Minutes:
(1) The Committee recalled Ms Dunn to discuss the evidence received from the FE Principals and to answer questions and comments made by Members which included the following:
(2) In response to a question by Mr Wickham, Ms Dunn advised that pre 16 year olds KCC had jurisdiction through the Funding forum. Post 16 the funding was received through the Funding Formula which was a very complicated process that went down to the lowest decimal point for each qualification there was a different formula. Ms Dunn agreed to forward information on the funding.
(3) Mr Vye suggested that there was a job of work in the area of interplay between the schools and colleges to give young people optimum choice, well charted pathways, the flexibility of courses that took place in both schools colleges and pathways with co planning for courses in the future. Ms Dunn explained that KCC did aspire to a parodying shift of post 16 year old provision away from an institutional lead option in terms of choice and pathways more down to an individual lead pathway with a quality progression route. She indicated that that point had not been reached at this point in time and it was the role of the 6 planning areas to address. Ensuring there was a fuller choice as possible, that the pathways were correct and the need for flexibility, many young people did not want to spend 2 years on one course, they may prefer a blended learning approach, more flexibility personal approach to a learning opportunity. In terms of co planning for schools and colleges, Ms Dunn advised that this was not easily to solve as the institutions were in competition, because the number of learners in an institution determined its overall budget, so there was a vested interest in a school or a college maintaining its current size of 6th Form or current size of engineering programme. This had formed detailed discussions and debate within the Learning Group on how to make 6 Planning Forums become effective. Mrs Dunn agreed to share the roles of the 6 Planning Forums with this POSC in the Autumn.
(4) In response to questions by Mr Burgess, Ms Dunn explained that the local authority had to be clear when college Principals were saying that there was not equity of funding, in relation to one particular aspect of the Funding Formula was hugely complex schools, in one strand of the funding it was correct to say that school 6th forms received slightly more money than college 6th forms based on a particular element of the funding stream. Because of the complexities of the funding stream it was the aggregated by other factors depending on what qualifications were, what the social indices of the locality were etc. Ms Dunn said that she was unable to fully answer the question at this present time but it would be necessary to speak with colleagues in Children, Finance and Education finance to consider the detailed data and produce a judgement.
(5) In response to Mr Burgess’ second question, Ms Dunn advised that best value for money was not based on the allocation but was what was transferred into positive learner outcomes and positive journeys for young people. Ms Dunn advised that as far as she was aware the AS level qualification gained in a school was the same as the AS level gained at a college. A BTEC National qualification in Child Care and Development was exactly the same as the BTEC in Child Care and Development gained in a college. Ms Dunn said that she was interested to know why there needed to be such differences between a colleges funding and a schools funding if the qualification and the programme were exactly the same. Ms Dunn felt that questions could be asked at a nation level at the National Star Chamber that looked at the overarching formula that KCC may wish to interrogate, although it was early days and within KCC there needed to be a better understanding of the formula.
(6) In response to the question on learners support, Ms Dunn said that this was an important issue in particular for vulnerable learners at level 2, who may have the equivalent of 5 A*to C grades with a vocational qualification but in terms of their learning were very vulnerable and KCC needed to work on a transitional programme between school and college and college and university and how that arms length support works at college.
(7) In reply to the further question, Ms Dunn advised that employers were being monitored through the Apprenticeship Service and the data would be available.
(8) Mrs Dunn advised the Committee on a strategy that she had been working on with employers and the skills sector, in line with Kent’s Regeneration Strategy, with the aim of unlocking Kent’s potential within five key sector areas. The first key area that she was currently looking at was low carbon, developed a Skills Plan that linked to wind farms and biomass technologies. Within that skills sector plan it highlights the skills and qualifications and what skills were needed, what were the best qualifications and whether any of those qualifications were currently available in Kent. The work had highlighted that with the post 16 in particular a significant deficit in certain curriculum areas and qualifications to support the development of the wind farms and associated technologies in Kent. A report on the Strategy would be considered by the Learning and Skills Board on 26 May before it was developed further. Ms Dunn agreed to monitor the progress and report back to the Committee. The Chairman requested that Ms Dunn forward this information to the Select Committee that was reviewing Renewable Energy.
(9) Mr Manion suggested that all the evidence from the meetings with young people, employers, FE providers and officers be used to produce recommendations to inform policy so that they can be reviewed at a later date.
(10) Ms Dunn agreed to advise the Chairman of any changes made by the Department of Education relating to this POSC between meetings.
(11) RESOLVED that the responses to questions and comments made by Members be noted.