Uproar over changes to franchising activities

22nd November 1996 at 00:00
Colleges heavily involved in franchising job-related courses are demanding more consultation on proposed changes aimed at tightening funding for off-site training.

A new working group of principals claims that changes in funding for national vocational qualifications delivered in workplaces could force colleges to cut back severely on support for those programmes.

The result, says the group, would be failure to reach the Government's education and training targets and damage to the economy.

The Further Education Funding Council set out the proposed changes to funding of workplace NVQs in a consultation document covering a range of revisions to the "tariff" - the FEFC's menu of prices it will pay colleges for delivering qualifications.

It proposes listing NVQs individually for the first time, spelling out how much colleges can claim for each on a sliding scale according to how delivery is split between them and employers. At present, colleges decide for themselves what they can claim according to hours of work delivered.

The FEFC originally intended to impose the changes on the sector for the current academic year but abandoned the plan.

Leaked news of the changes caused uproar among the colleges most likely to be affected. They claimed the revisions should not be imposed retrospectively since they had already signed contracts with employers based on the old rules.

However, the colleges now claim that the one question in the tariff consultation relating to the issue is inadequate and are calling for a fuller debate.

Martin Jenkins, principal of Halton College - the fastest-growing college in the country, largely through extensive employer franchises - said he and other principals supported the individual listing of NVQs but did not feel the FEFC was proposing to allocate enough cash for the work.

Vocational education was being undervalued, he said, adding: "I hope the FEFC will realise they have got their figures wrong and increase the number of units allocated to NVQs."

According to the FEFC's sliding scale, colleges would earn most for delivering on-the-job training and least for providing only support and assessment. They would be banned from claiming for assessment only, and would be expected to charge the employer for the service.

However, another principal with a substantial franchising programme insisted that providing assessment was often a "foot in the door" to employers who then purchased more training.

The high franchisers' case is likely to cut little ice with the FEFC, which is anxious to tighten up controls of franchising activity. The council's regional offices have this term asked colleges for information on franchising in an unprecedented level of detail.

An FEFC spokewoman said: "We are pleased to hear any view which colleges might want to put forward as part of this consultation."

Many colleges will have little sympathy with the group's arguments; some suspect over-claiming may have helped some major franchisers achieve fast growth.

Log-in as an existing print or digital subscriber

Forgotten your subscriber ID?


To access this content and the full TES archive, subscribe now.

View subscriber offers


Get TES online and delivered to your door – for less than the price of a coffee

Save 33% off the cover price with this great subscription offer. Every copy delivered to your door by first-class post, plus full access to TES online and the TES app for just £1.90 per week.
Subscribers also enjoy a range of fantastic offers and benefits worth over £270:

  • Discounts off TES Institute courses
  • Access over 200,000 articles in the TES online archive
  • Free Tastecard membership worth £79.99
  • Discounts with Zipcar, Buyagift.com, Virgin Wines and other partners
Order your low-cost subscription today