are able and willing to respond will be a vital issue for all of us.
Rene Lavenchy writes for Tribune and appears to have excellent sources. Last year the blog was ranked ninth in the Guide to Union Blogging (pdf available). A few weeks ago I was doubtful when I read that a deal was set to be agreed between the Royal Mail and the postal workers’ union – then a modernisation deal was announced yesterday.
As public sector pay, pensions and jobs are in the line of fire, how unions are able and willing to respond will be a vital issue for all of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
