Area Reviews:
The London Approach
C O N T E X T
• Declining financial health since 2010 – more colleges in difficulty, big cost variations.
• Challenges for next 5 years. Devolution.
Apprenticeships. Funding reform. Competition. Demographic decline.
• Whilst spending review better than expected for Post 16, status quo is not an option – need for fundamental reform
• A refocus of the GFE sector on technical and professional education and training to meet
economic needs, under the Productivity Plan, with need for higher level skills and greater
A R E A R E V I E W G U I D A N C E
• Need to respond to the productivity challenge with greater collaboration
• Moving towards “fewer, larger, more resilient and efficient colleges”
• And only funding good quality institutions that are financially sustainable
• Update to guidance in early 2016 – Process broadly same; lessons learnt; academisation; Restructuring fund
S P E N D I N G R E V I E W 2 0 1 6 - 2 0 2 1
• Budgets largely protected but no allowance for inflation in adult skills and 16-19 funding – status quo not an option
• Big expansion in Apprenticeship funding via employers and loans funding via individuals
• Access to Restructuring Fund to help meet costs of restructuring college sector
O U T C O M E S
• Institutions which are financially viable,
sustainable, resilient and efficient and deliver maximum value for public investment
• The right balance of providers, including greater specialisation
• An offer that meets each area’s academic and
vocational educational needs, supports growth in Apprenticeships, and is supported by LAs/LEPs • Sufficient access to high quality and relevant
education and training for all young people, adults and employers
T H E P R O G R A M M E
• Approximately 40 area reviews to be completed by March 2017
• With full implementation by 2020 • Covering all areas of the country
• Incorporating GFEs and sixth form colleges
• Taking account of school sixth forms and other provision
• And including other providers where they seek to opt in and steering group agrees
The September 2015 guidance set out a national framework for reviews, within which areas such as London would have the flexibility to adapt the
approach to take account of local circumstances and requirements.
London government (the Mayor and the boroughs) worked with central government, in consultation with the FE sector, to develop and agree an approach to Area Reviews in London.
S T R U C T U R E
London Area Review
West sub-regional review Central sub-regional review South sub-regional review East sub-regional review
G O V E R N A N C E
London Area Review Steering Group
West sub-regional steering group Central sub-regional steering group South sub-regional steering group East sub-regional steering group
Automatically in scope:
• All General FE Colleges • All Sixth Form Colleges
Opted in:
• 4 Specialist Designated Institutions
Curriculum focussed engagement:
• Adult and Community Learning services
A London-wide review of ACL
• Led by London government
• To establish long-term strategic direction of ACL • To develop recommendations for future
commissioning and delivery of ACL post devolution. • Focussing on organisations in direct receipt of the
Community Learning budget from the SFA.
Curriculum-focussed engagement in Area Review
• Provision of written information
• Face-to-face contact with the FE advisory team • input to the second sub-regional steering group • Not full sub-regional steering group membership.
Other providers:
• Higher Education Institutions • Independent Training Providers • Specialist LLDD Colleges
• School Sixth Forms
Other stakeholders:
• MPs
• Employers • Learners
S U B - R E G I O N A L P R O C E S S
Usually 5 Local Steering Group meetings, each to consider a different aspect of the review
1) Background to the review, data sharing protocol 2) The curriculum / specialisation
3) The college estate and shared services 4) Finance and structures
5) The way forward
Supported by college visits and data analysis
A D VA N C E I N F O R M AT I O N
F R O M C O L L E G E S
• A detailed curriculum plan
• The college’s latest self assessment report
• The college’s latest management accounts and financial plans
• A list of key employers that the college works with and their contact details
• Estates information - space, costs, utilisation • A completed copy of a questionnaire
I N F O R M AT I O N & D ATA S H A R I N G
• Open information and data-sharing are an important part of the review process and the discussions of the steering group
• Data sharing protocol to be put in place
• The Commissioner teams will ensure the security of any confidential information that is provided
• Confidential items may be used to draw conclusions • No college or individual should use any
data/information from the review for commercial or competitive gain
• A full confidential report will be produced at the end of the process for the colleges involved
• A summary report of the process, evidence and outcomes will be published
P R I N C I P L E S O F A R E A R E V I E W S
• Evidence-based review of local labour market
information and the data available about learners and institutions
• Review options for whole area
• Sound financial planning to ensure best area-wide use of resources and discharging of debt to
P R I N C I P L E S O F A R E A R E V I E W S
• Commitment to collaboration, taking account of the views of learners and employers
• Consider potential new structures and teaching models including new technology
• Focus on quality improvement across the area and maintaining provision for disabled students • Willingness to change for the greater good,
irrespective of vested interests and personal preferences
T H E R E S U LT S ?
• Rationalisation of provision?
• Mergers/federations/alternative structures? • Sixth form college converts to academy ? • Shared back office functions?
• Better use of estates?
• Agreements as to affordable levels of service? • Greater degrees of specialisation?
• Apprenticeship units or companies? • New Institutes of Technology?
D E C I S I O N - M A K I N G
“It will be for the governing bodies of each individual institution to decide whether to accept the review’s recommendations,
reflecting their status as independent bodies”
R e v i e w i n g p o s t - 1 6 e d u c a t i o n a n d t r a i n i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s : g u i d a n c e o n a r e a r e v i e w s
