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

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

• Paul Mount, Learning Skills Analysis Division,
  DfES
• Paul.mount_at_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
Learners on long courses in GFEC and SFC (000) by AOL of main qual. aim
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 (lt24 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 students
  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 A120 B100 C 80 D60 E40
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 A8 A7 B6 C5 D4 E3 F2 G1
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 A8 A7 B6 C5 D4 E3 F2 G1.
A level points are allocated to grade as follows
A120 B100 C 80 D60 E40
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 TL 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)
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

52
4) Workforce
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
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
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
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

57
5) Market position
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

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)
60
Colleges provide a high volume of vocational
provision to 16-18 year olds and adults
Source DfES analysis of ILR
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)

SourceSFR03/2005
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)