Some reflections on the steady erosion of the status of the further-education sector by neoliberal politicians and college bosses

In 2023, Katie Stafford, deputy principal at New City College in London asked a fundamental question, ‘Why a lack of trust is a key issue in further education’. She points to ‘the technocratic approach to the governance of the FE sector … driven by the government at the time, who had very little trust in local authorities and consequently, even less trust in college leaders to manage education in both an efficient and effective manner … A reduction in risk was achieved through tighter and more complex funding regimes and more scrutiny via audit and policy mechanisms, making the work of college leaders much more political and bureaucratic.’

Governments are supposed to support FE colleges as a cost-effective way to improve skills and productivity. Further Education was established in the postwar years to grant opportunities to citizens who, for whatever reason, wanted to learn. Acquiring a craft or skill, accessible routes to higher education and lifelong-learning opportunities could be realized. FE colleges were supposed to made education more accessible to adult learners, part-time students, and anyone who required remedial education.

Sadly, those working within FE over recent years have witnessed a major undermining of its original raison d’être. An ex-colleague has lamented to me, for example, the demise of popular night classes, fly-tying, sugar-craft and decoupage courses. The progressive notion of education for education’s sake has been supplanted by an obsession with making a fast buck.

Working-class opportunities

My initial associations with FE were from a teenage perspective. My parents had secured a tenancy on a pub, and the family relocated. Prior to this parental ‘opportunity’, I had begun studying towards A-levels. The move scuppered those plans because the school sixth form was full. Opportunities in northeastern England in 1977 were few and far between, as Callaghan’s Labour government initiated the economic policies that would be intensified by Thatcherism. A careers officer advised me to enrol at the FE college, which was across the road from my parent’s pub. My mother said ‘ee that’s great pet, they’ve a conversational Spanish class, I’ll book on, and we can go over together’ – oh, great joy, sixteen and going to college with me mam!

Fast forward to the mid-1990s, changes in my personal circumstances saw me return to the parental home and the FE college. The plan had been to study Access to Nursing, but the course was full – story of my life. In 1996, enrolment onto Access to Humanities cost £11: students committed to three and a half days of contact tuition and (underlined) completion and timely submission of assignments. Late submissions were penalised. We queued, handed our assignments to ‘beardy Jon’ who presented a piece of foolscap that required a signature. He time-stamped them and squirreled them away, I doubt that happens nowadays and ‘timely submission’ is defined very differently across an average Access cohort.

Marketisation

Sadly, educational funding is one of the prime changes. Funding for FE has transformed, and not in a good way. In 2024, the college where I had studied explains ‘courses are free for many of our students, however, there are many ways in which eligibility is assessed. The following information exists to support you to assess if you could qualify for fee remission. There are lots of financial options and support processes available, so even if you do not qualify for a free course, there are alternative options such as monthly direct debit payments and possible help from the college’s bursary funds.’ Fees and funding for Access courses vary across the UK: another college, one in which I worked for more than twenty years, declare on their website that ‘course fees vary each year. Prospective students are advised to contact us for the latest fees. All materials are provided for you to complete the course. However, as many of our courses are currently delivered via online learning, you will need access to a PC/laptop and suitable Wi-Fi to access the teaching and learning.’

I am reliably informed that the average cost is £3,000. Access students can apply for a loan, which is cancelled when they successfully graduate. Of course, most students fund their university tuition fees by borrowing – sorry, I meant ‘deferring gratification and investing in their future.’ You do not need to be a mathematical genius to work out the result. The postwar ethos of opening the floodgates to working-class students has been turned into a commodified and marketised competition that now increasingly deters such students from pursuing education into adulthood.

Giving something back

In 1996, fate directed me toward Eleanor Walsh, an out-and-proud Marxist-Feminist who taught English Literature and Sociology, spiced with politics. She was utterly brilliant. I distinctly, vividly remember the author Pat Barker visited our English Literature class to read from her book, Regeneration. I mean WOW! Who would have thought, I/we were read to by the woman who had written a prize-winning best seller. Eleanor was a passionate educator who had not enjoyed the opportunity to ‘stay on’ at school with her brother. In 1996, I assumed Eleanor was unique, I had not met anyone like her before. I have since learnt that teaching attracts such folk, and FE draws their kind like a strong magnet. The last time we met, Eleanor was working to promote her course for people over fifty. Two pearls of wisdom from Eleanor changed my life. One: educated women terrify men and two: apply to study at a local university because when times get tough, and they will, you can rely on friends. The former drove my academic interests, which pulled me toward specific academics and away from ‘home’. The latter led to a desire to give something back to an education system that once opened doors for working-class students.

Principals without principles

After two decades of teaching within FE, I now see the sector as a pale shadow of its former self thanks to the virus of neoliberalism. In that time, I experienced four quite different visions; projected by one Principal, and two different CEO & Principals. Each individual fashioned and refashioned ‘their’ managerial team to reflect ‘their’ vision, which was imposed upon staff and students. The principal, who wanted our students to have real choices, said that if a student wanted to study ‘A’-level Philosophy, History and Nail-Art, so be it. The timetable was flexible, designed to meet most needs – and yes, some students picked curious combinations. Next arrived the Principal & CEO who had a burning desire to take a ‘genuinely good college’ to ‘OUTSTANDNING’ and, with a lot of good-will and demanding work, the aspiration was achieved.

I remember SLT presenting a large bouquet whilst congratulating themselves on a job well managed. Whilst working toward a shared goal garners a lot of good-will, intimidating anyone deemed not on message, finger-pointing and denouncing when strategies did not go to plan eats away at morale. Increasingly, students are not seen as human beings with aspirations but as pieces of data on a spreadsheet whose sole purpose is to maximise exam results.

Defiance

Of course, outstanding management costs more, allegedly executive salaries ‘attract the best talent’; executives set long-term plans based upon their vision of what is required. The last few years have been incredibly stressful, Work-related stress takes its toll, covering for poorly colleagues is frequent. Whilst commercialisation had skulked guiltily with the arrival of the executive, the business of education was exposed. Overt corporate dominance arrived with the first CEO & Principal – education for its own sake vanished, the library was decimated, its unwanted contents ‘archived’ into a skip.

More for less, utilisation and new timetables to guarantee full utilisation – protecting The BRAND became a persistent mantra. Managers put up glossy posters about zero tolerance of bullying and then commit egregious bullying themselves. Funding mechanisms were transformed and funding has been cut to the bone. Yet, to quote Eleanor, ‘the privileges enjoyed by the few, generate obligations for everyone else.’ Nobody likes to withdraw labour, but it demonstrates solidarity and resistance to the neoliberal agenda. Last year, students and their parents joined a UCU picket line at the college as we took industrial action in pursuit of a proper pay rise. It was a defiant sign that the fight against encroaching neoliberalism in further education is not lost yet.

NEU members in 32 sixth-form colleges are showing how that fightback is a real possibility. At the end of November and start of December, they will take three days of strike action to protest at not being included in the 5.5% pay award granted to their colleagues in schools. Similarly, FE colleges were overlooked by the government in the same pay deal, which leads to the absurdity of educators delivering the same courses to the same age groups, but in different contexts, not getting the same rate of pay. UCU activists are calling on their union leadership to tackle this grossly iniquitous situation through an aggregated ballot, leading to nationally coordinated industrial action. Only when the pay gap between schools and colleges is tackled can there be any hope of restoring FE to its original mission of providing the second-chance education which inspired me many years ago.