FE Review: Inaugural meeting of the External Reference Group

Slide 1:FE Review: Inaugural meeting of the External Reference Group Data Evidence Paper

Paul Mount, Learning & Skills Analysis Division, DfES Paul.mount@dfes.gsi.gov.uk 01142591148 22 February 2005

Slide 2:1) Providers, learners and provision mix

Slide 3:There are 393 FE colleges in total

Of which: 253 General FE and Tertiary Colleges (GFEC) 102 Sixth Form Colleges (SFC) 16 Specialist Designated Colleges (SDC) 17 Agriculture and Horticulture colleges (AHC) 5 Art, Design and Performing Arts Colleges (DPAC) The number of colleges has fallen significantly in recent years – there were 429 colleges in mid-2000 Source: Edubase 

Slide 4:Regional distribution of colleges

Source: Edubase 

Slide 5:Size distribution of providers – learner numbers

The average number of learners at a general FE college (GFEC) is 12,000 The largest GFEC has 45,000 learners, the smallest has 2,500 learners The average number of learners at a sixth form college (SFC) is 2,000 The largest SFC has 7,000 learners, the smallest has 570 learners Source: DfES analysis of ILR

Slide 6:Size distribution of providers – funding allocations

The average LSC funds allocated to a GFEC is £14m The most funding allocated to a GFEC is £35m, the least is £1m The average LSC funds allocated to a SFC is £6m The most funding allocated to a SFC is £13m, the least is £2m Based on 03/4 funding allocations

Slide 7:GFECs dominate the FE sector in terms of learner numbers (3 million of the 4.1 million total learners)

Source: ILR/SFR05 (14 December 2004) Note: Figures include external institutions (the majority of which are LEA-maintained providers)

Slide 8:The majority (71%) of GFEC learners are adults studying part-time The majority (56%) of SFC learners are under 19 year olds studying full timeGFEC and SFC learners in 2003/04 by mode of study and age

Source: ILR/SFR05 (14 December 2004)

Slide 9:Level 1 & entry is main level of study for adultsLevel 3 is main level of study for young people

Source: ILR/SFR05 (14 December 2004) Note: Figures include external institutions

Slide 10:ICT is the most popular area of study % learners by area of learning (main qualification aim) – 2003/04

Source: ILR/SFR05 (14 December 2004) Note: Figures include external institutions

Slide 11:and this is true for both short courses …The ten most popular short courses

Source: LSC analysis of ILR data

Slide 12:.. and long courses

Source: DfES analysis of 98/9 ILR and ILR/SFR05 (14 December 2004) Note: Figures include external institutions

Slide 13:The sector attracts a disproportionate number of female and ethnic minority learners

In 2003/04, there were 2.5 million female learners and 1.6 million male learners In 2003/04 16% of learners in FE colleges were from non-white ethnic groups. (Adults from non-white ethnic groups account for 8% of the adult population) Source: ILR/SFR05 (14 December 2004) Note: Figures include external institutions

Slide 14:A significant proportion of learners receive Widening Participation (WP) uplift

37% of learners were eligible for widening participation uplift in 2003/04 (additional funds are paid to the college, not the learner) WP uplift is payable for a variety of reasons Most typically, the learner is resident in a post code deemed to be relatively disadvantaged The uplift is payable if the learning aim is basic skills 47% of learners eligible for WP uplift have a short course as their main qualification aim, compared to 41% of learners not receiving the uplift Source: DfES analysis of ILR data

Slide 15:GFECs attract a higher proportion of disadvantaged learners

We can compare the proportion of learners resident in a WP post code across institutions The proportion of GFEC learners resident in a WP postcode is 29.3%, compared to 25% of the population The sixth form college and school sixth form figures are 25.4% and 19% respectively  Source: DfES analysis of ILR data

Slide 16:Total learner numbers increased markedly in 01/2 and 02/3. Expansion was almost entirely due to an increase in part-time adult provision FE sector learner numbers (000)

Source: ILR/SFR05 (14 December 2004) Note: Figures include external institutions

Slide 17:Much of the expansion in adult learning was in short course (<24 weeks duration) provision at GFECs

Source: DfES analysis of ILR data

Slide 18:Half of the qualification aims in GFECs are short courses

Source: LSC Benchmarking Data

Slide 19:However, if we look at guided learning hours (GLH), rather than number of qualifications, the provision mix of GFECs looks very different – long vocational courses at levels 1, 2 and 3 dominate in terms of hours of teaching (also note that 16-18 appears far more important – 50% of provision) …

Source: DfES analysis of ILR data GFECs: % GLH by qualification type and age (2002/03)

Slide 20:… and provision mix over time appears more stable GFECs (all learners)

Source: DfES analysis of ILR data

Slide 21:Sixth form college provision mix in 2002/03 – on the basis of qualification and GLH mix 

Source: DfES analysis of ILR data

Slide 22:2) College performance

Slide 23:Success rate is the headline measure of performance for FE colleges

For every one hundred learners who start a qualification, the Success Rate tells us how many achieve the qualification Success Rate can be expressed as Retention Rate multiplied by Achievement Rate On this definition, data is available from 97/8

Slide 24:The FE college headline success rate has increased significantly since 97/8

Source: LSC Benchmarking Data Note: Figures exclude external institutions (including EIs, the 02/3 figure is 67%)

Slide 25:The recent improvement in success rates has been most marked for short courses and 16-18 long courses (a high proportion of which are ‘A’ levels)

Source: LSC Benchmarking Data. Excludes external institutions

Slide 26:Looking at retention and achievement separately helps us to understand better the drivers of change …

Source: LSC Benchmarking Data. Excludes external institutions

Slide 27:… which vary according to length of course and age:

For short courses, higher success driven by improvements in achievement The 16-18 year old long course retention rate increase is part due to the two-year ‘A’ level qualification being split into two one-year qualifications (AS/A2) The adult long course success rate has increased less quickly than the 16-18 equivalent, due to stable retention rate

Slide 28:Long course success rates vary by qualification type, level of study and age 

For example: For 16-18 year olds studying at level 2, the GNVQ success rate is 61%, but the NVQ success rate is only 42% For adults studying at level 2, the NVQ success rate is 48% The GCE A/AS level success rate is 75% for 16-18 year olds and 54% for adults Source: LSC Benchmarking Data. Includes external institutions

Slide 29:Moreover, within the same qualification type/age groups, there is significant variation by curriculum area

Source: LSC Benchmarking Data. Excludes external institutions

Slide 30:Variation in success rates by qualification type, level and subject area, means that comparisons of institutions’ headline success rates must be treated with caution, due to variation in provision mix. Particularly true if comparing GFEC and SFC

Has led to the concept of ‘adjusted success rate’ Curriculum adjusted success rate gives a more balanced benchmark for each institution, as it takes account of variations in average success rate for different curriculum areas Analysis to date has not identified a robust and reliable method for taking learner characteristics into account (work is ongoing on this)

Slide 31:Substantial variation in college headline success rates …..

50% of college success rates lie in the shaded box. 25% lie between the box and the maximum and 25% lie between the box and the minimum

Slide 32:…which is significantly reduced when we calculate ‘curriculum adjusted success rates’

Slide 33:Adjusted success rates correct for qualification/ subject area provision mix differences, but not for learner mix differences (e.g. prior attainment, relative deprivation)

The Measuring Success project within Success for All is guiding the development of a basket of measures For young people taking level 3 academic qualifications, there is a strong relationship between prior attainment at level 2 (e.g. GCSE) and level 3 (e.g. A level) outcome For adult learners and for vocational courses, such strong relationships do not exist

Slide 34:Value added for 16-18 year olds at level 3

A more sophisticated measure of performance which takes into account the individual student’s starting point Based on a strong relationship between prior attainment, as measured by average points at GCSE/GNVQ, and outcome, as measured by points at level 3 VA is currently widely used for reflection and improvement LSC leading work to develop an institutional measure of VA, for piloting in 2005 SCAAT (formerly known as the Performance Tables)

Slide 35:VA relationships and institutional comparison

The following analysis looks at ‘A’ level performance for students with different levels of prior attainment, by institution type Most relevant comparison is schools and sixth form colleges, as ‘A’ level provision is their core business It should be noted that VA looks only at results in exams entered. If a school student does not enter for the exam, the institution is not penalised. If a college does the same, the penalty is a hit to its qualification success rate measure, which is a key targeted measure for colleges

Slide 36:Using VA can tell a different story from more basic performance measures. For example, when we look at average point score by candidates achieving Level 3 qualifications, GFE and other colleges lag significantly behind SFCs and schools

Source: SFR38/2004 Note: based on UCAS points system: ‘A’ level grade A=120; B=100; C= 80; D=60; E=40

Slide 37:But GFECs attract more low prior attainment students (figure shows cumulative percentage of students below given prior attainment thresholds)

Note: GCSE points are allocated to grade as follows: A*=8; A=7; B=6; C=5; D=4; E=3; F=2; G=1

Slide 38:It is this that ‘explains’ much of the difference in average points per candidate. For given prior attainment, GFEC performance is only slightly below SFCs and maintained schools

Note: GCSE points are allocated to grade as follows: A*=8; A=7; B=6; C=5; D=4; E=3; F=2; G=1. A level points are allocated to grade as follows: A=120; B=100; C= 80; D=60; E=40

Slide 39:This is easier to see if we compare college performance to schools. SFC performance is slightly better than schools and GFEC performance is slightly worse

Slide 40:Other measures of performance – inspection grades

Inspection reports contain a wealth of performance data As well as an overall assessment, grades are awarded for ‘management & leadership’ and ‘teaching & learning’ by subject on a scale of 1-5, where: 1= Outstanding; 2 = Good; 3= Satisfactory; 4 = Unsatisfactory; 5 = Very Poor GFEC inspection data indicates generally ‘solid’ performance, with pockets of poor provision (graded 4 or 5) at the majority of providers A small number of GFECs have achieved excellence throughout the institution and this has not been at the expense of ‘harder to reach’ learners 

Slide 41:GFEC performance in inspection: Management & Leadership grades in current inspection round (01/02 to present)

171 GFECs inspected 01/2 – 03/4

Slide 42:GFEC performance in inspections: pockets of poor provision

101 of 171 GFECs inspected have at least one subject area with T&L grade 4 or 5 Almost three quarters of GFECs have been subject to some degree of re-inspection

Slide 43:Other measures of performance – learner satisfaction

Findings from Satisfaction Survey 2003/04 (31,786 respondents) 90% of FE learners were 'fairly', 'very' or 'extremely' satisfied with their overall learning experience 23% of FE learners were 'extremely' satisfied with their overall learning experience When asked to rate 'overall satisfaction with quality of teaching and learning', 63% of FE learners in the survey were 'very' or 'extremely' satisfied 60% of FE learners in the survey said they were 'very' likely to return to learning within the next 3 years Source: LSC Learner Satisfaction Survey

Slide 44:Future development of performance measures

Key areas for development are measures which allow comparison of institutional performance in two key areas: 1) Learner destinations: do learners progress to desirable outcomes (e.g. employment, further learning at a higher level)? 2) Employer responsiveness. How responsive are providers to the needs of local employers?

Slide 45:Future development of performance measures: Value for Money

A project is currently underway to develop VFM indicators Benchmark provision within colleges - funding per successful outcome by provision type Cost benchmarking at a higher level (e.g. admin cost as % revenue). There is no comparable cost data at department/ course level

Slide 46:3) Funding

Slide 47:FE colleges are highly reliant on LSC funding

73% of FE college income is LSC funding 11% is from fees - includes employers and individuals 16% is from other sources, including HEFCE and EU grants, traded services and financial income Source: DfES analysis of 02/3 college accounts

Slide 48:Plan-Led Funding

Vast majority of colleges are within trust Colleges agree plans with LSC - No more funding audit - No more retrospective claw back or unplanned growth - Data sharing - Learner numbers match plans Funding outturns impact allocation for next year Simplified funding formula Provision and funding profile to plan and monitor progress

Slide 49:A complex system with the following key elements: A ‘national base rate’ which is dependent on the type of qualification (e.g. ‘A’ level, GCSE, NVQ). Varies with the ‘size’ of the learning aim (GLH) and cost of delivery National base rates are ‘uplifted’ by various weighting factors to better reflect costs. The main weighting factors relate to: subject area (programme weight); learner disadvantage; and college location (area uplift) An achievement element equal to 10% of the weighted base rate A fee element equal to 25% of the unweighted base rate, unless the learner is entitled to fee remission (then = 0) Funding ceases if a learner drops out

Underlying the ‘Plan-Led Funding System’ the LSC relies on a system of funding rates per qualification aim

Slide 50:Funding of qualification aims - summary

10% dependent on achievement Fee element (unless learner entitled to remission)

Slide 51:Example: GCE AS or A2 level, studied during the day (excluding General Studies)

National base rate = £766 Assumed fee element = £191 (remitted for 16-18 year olds) Most AS/A2 courses are programme weight band A (=1) With a number of exceptions being band B (=1.12). For example, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Geography and Music

Slide 52:4) Workforce

Slide 53:Key data on the FE college workforce

239,000 people work in FE colleges - 134,000 teachers, 27,000 teaching support staff and 78,000 other support staff Of the 134,000 teachers, 49,000 are full-time and 85,000 are part-time In terms of full-time equivalent (FTE), there are 52,000 full-time teachers and 23,000 part-time teachers Ethnic minorities are underrepresented in the FE workforce Source: Staff Individualised Record 02/3

Slide 54:The age distribution of FEC teachers is skewed to the right. Only 19% of teacher FTEs are under 35

Source: Staff Individualised Record 2002/03

Slide 55:The majority of teaching staff are on permanent contracts. Average pay is 6% below that for school teachers

52% teaching staff are on permanent contract; 32% are on fixed term contract; 7% are ‘casual’; 4% are agency staff; 5% are self-employed The average salary of full-time FE teachers is £27,710 per annum (at 31/3/2002) This is 6% below the average salary for full-time secondary school teachers. The pay gap is higher for GFEC teachers (7%) than for SFC teachers (1%) Source: Staff Individualised Record 02/3

Slide 56:We need a better understanding of recruitment and pay by region/subject

Our best estimate of the Wastage Rate (based on the Labour Force Survey) is 20% (which is similar to the average for all industrial sectors). Survey evidence suggests a much lower figure. On average, wastage would not appear to be a major problem However, there are likely to be significant differences in wastage rates by region and subject area. Survey evidence suggests recruitment problems in certain subjects/regions. For example: ICT in London; Engineering in the North; and Construction in the West Midlands We lack pay data by region/subject. It is possible that inadequate differentiation accentuates recruitment problems

Slide 57:5) Market position

Slide 58:Competitive landscape

SFCs are focused on 16-18 year olds studying ‘A’ levels and compete for students with schools sixth forms GFECs have a wider curriculum. They compete with schools and SFCs for ‘A’ level students, with WBL, other private providers and schools for students undertaking vocational learning and with private providers for adult short course provision

Slide 59:Of the total number of 16-18 year olds studying for GCE A/AS levels, 33% are based in FE colleges, and 67% in schools

Source: DfES Note: FHE = Further and Higher education institutions (mainly GFEC for A levels)

Slide 60:Colleges provide a high volume of vocational provision to 16-18 year olds and adults

Source: DfES analysis of ILR

Slide 61:There is limited vocational provision in schools

49% of all 16-18 year olds are participating in ‘further education’ (school sixth forms and colleges) 12.4% of all 16-18 year olds are in ‘further education’ and have a level 3 vocational qualification as their highest qualification aim. Three quarters of these learners are based in colleges 8.8% of all 16-18 year olds are in ‘further education’ and have a level 2 or level 1 vocational qualification as their highest qualification aim. Nine out of ten are based in colleges A further 8% of all 16-18 year olds are on vocational provision in WBL providers (this is a separate category from ‘further education’) Source:SFR03/2005

Slide 62:Are there benefits from competition?

Local diversity means that it is difficult to draw conclusions at a national level In the past, competition has been cited as a key reason for low fee collection (incentives in the funding system drive this behaviour) Strategic Area Reviews (Success for All initiative) are designed to curb ‘destructive competition’ and improve local collaboration (amongst publicly funded providers at least)