1 / 62

Landscape of Further Education Colleges: Analysis and Trends

This paper presents data on FE colleges, learner numbers, funding, study areas, demographics, and widening participation in the UK education sector. It discusses the distribution, performance, and trends in colleges.

thomasdeborah
Download Presentation

Landscape of Further Education Colleges: Analysis and Trends

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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

  2. 1) Providers, learners and provision mix

  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 

  4. Regional distribution of colleges Source: Edubase 

  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

  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

  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)

  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)

  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

  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

  11. and this is true for both short courses …The ten most popular short courses Source: LSC analysis of ILR data

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

  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

  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

  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

  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

  17. Much of the expansion in adult learning was in short course (<24 weeks duration) provision at GFECs Source: DfES analysis of ILR data

  18. Half of the qualification aims in GFECs are short courses Source: LSC Benchmarking Data

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

  20. … and provision mix over time appears more stable GFECs (all learners) Source: DfES analysis of ILR data

  21. Sixth form college provision mix in 2002/03 – on the basis of qualification and GLH mix Source: DfES analysis of ILR data

  22. 2) College performance

  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

  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%)

  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

  26. Looking at retention and achievement separately helps us to understand better the drivers of change … Source: LSC Benchmarking Data. Excludes external institutions

  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

  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

  29. Moreover, within the same qualification type/age groups, there is significant variation by curriculum area Source: LSC Benchmarking Data. Excludes external institutions

  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)

  31. Substantial variation in college headline success rates ….. Maximum success rate Median success rate Minimum success rate 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

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

  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

  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)

  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

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

  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

  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

  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

  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

  41. GFEC performance in inspection: Management & Leadership grades in current inspection round (01/02 to present) 171 GFECs inspected 01/2 – 03/4

  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

  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

  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?

  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

  46. 3) Funding

  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

  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

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

  50. Funding of qualification aims - summary 10% dependent on achievement Fee element (unless learner entitled to remission)

More Related