Annual WorkforceDiversity Profile 2007/08

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2007/08

An analysis of further education colleges in England

2

Foreword 7

Executive summary 8

Introduction 15Report structure 15How to use this report 16Staff Individualised Record 16‘Backfilling’ process and staff returns 17Definition of reporting categories 18

Findings: national profile and overall characteristics of the workforce 21Occupational groups 22Qualifications 24Working patterns 25Type of contract 27Workforce recruitment and leavers 28

Section 1: Age profile of the workforce 29Overall age profile 30Occupational groups 30Leadership and management 31Qualifications 32Working patterns 33Type of contract 34Workforce recruitment and leavers 35

Section 2: Disability profile of the workforce 37Overall disability profile 38Occupational groups 40Leadership and management 40Qualifications 41Working patterns 42Type of contract 43Workforce recruitment and leavers 43

Contents


Prepared for: Lifelong Learning UKPrepared by: LSN

3

Section 3: Ethnicity profile of the workforce 45Overall ethnicity profile 46Occupational groups 48Leadership and management 49Qualifications 50Working patterns 52Type of contract 52Workforce recruitment and leavers 53

Section 4: Gender profile of the workforce 55Overall gender profile 56Occupational groups 57Leadership and management 59Qualification levels 59Working patterns 60Type of contract 61Workforce recruitment and leavers 62Annual pay 63

Conclusions 67

Recommendations 70

References 74


4

OverviewFigure 1 Total number of staff returns in further education colleges – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

Figure 2 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by occupational groups – England,2005/06 to 2007/08

Figure 3 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by qualification levels – England,2005/06 to 2007/08

Figure 4 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by working patterns – England,2005/06 to 2007/08

Figure 5 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by types of contract – England,2005/06 to 2007/08

Figure 6 Recruitment and leaver rates for the further education college workforce – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

Age groupsFigure 1-1 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by age groups – England,2005/06 to 2007/08

Figure 1-2 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by occupational groups and agegroups – England, 2007/08

Figure 1-3 Total proportion of senior managers and other managers in the further education college workforceby age groups – England, 2007/08

Figure 1-4 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by qualification levels and agegroups – England, 2007/08

Figure 1-5 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by working patterns and agegroups – England, 2007/08

Figure 1-6 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by types of contracts and agegroups – England, 2007/08

Figure 1-7 Total proportion of recruitment by age groups – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

Figure 1-8 Total proportion of leavers by age groups – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08


5

DisabilityFigure 2-1 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by disabilities –England, 2005/06to 2007/08

Figure 2-2 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by occupational groups anddisclosed disability status – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

Figure 2-3 Total proportion of senior managers and other managers in the further education college workforceby declared disability status – England, 2007/08

Figure 2-4 Total proportion of staff in the further education workforce by qualification levels and discloseddisability status – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

Figure 2-5 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by working patterns anddisclosed disability status – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

Figure 2-6 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by types of contract anddisclosed disability status – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

Figure 2-7 Total proportion of recruitment by disclosed disability status – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

Figure 2-8 Total proportion of leavers by disclosed disability status – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

EthnicityFigure 3-1 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by ethnicity – England, 2007/08

Figure 3-2 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by ethnicity (black and minorityethnic and white) – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

Figure 3-3 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by ethnicity – England, 2005/06to 2007/08

Figure 3-4 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by occupational groups andethnicity – England, 2007/08

Figure 3-5 Total proportion of senior managers and other managers in the further education college workforceby ethnicity – England, 2007/08

Figure 3-6 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by qualification levels andethnicity – England, 2007/08

Figure 3-7 Total proportion of managers in the further education college workforce by qualification levels andethnicity – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

Figure 3-8 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by working patterns andethnicity – England, 2007/08

Figure 3-9 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by types of contracts andethnicity – England, 2007/08

Figure 3-10 Total proportion of recruitment by ethnicity – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

Figure 3-11 Total proportion of leavers by ethnicity – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08


6

GenderFigure 4-1 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by gender – England,2005/06 to 2007/08

Figure 4-2 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by gender and age groups– England, 2007/08

Figure 4-3 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by occupational groups andgender – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

Figure 4-4 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by occupational groups,working patterns and gender – England, 2007/08

Figure 4-5 Total proportion of senior managers and other managers in the further education collegeworkforce by gender – England, 2007/08

Figure 4-6 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by qualification levels andgender – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

Figure 4-7 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by working patterns andgender – England, 2007/08

Figure 4-8 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by types of contract andgender – England, 2007/08

Figure 4-9 Total proportion of recruitment by gender – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

Figure 4-10 Total proportion of leavers by gender – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

Figure 4-11 Average annual pay full time further education staff across all occupational groups by gender– England 2005/6-2007/8

Figure 4-12 Average annual pay full time further education staff across all occupational groups by regionand gender – England 2007/8

Figure 4-13 Average full-time further education pay by occupational groups and gender –England, 2007/08

Foreword

Priority 4 of the Workforce Strategy for the FurtherEducation Sector in England 2007-2012 sets out thecase that equality and diversity should be at theheart of everything we do. Workforce diversitydrives creativity and innovation; an understanding of the diverse needs of learners across the furthereducation sector will ensure that our workforce caninspire learners of all backgrounds to achieve totheir full potential.

Reliable information about the workforce in any sectorcan support succession planning, policy development,impact measurement, and decision making at anational, local and organisational level. We know thatif we are able to deliver an analysis of workforce databack to our employers in an accessible manner, itenables them to predict the specific needs of theirworkforce to respond appropriately in meeting theneeds of diverse learners.

The publication of this report supports the WorkforceStrategy for the Further Education Sector in England2007-2012, and underlines the importance ofunderstanding the workforce and using data to planand improve services offered by the sector.

We are pleased to have expanded the scope of ouranalysis this year to include qualification levels amongspecific groups, gender pay difference and the profileof staff within leadership and management roles.This report provides an analysis of trends across age,disability, ethnicity and gender in order to addressworkforce under-representation, development,progression and succession planning.

In the last year, many employers will have accessedworkforce data through the Online Analytical Portal(OLAP), launched in February 2009. The OLAP portalcan now be used to compare ‘general population’data from the census and labour force statistics dataheld at a regional and local authority level, which willallow benchmarking the staff profile against thegeneral population. The addition of the Dashboardreporting feature enables quicker access toinformation surrounding the the staff individualisedrecord data via pre-defined reports.

For further information on OLAP and Dashboardreporting, read the guidance document hosted on the consultation portal:https://sirdatacollection.lluk.org/consultation/sites/default/files/OLAP_guidance.pdf

We welcome your comments and suggestions on howto improve and develop the intelligence presentedhere and warmly encourage you to provide feedbackto us at [email protected].

Sue DuttonChief ExecutiveLifelong Learning UK

I am delighted to present the Annual Workforce DiversityProfile 2007/8. It is the most comprehensive collection of equality-related workforce data and provides colleges,representative bodies and policy makers with a moreinformed basis for workforce planning.

7


8

This report provides a national and regional description of the key characteristics and changing trendsobserved across the further education college workforce in England from 2005/06 to 2007/08. It is thethird Annual Workforce Diversity Profile report published by Lifelong Learning UK and provides an updatedanalysis of the further education college workforce, which was originally presented in the AnnualWorkforce Diversity Profile 2006/07.

As in last year’s report the results are based on a series of analyses carried out using the Staff Individualised Recorddatabase, which is a comprehensive record of staff statistics in further education colleges in England. The collationof returns submitted by further education colleges provide information on a range of workforce features, includingstaff characteristics and qualifications, details about employment positions held and other features of the labourmarket. Colleges are required to submit records on an annual basis, and the results presented in this report aretherefore based on the three most recent years when full datasets were available: 2005/06, 2006/07 and 2007/08.

The key objective of this report is to examine the profile of the target workforce according to four equality strands:

• age

• disability

• ethnicity

• gender.

It also aims to measure how the diversity of the workforce has developed according to the equality and diversitystrands identified. An in-depth look at each strand explores:

• occupational groups

• leadership and management roles

• qualification levels

• working patterns

• type of contract

• recruitment and leaver rates.

Recruitment and leaver activity across the workforce are analysed to identify the profile of the workforce shiftingin and out of colleges and highlight particular developments in recruitment or departure trends that could affectthe future diversification of the sector.

The main findings of the analyses are summarised according to the key themes of the report: age, disability,ethnicity and gender. The report begins with an opening summary of the overall trends and characteristicsof the further education college workforce to establish baseline information as outlined below.

National overview and overall characteristics of the workforce• In 2007/08 approximately 263,200 staff returns were submitted in the Staff Individualised Record database.

Since 2006/07 there has been a 15.2 per cent increase in staff return numbers.

• Although there has been a rise in staff numbers in the college sector in recent years, the further educationlearner population has registered a contrary trend. Between 2006/07 and 2007/08 the number of learners infurther education fell by 6.9 per cent (LSC, 2008).1

Executive summary


1Learners in further education represented those attending provision in colleges of further education (including sixth form colleges) and in a range ofother organisations, known as ‘external institutions’. The majority of provision however was supplied by further education colleges and therefore thetrends presented are comparable to trends observed in the Staff Individualised Record database.

9

Overall, the workforce in further education colleges has grown significantly faster in the last year than thenational average employment growth rate of 0.8 per cent (ONS, 2008). It will be important to monitordevelopments in the sector during the next few years to determine the impact of the current economic climateon employment in the further education college workforce.

• Teaching staff dominated the college workforce compared to the other occupational groups, and in 2007/08they represented 52.9 per cent of the workforce. Since 2005/06 this percentage has remained unchanged.The second largest group of staff worked in service roles.

• In 2007/08, 6.7 per cent of staff were in management positions. Approximately 4 per cent of these staff weresenior managers and the remaining were identified as ‘other managers’.

• Staff in further education colleges were relatively highly qualified, with 44.2 per cent in 2007/08 holding NQFLevel 6/7/8 qualifications (e.g. first degrees or above).

• There was a higher proportion of staff in further education colleges working in part time positions thanworking full time. In 2007/08 these rates were 58.6 per cent and 41.4 per cent respectively.

• Nearly 70 per cent of staff in colleges were on permanent contracts, which were the most common contract typeacross the workforce. Since 2005/06 the proportion has remained relatively unchanged.

• The proportion of fixed-term staff has fallen drastically through the last three reported years and in 2007/08they represented 16.2 per cent of all staff.

Age• The age profile of staff in further education colleges was higher than the age profile of the general workforce

across England (i.e. covering all labour market sectors). More than a third of staff in further education collegeswere aged 50 years and over while the Labour Force Survey data showed that the national average rate ofworkers 50 years and over was 22.4 per cent (ONS, 2008).

• Staff in the youngest and the two oldest age bands (e.g. under-25 year olds, 60-64 and 65 and over)represented the smallest staff groups across all three reported years.

• A higher proportion of staff aged between 50 and 59 years was registered as managers than staff of any otherage group. They were also more likely to be in senior positions.

• A higher proportion of staff across all age groups had a qualification at NQF Level 6/7/8 than any other qualifications.

• There was a significant increase in the proportion of staff in part time contracts when moving from the 55–59age group to the 60-64 age group.

• The majority of staff across all age groups was employed on permanent contracts except for the youngestand oldest age groups who were more likely to be employed on a fixed term or casual basis.

• The largest proportion of staff recruited to colleges was aged under 25 years (14.8 per cent in 2007/08). In2006/07, staff aged under 25 years represented one of the largest groups in the leaver cohort (12.4 per cent).However since then, the proportion of leavers in this age band had dropped (10.5 per cent) and the age profileof leavers appeared to be more evenly distributed with no specific age group registering significant percentages.


10

Disability• The number of staff with a declared disability across the further education college workforce was under-

represented. Less than 3 per cent of staff in further education colleges had a declared disability in 2007/08.This is significantly lower than the average disability status of the general population in England of 17.9 percent (ONS, 2009)2 and the general further education learner population, which in the same year registered14.4 per cent (LSC, 2007).

• Staff with a declared disability demonstrated a similar occupational profile to those staff without a declareddisability: 52.8 per cent of staff with a declared disability were in teaching roles compared with 52.7 per centof staff without a declared disability. (Note: only 2.7 per cent of further education college staff had a declareddisability therefore the percentage results presented by occupational role and other categories are based onsignificantly less staff than those staff without a declared disability).

• Across the management roles in further education colleges there was no major difference in therepresentation of staff with and without a declared disability, in either senior or other manager positions.

• The qualification profile of staff with and without a declared disability was similar. The majority of staff in bothcohorts was educated to NQF Level 6/7/8.

• The proportion of staff with a declared disability working full time had dropped since 2005/06 (45.1 per cent to43.4 per cent in 2007/08). A similar trend was observed in the proportion of staff without a declared disability(45.1 per cent to 41.8 per cent). There had been a general shift to part time positions for both cohorts.

• Staff with declared disabilities were more likely to be employed on permanent contracts within the furthereducation college workforce than those staff without a declared disability. Approximately three-quarters ofstaff with a declared disability were in permanent positions in 2007/08 (74.3 per cent), which was more thanthe 69.8 per cent registered for staff without a declared disability also working on a permanent basis.

• Recruitment of staff with declared disabilities continued to be extremely low throughout the years. Only 2.1per cent of staff newly recruited to the further education college workforce had a declared disability. Themajority of leavers had no declared disabilities.

Ethnicity• In 2007/08, 84.3 per cent of the further education college workforce was from a white ethnic group. Black

and minority ethnic staff represented 8.5 per cent (i.e. 3.4 per cent Asian, 2.9 per cent black, 1.3 per centChinese/other and 0.8 per cent mixed). Due to rounding effects to one decimal point, the sum of theminority ethnic groups black, mixed, Chinese/other and Asian equals 8.4 per cent.

• Black and minority ethnic group representation across the college sector was slightly lower than the ethnicprofile of the general population where 10.6 per cent of the population in England were from a minorityethnic group (ONS, 2009).

• The differences in representation of minority ethnic groups between the college staff population and learnerpopulation was significant – in 2007/08, 20.9 per cent of the further education learner population was fromblack and minority ethnic groups.


2Population estimates are based on Annual Population Survey statistics which are compiled from the main Labour Force Survey, together with additionalinterviews in England, Wales and Scotland. They represent the working-age population which is defined as males aged between 16 and 64 and femalesaged between 16 and 59.

11

• There were no significant differences in ethnicrepresentation between white and black andminority ethnic groups across different role types.For example, in 2007/08, 52.5 per cent of stafffrom white ethnic groups were in teaching roles,compared to 51.4 per cent of Asian staff and 52.6per cent of staff from black ethnic groups.

• Staff from black and minority ethnic backgroundswere less likely to be in senior managementpositions than those with white ethnic profiles (4.0per cent compared to 1.8 per cent in 2007/08).

• All black and minority ethnic groups appeared to bebetter qualified than their white counterparts. Forexample, while 43.7 per cent of white staff held anNVQ Level 6/7/8 qualification, 55.0 per cent ofAsian and 52.8 per cent of Chinese/other held thesame qualification.

• Staff from white ethnic groups registered thehighest proportion of staff in permanent contracts.The Chinese/other ethnic cohort was recorded ashaving the largest proportion of staff employed ascasual staff, and on part time contracts.

• The ethnicity profile of the further education collegeworkforce recruited between 2005/06 and 2007/08did not undergo major changes. The representationof staff from black and minority ethnic groupsincreased slightly from between 0.1 per cent and 0.2per cent. The proportion of new recruits from whiteethnic backgrounds in 2007/08 was 82.1 per cent.

• The percentage of staff from black and minorityethnic backgrounds who left their roles seemed tohave increased slightly in comparison with previousyears. Among black and minority ethnic groups,Asian staff continued to be the group with thehighest number of leavers in 2007/08 (4.1 per cent).

12


Gender• The further education college workforce was predominantly female, and this trend remained unchanged

through the years. In 2007/08 approximately two-thirds of the workforce was female and one-third wasmale. This profile was different to the national gender profile of the general workforce in which femalesrepresented 46.0 per cent and males 54.0 per cent (ONS, 2008).

• Disparities in the average annual pay of male and female full-time staff in colleges have existed through theyears, with male staff on average earning more than females. In 2007/08 the average annual pay for a male fulltime staff member was £25,600 while the equivalent pay for female staff working full time was £23,300. Thegender gap between pay earned has decreased slightly in recent years and in 2007/08, the difference wasmeasured at 9.9 per cent (equivalent to approximately £2,300).

• Female staff were, on average, more likely to be employed in administrative and service staff roles than malecollege staff. A higher proportion of male staff were in teaching roles (59.4 per cent) compared to 49.2 percent of female staff in equivalent roles.

• Male staff were more likely to be in management roles (7.3 per cent) than females (6.6 per cent of staff). Theywere twice as likely to be in senior management roles as females (5.3 per cent and 2.8 per cent respectively).

• The majority of both female and male staff were qualified to NQF Level 6/7/8. However higherproportions of female staff held lower level qualifications (NQF Level 2 and below) than the male furthereducation college workforce.

• Female staff (65.0 per cent) were more likely to be employed part time in colleges than their malecolleagues (47.1 per cent).

• Male staff were more inclined to work full time in administrative/professional roles (67.8 per cent) than femalestaff in equivalent roles (55.0 per cent). The majority of female staff in service role occupations was workingpart time (81.2 per cent) compared to male service staff (51.8 per cent).

• There were no gender disparities across the further education college workforce in relation to the types ofcontract offered across the sector. The majority of male and female staff was on permanent contracts.

• The majority of staff recruited to the further education college workforce was female, representing, in2007/08, 63.0 per cent of all recruited staff. The gender profile of the leaver cohort reflects a similar picture.

13

Conclusions and recommendationsThe analysis of the further education college workforce data indicated that colleges needed to develop furtherstrategies to improve equality and diversity in the sector. Overall there had been some changes in the college staffprofile but there is still more to be done to have a workforce that reflects the diversity of our learners. A changein the organisational culture and an ethos that proactively promotes and appreciates diversity are required.

The recommendations aim to address key issues highlighted in the main body of the report. They provide ageneral guidance on how principal stakeholders within the further education college sector can developstrategies to ensure that equality and diversity are embedded across all areas in the organisation. Therecommendations have been organised under three key themes that apply to all equality strands: disclosure,data collection and monitoring; recruitment and retention of staff; and leadership and management.

Disclosure, data collection and monitoringManagers, leaders and stakeholders need to:

• create a positive workplace environment that is as representative as it can be, taking into account local demographics

• encourage staff to disclose their equality information and create a secure culture for disclosure

• put into place appropriate strategies to raise awareness of the importance of disclosure

• explain how the data is being or will be used to inform policy or strategy

• brief human resource and line managers and encourage them to set aside a specific time to talk to new staffabout the benefits of disclosing equality data and the reasons for asking this information, clearly explainingissues such as confidentiality and how the data will be stored

• develop appropriate methods to collect and monitor equality data accurately, seeking advice and guidance fromthe sector to improve data collection and monitoring across all equality strands (Data monitoring should coverrecruitment, promotion, training and staff leaving)

• embed equality and diversity in all college activities (Using appropriate data when measuring the impact ofpolicies, services and functions will help colleges identify areas of improvement and development that meet thediverse needs of all staff)

• involve staff and learners from diverse backgrounds when measuring the impact of policies, services andfunctions to ensure that specific needs and barriers faced by specific groups are considered

• ensure monitoring around disability is undertaken on a regular basis or that strategies are in place toencourage staff to disclose a new disability.


Recruitment and retention of staffManagers, leaders and stakeholders need to:

• review recruitment policies and marketing materials to explore innovative approaches to attracting peoplewho are under-represented

• work closely with local communities, under-represented groups and key organisations to attract staff fromdiverse backgrounds and needs

• encourage applications from disabled people and guarantee interviews to applicants with a declared disabilitymeeting the job requirements

• examine retention rates and progression figures to develop suitable training and professional developmentactivities that encourage specific groups of staff to continue working in the sector

• consider flexible working arrangements to recruit and retain staff from specific groups (e.g. women,disabled people)

• develop recruitment strategies to address gender stereotyping in occupational roles

• develop appropriate methods to collect information from staff leaving the sector to identify trends andreasons for leaving

• be transparent about staff profiles to encourage under-represented groups to apply for vacancies.

Leadership and managementManagers, leaders and stakeholders need to:

• ensure that equality and diversity are embedded across all activities in the colleges

• promote an organisational culture that encourages staff to appreciate diversity

• encourage good relations among staff regardless of their personal characteristics such as race, age, disability,sexual orientation, religion or belief, gender or gender identity

• develop leadership and management skills for staff from under-represented groups within the organisation

• provide flexible working arrangements to attract under-represented groups and enable staff with diverseneeds to progress

• share good practice with other organisations in supporting specific groups with specific needs.

14

15

Introduction


The Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2007/8 provides an analysis of the national and regional profiles ofthe further education college workforce in England. It looks at the workforce according to age, disability,ethnicity and gender and identifies trends in the staff profile over the years 2005/6 to 2007/8.

We recognise that the equality data collected does not yet reflect all the strands covered by legislation,namely sexual orientation, gender identity and religion or belief. To address this, Lifelong Learning UK is working together with providers and key stakeholders to develop the way we collect data and theinformation that we ask of the workforce to ensure it is meaningful and can enhance the outcomes of staff and learners in the further education sector.

Report structureThe key aim of this report is to provide an up-to-date national overview of the workforce in furthereducation colleges. A national overview of the main characteristics identified across the further educationcollege workforce is initially presented to establish baseline trends and results. A breakdown of nationaltrends according to the main employment and qualification categories mentioned previously is described inthe first section, ‘Findings: national profile of the workforce’. A detailed outline of regionalcharacteristics and trends is presented separately in the accompanying appendices.

The results for each strand of analysis (i.e. age, disability, ethnicity and gender) are presented in Sections 1 to 4.

A number of appendices accompany this report, providing the supporting data tables as well as refinedindividual workforce diversity profile reports for the nine regions across England. The appendices include:

Appendix 1 – main report This section provides an outline of the data tables supporting the national results presented in this report.

Appendix 2 – regional profiles At the regional level, staff trends and characteristics varied. This section provides individual workforceprofiles across the four equality and diversity strands of the nine regions across England:

1. East Midlands

2. East of England

3. Greater London

4. North East

5. North West

6. South East

7. South West

8. West Midlands

9. Yorkshire and the Humber

16

How to use this reportLifelong Learning UK encourages employers and sector agencies to use this report to inform and directtheir own efforts in workforce development planning.

For planning and strategic developmentIt is important to prepare strategically for the challenges ahead. This report can help those with planningresponsibilities in the sector to reflect critically on their own organisation’s position. It presents a richsupply of data against which human resource staff and others responsible for planning can measure theirown figures in a range of criteria against national, and, in some cases, regional benchmarks. Having madecomparisons, colleges can start to identify why their findings vary from national figures, what is causingthese variations and what the implications are for their workforce development strategy.

For benchmarkingWhile sets of data in this record concern further education colleges, colleges may find similar data sets fromother sources, such as a local authority, to compare how their staffing reflects their local communities (forexample, in terms of race and disability). Further education colleges can now access this information throughthe OLAP portal: https://sirdatacollection.lluk.org/consultation/sites/default/files/OLAP_guidance.pdf

To support equality and diversity monitoring activitiesThe data and analysis provide information for colleges about the level of activity required at a local level,particularly with the promotion and encouragement of staff disclosing equality-related information. The moreaccurate the information, the better the sector will be in its succession planning, addressing under-representation and meeting the needs of local communities and learners.

Staff Individualised Record The analysis and findings presented in this report are based on the further education college workforcedata collected via the Staff Individualised Record collection across the years 2005/06, 2006/07 and 2007/08.The Staff Individualised Record is a national database of workforce information that further educationcolleges submit to Lifelong Learning UK on an annual basis. Lifelong Learning UK has been responsible forcollecting the data since 2008: before this, the process was managed by the Learning and Skills Council.The statistics presented in this report represent further education colleges in England only.

Across England, further education colleges are required to submit annual returns on their employed workforce,providing a range of details on their staff including profile characteristics and employment status and contracttypes. Just over 90 per cent of the organisations represented in the 2007/08 datasets are general further educationcolleges and sixth form colleges (LLUK, 2008b). A full list of the organisation types in the datasets includes:• general further education (FE) colleges (including tertiary education)• sixth form colleges• special colleges – agriculture and horticulture• special colleges – art, design and performing arts• specialist designated colleges• higher education organisation.3


3This organisation represented a college providing a significant level of further and higher education courses which was therefore identified as a separatecollege category.

17

Since 2005/06, there has been a gradual fall in the number of colleges submitting returns (see Table 1). Atthe regional level, the trend across the three years has varied – Greater London registered an increase incollege submissions while other regions such as the North West and South West noted instead a fall. Thedecrease in college numbers can be mainly attributed to the college mergers that have occurred across thesector in recent years. However, the fall has had little impact on the size of the further education collegeworkforce which instead shows an increase between 2006/07 and 2007/08 of staff returns by 15.2 per cent.

Table 1: Total number of further education colleges included in the Staff Individualised Record datasets byregion – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08Region 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08

East Midlands 26 24 24

East of England 34 33 34

Greater London 52 52 54

North East 23 21 22

North West 62 60 58

South East 63 63 60

South West 33 33 31

West Midlands 48 48 47

Yorkshire and the Humber 39 40 39

TOTAL (further education colleges) 380 374 369

Total (staff returns) 238,537 228,517 263,257

Note: The count of colleges includes those included through the backfilling process (see below).

‘Backfilling’ process and staff returnsThe Staff Individualised Record is based on data returns submitted by further education colleges. Where collegesdid not submit data within the specified time limit, data records from the previous year for that college wereused instead to fill in the missing details. This process is called ‘backfilling’. Unlike the datasets used for the AnnualWorkforce Diversity Profile 2006/07 report, the analyses for this report were based on backfilled data so thefigures presented for 2005/06 and 2006/07 in the previous report will differ from those quoted in this version.

In 2007/08, nine per cent of records were backfilled and this rate had remained consistent throughout thepast years except for 2006/07. In 2006/07, 23 per cent of the database was based on backfilled data.

Currently the data records submitted by colleges are based on the count of staff contracts. In 2007/08 itwas estimated that approximately 10 per cent of staff in further education colleges held more than onecontract. There was no consistent way of identifying individual staff in the data submitted and so, as a proxymeasure, the volume of staff contracts was used to represent the approximate population of the furthereducation workforce. For this reason, the references made throughout this report in relation to staffnumbers are actually based on staff contract data.


18

Definition of reporting categories The analysis presented in this report concentrates on observing key points and trends of the further educationcollege workforce according to the main equality and diversity strands included in the Staff IndividualisedRecord dataset (i.e. age, disability, ethnicity and gender). Within each strand, an in-depth investigation oftrends across key employment and qualification characteristics has been carried out. The breakdowns andcategories used within the report are defined below. There were some new categories and labels used in the2007/08 dataset compared to those published in the 2006/07 report and these are highlighted.

Occupational groupsThe three occupational groups used for reporting last year were: managers,4 teaching staff and all otherstaff.5 To obtain a more detailed understanding across distinct roles and seniority levels, the analysis in thisreport took the three occupational groups and separated them into seven categories:

• manager

• administrative and professional staff

• technical staff

• word-processing, clerical and secretarial staff

• service staff

• teaching staff (lecturers, tutors and trainers)

• assessors and verifiers (new for 2007/08).

Since data on assessors and verifiers was identified separately for the first time in 2007/08, the trendspresented for occupational groups are primarily based on the first six categories where data for 2005/06and 2006/07 was available.

Leadership and management (new for 2007/08)For the first time in this series of Annual Workforce Diversity Profile reports, equality and diversity strandswere specifically measured across distinct levels of management in 2007/08. Previous research demonstratedthe need for more precise data that would facilitate monitoring the career progression of black and minorityethnic groups (NBP, 2005) and female staff within leadership and management positions (WLN, 2009).

In response to this demand, a new and separate analysis of management was included in 2007/08. AsLifelong Learning UK continues to collect management data, time series analyses for this cohort of staff willbe included in future reporting of results. As a preliminary overview of management across the sector, the2007/08 results were presented across two categories defined as:

• senior managers (representing the roles: college principal, chief executive and director)


4‘Manager’ category included: college administrator/manager, centre (sub-college) administrator, finance administration/manager (bursar), librarian,marketing administrator/ manager, computer/database manager, estate/site manager and other administrator/manager.5‘All other staff’ category included: administrative and professional staff, technical staff, word-processing, clerical and secretarial staff and service staff.

19

• other managers (representing the roles: collegeadministrator/manager, centre (sub-college)administrator, finance administrator/manager(bursar), librarian, marketing administrator/manager,computer/database manager, estate/site manager,‘other senior management’6 and ‘otheradministrator/manager’).7

Qualifications (new for 2007/08)In 2007/08, an outline of the qualification levels of thefurther education college workforce was includedacross the four reporting strands. The varyingqualification categories used and the equivalent typesof courses they represented were:

• NQF Level 6/7/8 (professional qualifications – first degree, further degree and above)

• NQF Level 4/5 (higher technical – up toHND/HNC)

• NQF Level 3 (advanced – up to two A-levels/OND/ONC)

• NQF Level 2 (intermediate – up to four GCSEs A–C)

• NQF Level 1 (foundation – up to four GCSEs D–G)

• no formal qualifications.

For a detailed explanation of how the NationalQualifications Framework (NQF) compares toprevious levels (for example National VocationalQualifications, or NVQs) and the Framework forHigher Education Qualifications, please refer to theNational Qualifications Framework factsheetavailable from the QCDA website (QCDA, 2006).

Working patternsThe categories used to identify the workforce’sworking patterns remained unchanged fromprevious reports. They were:

• full time

• part time.

6The data available did not provide any further details on the types of rolesrepresented by the category ‘other senior management’ so this could not be explored further.7As with the category ‘other senior management’, further details of the typesof roles represented by the category ‘other administrator/manager‘could notbe explored further with the data available.

20

Type of contractThe categories used differed slightly from those published previously. In the past, references to contracttypes were described as ‘permanent staff’ and ‘fixed term/temporary staff’. In this report, four keycategories were used instead for presenting the analysis:

• permanent staff

• fixed-term staff

• casual staff (new for 2007/08)

• employed through an agency (new for 2007/08)

Data on a fifth category, ‘self-employed’, was captured in the database but because of the very smallnumber of staff represented by this status it was not included in the report. In 2007/08, less than 1 percent of staff was self-employed.

Recruitment and leaversThe characteristics of staff recruited to further education colleges and those who left their post wereinvestigated across the four equality strands. Recruitment and leaver data was based on data recordssubmitted by colleges each year. ‘Backfilling’ was not applied so figures and trends were based solely onthe records provided by colleges.

Returns submitted by colleges on recruitment and leavers represented the number of contracts thatstarted or ended in the academic year. These figures were not exclusively representative of new startersand leavers for the further education college sector, but a combination of shifts which includedmovements within and across colleges. Overall, the data provided a reasonably representative accountof recruitment and leaver trends in the further education college workforce.

21

Key findings• In 2007/08, approximately 263,200 staff returns were submitted in the Staff Individualised Record database. In

the last year there has been a 15.2 per cent increase in staff return numbers.

• While staff numbers in the college sector noted a rise in recent years, the further education learnerpopulation registered a contrary trend. Between 2006/07 and 2007/08 the number of learners in furthereducation fell by 6.9 per cent (LSC, 2008).

• Overall, the workforce across the further education college sector has grown in 2007/08 significantly faster(an increase since 2006/07 of 15.2 per cent) than the national average employment growth rate of 0.8 percent (ONS, 2008).

• Between 2005/06 and 2006/07 there was a fall in recruitment and leaver rates; however the following year arise in activity was recorded. In 2007/08 recruitment levels as a proportion of the total staff returns submittedby colleges represented 23.5 per cent. In the same year the number of leavers as a proportion of the totalstaff returns submitted was 20.5 per cent.

• Teaching staff dominated the college workforce compared with the other occupational groups, and in 2007/08they represented 52.9 per cent of the workforce. Since 2005/06 this percentage has remained unchanged.The second largest group of staff were in service roles.

• In 2007/08, 6.8 per cent of staff were in management positions. Approximately 4 per cent of these staff weresenior managers and the remainder were identified as ‘other managers’.

• Staff in further education colleges were relatively highly qualified, with 44.2 per cent in 2007/08 holding NQFLevel 6/7/8 qualifications (e.g. first degrees or above).

• There was a higher proportion of staff in further education colleges working in part time positions thanworking full time. In 2007/08 these rates were 58.6 per cent and 41.4 per cent respectively.

• Nearly 70 per cent of staff in colleges were on permanent contracts, representing the most popular contracttype across the workforce. Since 2005/06 the proportion has remained relatively unchanged.

• The proportion of fixed term staff fell drastically during the three reported years and in 2007/08 theyrepresented 16.2 per cent of all staff.

In 2007/08, approximately 263,200 staff returns were submitted to the Staff Individualised Record database byfurther education colleges in England. Since 2006/07, there had been a significant increase (15.2 per cent) in thenumber of staff returns, which was equivalent to just over 34,700 staff. The increase was a change in trend fromthe previous year’s decline in which, between 2005/06 and 2006/07, returns decreased by 4.2 per cent (a totalof 10,000 staff).

The 2005/06 and 2006/07 staff figures published in this report differ from those originally presented in the AnnualWorkforce Diversity Profile 2006/07 because of the data backfilling process applied to the datasets across the threereported years. (Please refer to the ‘Introduction’ section of this report for further details of this process andoverall data returns account.) Despite the variance in actual staff numbers, the trends and percentage figuresreported for 2005/06 and 2006/07 in this report remain consistent to those published previously.

Findings: National profile and overall characteristics of the workforce


22

Although staff numbers in the sector had shown an initial fall and then risen across the last three reported years,the further education learner population instead registered a contrary trend. Between 2006/07 and 2007/08 thenumber of learners in further education decreased by 6.9 per cent (LSC, 2008).

Overall, the workforce across the further education college sector grew significantly faster in 2007/08 than thenational average employment growth rate of 0.8 per cent (ONS, 2008). It will be important to monitordevelopments in the sector in the next few years to determine the impact of the current economic climate onemployment in the further education college workforce.

Figure 1 Total number of staff returns in further education colleges – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

Note: Staff numbers represent the total number of individual contracts accounted for by further educationcolleges. Please refer to the Introduction section of this report for further details on the methodology foraccounting the further education workforce.

The following sections provide an outline of the key characteristics of the further education college workforceaccording to occupational groups, leadership and management, qualification levels, working patterns, types ofcontract, and recruitment and leavers. These characteristics are further examined from Sections 1 to 4according to age, disability, ethnicity and gender.

Occupational groupsOverall, there were minimal variations in the total proportion of staff across all occupational categories reportedon from 2005/06 to 2007/08 (see Figure 2).

Note: in 2007/08 an extra occupational category was introduced to represent assessors and verifiers. Staff inthese roles represented approximately 1.3 per cent of the total further education college workforce. To ensureconsistency in comparing trends across the years, this occupational category was not included in the percentagefigures presented in Figure 2. As data on assessor and verifier roles is collected in the upcoming years, this newoccupational category will be included in future reporting.

1.3 per cent of records were registered as not known and excluded from the percentage breakdowns. As aresult, the 2007/08 figures presented in this report may differ slightly from the figures presented in Lifelong


270,000

260,000

250,000

240,000

230,000

220,000

210,0002005/06238,500

Tota

l num

ber

of s

taff

2006/07228,500

2007/08263,200

23

Learning UK’s report, Further Education Workforce Data for England: An analysis of the Staff Individualised RecordData 2007-2008, where ‘not known’ records were tabled. The variation between reports is, however,insignificant and for the purposes of a time series analysis the trends are comparable.

In relation to the characteristics of the workforce according to the roles of staff, several key points were observed.

• Across all three reported years, more than half the further education college workforce were in teachingroles (including lecturers, tutors and trainers). As expected, teaching staff were the most common job roletype and in 2007/08, represented 52.9 per cent of the workforce in further education colleges. Thispercentage result had remained unchanged since 2005/06.

• The second largest group of staff in the sector were in service roles. In 2007/08, 15.8 per cent of staff wereclassified as service staff and this level has remained reasonably similar across the three years.

• Staff in word-processing, clerical and secretarial roles represented 10.4 per cent of the college workforce,with a further 7.6 per cent registered in administrative and professional staff jobs. Since 2005/06 theproportion of staff in these roles had fallen slightly.

• The proportion of technical staff in further education colleges has remained relatively similar through theyears and in 2007/08 they represented 6.4 per cent, which was the same as the 2005/06 results.

• In 2007/08, 6.8 per cent of staff were in management positions. Approximately 4 per cent of these weresenior managers and the rest were identified as other managers. In this case ‘other manager’ representedvarious management roles within further education colleges including finance managers and collegeadministrator managers.

Figure 2 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by occupational groups –England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

Note: For 2007/08, 1.3 per cent of total staff occupational group was unknown. For 2005/06 and 2006/07, thenumber of unknown was negligible (0.01 per cent). The percentage figures presented in the chart were basedon known records only.

23

60

50

40

30

20

10

0Managers

6.0 6.5 6.88.2 8.6 7.6

6.4 6.8 6.410.7 10.8 10.4

15.7 15.9 15.8

52.9 51.352.9

Administrativeand

professionalstaff

Technicalstaff

Wordprocessing,clerical and

secretarial staff

Servicestaff

Teaching staff(Lecturers,

Tutorsand Trainers)

%

2005/062006/072007/08


24

QualificationsIn the report, breakdowns of staff qualification levels in further education colleges were presented nationally, andalso in more detail across the equality strands (see Sections 1 to 4). Through the years, the information capturedon qualification levels across the further education college workforce has been improving, with the number ofunknown records declining gradually. In 2007/08, 29.4 per cent of staff returns did not include information on staffqualification levels, which was significantly lower than the previous rate of unknowns of 40.7 per cent. Afterfurther investigations into the profile of the ‘unknown’ qualification holders, it was clear that most were working inpart time positions (70.8 per cent of all staff returns). This indicated the need for a greater focus on obtainingdetails of staff in all contract types as the majority of missing details came from part time and casual staff.

For the purposes of presenting a representative picture of staff qualification levels across colleges, unknownrecords were omitted from the analysis. Figure 3 provides an outline for the known qualification levels of furthereducation college staff across the three last reporting years. In relation to the change in qualification levels of staffobserved since 2006/07, it appears that the pattern of change is not supported by past trends and might be aresult of changes in the data collection in 2007/08. For example, between 2006/07 and 2007/08, the decrease inthe proportion of staff with NQF Level 6/7/8 qualifications (from 49.7 per cent to 44.2 per cent) could beattributed to an amendment of qualification categories rather than an actual fall. It is therefore advisable that thequalification data is monitored closely in the future. Please refer to the ‘Introduction’ section for a furtheroverview of the qualification data categories.

The main points observed in relation to qualifications are shown below.

• Staff in further education colleges were relatively highly qualified, with 44.2 per cent in 2007/08 holding NQFLevel 6/7/8 qualifications (e.g. first degrees or above). Overall, colleges had experienced a significant increasein staff with NQF Level 4/5 qualifications (11.2 per cent to 17.2 per cent).

• The further education college sector had also registered a general rise in staff with qualifications at NQF Level3 (15.7 per cent to 17.0 per cent).

• The proportion of staff in colleges with qualifications at NQF Level 2 or below was slowly falling, indicating ageneral improvement in the qualification levels. The proportion of staff with NQF Level 1 and 2 qualificationsfell slightly from 12.5 per cent and 4.2 per cent in 2005/06 to 12.0 per cent and 3.6 per cent in 2007/08.

• In 2007/08, 6.0 per cent of staff working in colleges had no formal qualifications. They represented a slightlyhigher proportion of staff than those with NQF Level 1 although this had been falling.


25

Figure 3 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by qualification levels –England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

Notes: The proportion of ‘not known’ records for this field was 33.8 per cent in 2005/06, 40.7 per cent in2006/07 and 29.4 per cent in 2007/08. ‘Not known’ was not included in the above calculation. The percentagefigures presented in the chart were based on known records only.

Working patternsOverall, there was a higher proportion of staff in further education colleges working in part time positions thanworking full time. In 2007/08, 58.6 per cent of staff were employed part time with the remaining 41.4 per centworking in full time contracts. There was a general increase in staff working part time across colleges between2005/06 and 2008/09 with an equivalent fall in full time employment.

More than half (55.6 per cent) of college staff working part time were in teaching roles (see Table 2). This isslightly higher than the 47.1 per cent of full time staff in equivalent roles. Another large proportion of staffworked part time in service staff roles (19.3 per cent) which is significantly higher than the 10.5 per cent of fulltime staff in the same type of positions. Full time staff tended to be employed more in management roles thanstaff working part time. For example, in 2007/08, 12.1 per cent of full time staff were either senior managers orcarrying out other management positions compared to 3.0 per cent of part time college staff. The workingpatterns of staff varied across different occupation roles as displayed in Table 2.


60

50

40

30

20

10

0NQF

Level 1

4.2 4.0 3.6

12.5 12.7 12.015.7 15.9 17.0

11.2 11.4

17.2

49.7 49.7

44.2

6.6 6.4 6.0

NQF Level 2

NQF Level 3

NQF Level 4/5

NQF Level 6/7/8

No FormalQualifications

%

2005/062006/072007/08

26

Figure 4 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by working patterns – England,2005/06 to 2007/08

Note: For 2005/06 and 2006/07 there was no information missing for this field. For 2007/08, there was a minor0.5 per cent of records that were unknown.

Table 2 Total number and proportion of staff in the further education workforce by working patterns andoccupational profile – England, 2007/08

Part-time Full-time

Count % Count %

Senior managers 63 .0% 591 .6%

Other managers 4,561 3.0% 12,302 11.5%

Administrative and professional staff 8,160 5.4% 11,366 10.6%

Technical staff 7,624 5.0% 8,741 8.2%

Word processing, clerical and secretarial staff 15,385 10.2% 11,261 10.5%

Service staff 29,169 19.3% 11,211 10.5%

Assessors and verifiers 2,269 1.5% 1,162 1.1%

Teaching staff (lecturers, tutors and trainers) 84,225 55.6% 50,484 47.1%

Total 151,456 100.0% 107,118 100.0%

Note: For the purposes of the analysis tabled, Assessors and Verifiers have been included in the list as data wasavailable for this role in 2007/08.


Part-time Full-time

2005/062006/072007/08

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

55.6 54.858.6

44.4 45.241.4

27

Type of contractNearly 70 per cent of staff in colleges were on permanent contracts, representing the most popular contracttype across the workforce. Since 2005/06, the proportion of permanent staff in colleges remained relativelyconstant whereas significant changes were noted in the levels of staff on fixed-term contracts or employedthrough agencies. The proportion of fixed-term staff fell drastically through the three reported years and in2007/08 they represented 16.2 per cent of all staff (see Figure 5). Teaching staff employed through an agencyinstead registered a large rise from 3.7 per cent to 7.6 per cent in staff returns. After investigating this trendfurther, it was concluded that the rise was mainly due to a change in how teaching agency data8 was captured onthe Staff Individualised Record database rather than an actual rise in agency staff numbers. Caution is thereforeadvised when interpreting this specific trend.

Figure 5 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by types of contract – England,2005/06 to 2007/08

Note: For 2005/06 and 2006/07 there were no records with unknown details for this field. For 2007/08, therewas a minor 0.4 per cent of staff with unknown contract types. Information on self-employed teaching staff incolleges was collected through this field but because of the low volume and proportion of staff in this category,the data was not presented in this chart, nor in subsequent analyses for this field. From 2005/06 to 2007/08,there were respectively 0.13 per cent, 0.12 per cent and 0.02 per cent of staff registered in the database as self-employed teaching staff.


8Data for staff employed through agencies was submitted into the Staff Individualised Record database by National Protocol.

80

50

60

70

40

30

20

10

0Permanent staff

68.0 70.6 68.6

21.2 19.316.2

7.0 7.2 7.2

3.7 2.8

7.6

Fixed term staff Casual staff Teaching staffemployed

through an agency

%

2005/062006/072007/08

28

Workforce recruitment and leavers Nationally, the overall change in the levels of staff recruitment and leavers across colleges followed a similarchange across the years (see Figure 6). Returns submitted by colleges on recruitment and leavers representedthe number of contracts that started or ended in the academic year. With the data available it wasn’t possible to determine the prior location or destination of individuals starting or leaving a contract, so the figures arenot exclusively representative of new starters and leavers for the further education college sector, but insteada combination of shifts including movements within and across colleges. Between 2005/06 and 2006/07 therewas a fall in recruitment and leaver rates but the following year a rise in activity was recorded. In 2007/08,recruitment levels as a proportion of the total staff returns submitted by colleges represented 23.5 per cent. In the same year, the number of leavers as a proportion of the total staff returns submitted was 20.5 per cent.9

A more detailed analysis of recruitment and leaver trends has been carried out according to regional patterns,and the four key characteristics of age, disability, ethnicity and gender. The key findings of these analyses arepresented in the relevant sections of this report.

Figure 6 Recruitment and leaver rates for the further education college workforce – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08


9Recruitment and leaver rates were based on non-backfilled data. This was done to accurately represent the actual trend in staff changes across thecollege sector.

25%

20%

15%

10%

0%

5%

2005/06

19.6

18.5

23.5

20.5

14.0

18.8

2006/07 2007/08

Staff recruitedStaff leavers

29

Key findings• The age profile of staff in further education colleges was older than the age profile of the general workforce

across England (including all labour market sectors). More than a third of staff in further education collegeswas aged 50 years and over. According to Labour Force Survey statistics, this was higher than the age profileof the general workforce across England where the national average rate of workers 50 years and over was24.1 per cent.

• Staff in the youngest and oldest age bands (e.g. under 25 year olds, 60–64 and 65 and over) represented thesmallest staff groups across all three reported years.

• A higher proportion of staff aged 50-59 years were registered as managers than any other age group andmore likely to be in senior management positions than staff in any other age groups. The proportion of staffaged 60-64 and 65 and over in management roles was significantly lower than most other age groups with5.6 per cent and 2.1 per cent from each age band in management positions.

• A higher proportion of staff across all age groups had a qualification at NQF Level 6/7/8 than any otherqualification.

• There was a significant increase in the proportion of staff in part time employment when moving from the55-59 age group to the 60 and over group.

• The majority of staff across all age groups were employed on permanent contracts, except for the youngestand oldest age groups who were more likely to be employed on a fixed-term or casual basis.

• The largest proportion of staff recruited to colleges were aged under 25 years (14.8 per cent in 2007/08). In2006/07 staff aged under 25 years represented one of the largest groups in the leaver cohort (12.4 percent). However, the proportion of leavers in this age band has since dropped (10.5 per cent) and the ageprofile of leavers appeared to be more evenly distributed in 2008/09 with no age group standing out.

This section examines the overall age profile of the workforce and continues to explore the trends and issuesthat relate to distinctions in age by occupational groups and qualification levels of staff as well employmentworking patterns, types of contract, and recruitment and leavers. The analysis describes the overall age profileof the further education college workforce, how the profile has changed over the past three years and thedistribution of staff of different ages across the different areas mentioned.

The 2007/08 report includes an account of trends for staff aged 65+. This age group was previouslyrepresented within the age band of 60 years and over.

It was timely to include this age group in the report: since October 2006 it has been unlawful for employers todiscriminate on the grounds of age and this includes rights to promotion, training and retirement options. TheEmployment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 now include the statutory right for employees to request workingbeyond retirement and the government has brought forward the review of the default retirement age from2011 to 2010. Including a data analysis for this group will identify any trends that may be evident since theimplementation of the recent legislation.

Section 1:Age profile of the workforce


30

Overall age profileCompared to the national average workforce in England, the age profile of staff in further education colleges wasa little older. With more than a third (34.7 per cent) of staff in further education colleges aged 50 years and over,this was significantly higher than the national average of 22.4 per cent (ONS, 2008) for the equivalent age groupworking across England. Across the three reported years, the distribution of staff within each age band remainedrelatively consistent, with a notable rise noted only in the proportion of staff aged 60-64 years (see Figure 1-1).

Overall, in 2007/08, the largest proportion of college staff were aged 45-49, representing 14.7 per cent of staffin England. The second and third largest cohorts of staff were aged 40-44 (14.4 per cent) and 50-54 (13.6 percent). Although to a lesser extent, staff aged 55-59 and 35-39 also represented a significant proportion of thefurther education college workforce with 12.2 per cent and 11.8 per cent respectively.

Staff in the youngest and oldest age bands (e.g. under 25 year olds, 60-64 and 65 and over) represented thesmallest staff groups across all three reported years. Since 2005/06, the proportion of staff aged under 25 yearsworking in colleges had decreased slightly (7.0 per cent to 6.7 per cent in 2007/08) whereas the oldest staffgroups had increased. This was particularly the case for staff 60–64 years old where in 2007/08, theyrepresented 6.7 per cent of the workforce (up from 5.4 per cent in 2005/06).

Figure 1-1 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by age groups – England,2005/06 to 2007/08

Note: The proportion of staff with unknown age records was less than 0.2 per cent across all three yearspresented. The percentage figures presented in the chart are based on known records only.

Occupational groupsWhen observing the occupational breakdown of roles within different age groups, particular traits stood outconcerning the average age profile of specific posts (see Figure 1-2). For example, staff in colleges aged under25 years were more likely to be employed in roles classified as service posts or undertaking word-processing,clerical and secretarial duties. Nearly one-third of the college workforce aged under 25 years (30.5 per cent)were service staff, with a further 22.0 per cent in word-processing and secretarial roles. This was significantly


16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0Under

2525-29 30-34 35-39 40-44

Age group45-49 50-54 60-6455-59 65 and

over

%

2005/062006/072007/08

31

higher than the average rates observed for these roles in the older staff cohorts (e.g. on average only between13.5 per cent and 15.3 per cent of staff aged between 30 and 60 years old were registered as service staff).

In terms of management positions across colleges, a higher proportion of staff aged 50 to 59 were registered asmanagers than staff of any other age group. In 2007/08, 8.6 per cent of 50-54 years olds and 8.1 per cent of 55-59 year olds were managers. Since 2005/06 these proportions had increased to some extent, and remainedabove the average rate of 6.8 per cent measured across all staff age groups.

There was a significantly higher proportion of staff aged 65 and over in service roles (20.4 per cent) and word-processing roles (14.9 per cent) than the preceding age groups of 60-64 and 55-59 years.

A little more than half of staff within each age group (other than the under 25 and 25-29 year olds) wereundertaking teaching roles. In general, there was no significant difference in the roles staff of different ageswere carrying out apart from those mentioned earlier.

Figure 1-2 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by occupational groups andage groups – England, 2007/08

Leadership and managementIn 2007/08, data on the different management posts was made available via the Staff Individualised Recorddatabase. This sub-section therefore concentrates on observing in more detail whether there were anydistinctive differences in the age profile of staff in management positions of different seniority levels.

Manager roles were split and presented in two categories: senior managers and other managers.10 Owing tothe small volume of managers in the college sector compared to other role types (e.g. teaching staff), thedivision of this role into further two groups, senior and other management, meant that the percentage figurespresented were based on small clusters of staff. Senior managers represented less than one per cent of thetotal further education college workforce in 2007/08 whereas staff in other management roles representedapproximately six per cent. Nevertheless, the distinction of the two management categories highlighted someinteresting trends (see Figure 1-3).


Under25

25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44Age group

45-49 50-54 60-6455-59 65 andover

ManagersTechnical staffAdministrative andprofessional staffWord processing,clerical andsecretarial staffService staffTeaching staff(Lecturers, Tutors and Trainers)

11.3

9.8

22.0

30.5

22.2

4.3

9.1

9.9

12.9

15.3

47.1

5.7

7.5

9.3

9.6

13.6

53.7

6.3

5.97.7

9.0

13.5

57.1

6.8

5.67.28.8

15.3

56.0

7.15.57.3

9.1

15.2

55.5

7.4

5.27.28.6

13.6

56.9

8.6

5.56.58.9

14.1

56.9

8.16.16.0

10.7

17.1

54.5

5.6 4.14.2

14.9

20.4

54.3

2.1100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

10Please refer to the Introduction section for further information on what these categories represent.

32

The chart below illustrates that staff aged between 50 and 59 years were more likely to be in seniormanagement positions than staff of any other age group: 5.8 per cent of 55-59 year olds and 5.2 per cent of 50-54 year olds were senior managers whereas this profile was significantly lower for the younger age groups (e.g.1.6 per cent of 30-34 year olds were in senior management positions). It is evident that further educationcolleges should analyse information about its staff age profile (UNISON, 2006a) and implement strategies toincrease the diversity of leadership and management at all levels. Organisations like the Learning and SkillsImprovement Service are developing specific initiatives such as an ‘Age Equality Programme’ to support furthereducation colleges in meeting their obligations (LLUK, 2009, p 23; LSIS, 2009).

Figure 1-3 Total proportion of senior managers and other managers in the further education collegeworkforce by age groups – England, 2007/08

QualificationsAs noted earlier, the highest proportion of staff returns reported a qualification at NQF Level 6/7/8. In line withthese trends, a higher proportion of staff across all age groups had a qualification at this level in 2007/08 thanany other qualifications. The exception was the under 25 age group, where a slightly higher proportion of staffwas stated to be holding an NQF Level 3 qualification (28.2 per cent) than a NQF Level 6/7/8 qualification(27.1 per cent). A predominantly higher proportion of staff aged under 25 years had an NQF Level 2qualification (22.8 per cent) than staff in older age groups; perhaps staff within older age groups had had moretime and/or opportunity to take part in further study at a higher level.

Staff aged 60 years and over were more likely to hold no formal qualifications than younger age groups. In 2007/08,11.9 per cent of 60-64 year olds and 19.0 per cent of staff aged 65 years and over had no formal qualifications while30-34 year olds registered the smallest proportion of staff with no formal qualifications (3.1 per cent).

Across the years, the qualification levels of staff of different ages changed in a similar pattern. All age groups sawsignificant falls in the proportion of staff with NQF Level 6/7/8 and subsequent increases in those with NQFLevel 4/5 from 2005/06. For example, in 2005/06, 53.9 per cent and 52.8 per cent of 50-54 and 55-59 yearolds were qualified to NQF Level 6/7/8. By 2007/08, 46.6 per cent and 47.4 per cent of staff from therespective age groups held equivalent qualifications. The proportion of staff in these age groups with NQF


Under25

25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44Age group

45-49 50-54 60-6455-59 65 andover

Senior ManagersOther Managers

3.4

99.5 99.4 98.4 97.6 95.7 96.1 94.8 94.2 95.5 96.6

0.5 0.6 1.6 2.4 4.3 3.9 5.2 5.8 4.5100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

33

Level 4/5 qualifications instead increased drastically across the three years from 11.0 per cent and 11.2 per centto 17.9 per cent and 17.3 per cent. Similar changes were noted across all other age groups.

Note: some of these trends may be attributed to changes in the categorisation of qualifications rather than anactual change in the further education college workforce so caution is advised when interpreting them (pleasesee ‘Findings: national profile and overall characteristics of the workforce’ for further details).

Please refer to Appendix 1 for the supporting data tables for this section including data for all three reported years.

Figure 1-4 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by qualification levels andage groups – England, 2007/08

Working patterns Across all age groups, the largest proportion of staff were working part time (see Figure 1-5). The instances ofpart time employment varied to some extent across the age groups with the most noticeable difference notedfor staff aged 60 years and over. There was a significant increase in the proportion of staff in part timeemployment when moving from the 55-59 age group to the 60 and over group. In 2007/08, just over two-thirds of staff aged 60-64 years and a majority of staff aged 65 years and over (86.7 per cent) were workingpart time. These rates had remained consistent across the years. Previous research has indicated that for someolder workers working part time is a transition from work to retirement (TAEN, 2008) that offers them‘greater control over their lives’ (NATFHE, now UCU, p12).

On the other hand, although the profile of older workers had remained unchanged through the years, youngerage groups had noted small increases in the proportion of staff employed part-time. In particular, part timeemployment had increased within the age groups 45-49 years (an increase of 4.4 percentage points between2005/06 and 2007/08) and 50-54 years (an increase of 3.9 percentage points) (see Figure 1-5). Please refer toAppendix 1 for the supporting data tables for this section including data for all three reported years.


Under25

25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44Age group

45-49 50-54 60-6455-59 65 andover

No formal qualificationsNQF Level 1NQF Level 2NQF Level 3NQF Level 4/5NQF Level 6/7/8

5.7

22.8

28.2

9.8

27.1

6.3

18.4

10.4

14.5

51.1

17.6

9.8

16.8

50.0

17.5

12.2

18.5

44.1

17.5

13.4

19.1

41.0

12.4

16.9

18.4

43.0

5.43.9

3.3

2.4

3.1

2.84.13.6

5.13.8

11.0

6.2

15.2

17.9

46.6

7.9

9.9

14.0

17.3

47.4

10.6

11.9

14.4

17.2

41.8

4.13.53.2

13.9

9.9

19.0

15.5

37.3

4.4

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

34

Figure 1-5 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by working patterns and agegroups – England, 2007/08

Type of contractIn most cases the majority of staff of different ages were employed as permanent staff (see Figure 1-6) butthere were exceptions to this in the youngest and oldest age groups. Whilst the proportion of permanent staffacross the age groups 25-64 ranged between 63.8 per cent (noted for 60-64 year olds) and 74.2 per cent(noted for 50-54 year olds), staff aged under 25 instead registered 51.0 per cent of its cohort working on apermanent basis and 39.2 per cent for the age group 65 and over. Staff in these two age groups were morelikely to be employed on a fixed-term or casual basis than staff of other ages. In 2007/08, 22.9 per cent and19.0 per cent of under 25 year olds were fixed-term and casual staff. The equivalent rates for staff aged 65years and over were 28.0 per cent and 19.8 per cent.

Figure 1-6 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by types of contracts andage groups – England, 2007/08


Under25

25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44Age group

45-49 50-54 60-6455-59 65 andover

Full-timePart-time

13.3

59.1 51.8 56.1 60.6 61.1 57.5 54.6 56.2 67.8 86.7

40.9 48.2 43.9 39.4 38.9 42.5 45.4 43.8 32.2

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

Under25

25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44Age group

45-49 50-54 60-6455-59 65 andover

Teaching staff employed through an agencyCasual staffFixed term staffPermanent staff

51.0

22.9

19.0

7.0

69.0

17.1

6.17.9

70.8

15.9

5.57.8

69.2

16.4

5.78.8

70.0

15.9

5.98.1

72.8

14.6

5.37.3

74.2

13.9

5.56.5

73.1

14.1

6.26.6

63.8

17.8

10.0

8.4

39.2

28.0

19.8

12.9100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

35

Workforce recruitment and leaversThe largest proportion of staff recruited to colleges were aged under 25 years. This was the case across allthree reported years, although since 2006/07 the proportion of staff recruited from this age group fell. In2007/08, 14.8 per cent of staff recruited were aged under 25 years. The second and third largest pools of staffrecruited to colleges were aged 40-44 years (14.3 per cent) and 35-39 year olds (12.9 per cent). Figure 1-7illustrates the age profile of staff recruited to colleges across the last three reported years.

Over time, the age profile of staff recruited remained fairly consistent, with only visible changes observed forthe under 25 year old group (a decrease from 16.1 per cent in 2005/06 to 14.8 per cent in 2007/08) and 60-64age group (an increase from 3.5 per cent to 4.6 per cent). The increase in the percentage of staff in the 60-64age group, and the slight increase in the 65 and over group, is a positive sign. An analysis of corporateresponses in Europe has shown that high level of job satisfaction, a positive attitude towards the organisationand a strong work ethic are reasons for hiring older workers (Koc-Menard, 2009). Older staff may still requiresome training and therefore further education colleges should integrate training into any recruitment strategytargeted to this group.

Figure 1-7 Total proportion of recruitment by age groups – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08


20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0Under

2525-29 30-34 35-39 40-44

Age group45-49 50-54 60-6455-59 65 and

over

%

2005/062006/072007/08

36

The age profile of those staff leaving employment in a college was more evenly distributed than that observedin recruitment, with no specific age group being significant. In 2007/08 the proportion of leavers across the agegroups ranged from 2.7 per cent (for 65 years and over) to 13.6 per cent (for 40-44 year olds). The only keychange observed was for the under 25 year group which in 2006/07 represented one of the largest groups inthe leaver cohort (12.4 per cent) but by 2007/08, had dropped (10.5 per cent) (see Figure 1-8).

Figure 1-8 Total proportion of leavers by age groups – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08


16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0Under

2525-29 30-34 35-39 40-44

Age group45-49 50-54 60-6455-59 65 and

over

%

2005/062006/072007/08

37

Key findings• People with declared disabilities are under-represented in the further education college workforce: 2.7 per

cent of staff in further education colleges had a declared disability in 2007/08. This was significantly lowerthan the average disability status of the general population in England of 17.9 per cent (ONS, 2009) and thegeneral further education learner population which in the same year registered 14.4 per cent (LSC, 2008).

• Staff with a declared disability demonstrated a very similar occupational profile to staff without a declareddisability: 52.8 per cent of staff with a declared disability were in teaching roles compared with 52.7 per centof staff without a declared disability. Please note that only 2.7 per cent of further education college staff hada declared disability therefore the percentage results presented by occupational role and other categorieswill be based on a significantly small number of staff compared to those staff without a declared disability.

• Across the management roles in further education colleges there was no major difference in the percentageof staff with and without a declared disability in either senior or other manager positions.

• The qualification profile of staff with and without a declared disability was similar to staff with no declareddisabilities. The majority of staff in both cohorts were educated to NQF Level 6/7/8.

• The proportion of staff with a declared disability working full time dropped between 2005/06 (45.1 per cent)and 2007/08 (43.4 per cent). A similar trend was observed in the proportion of staff without a declareddisability (45.1 per cent to 41.8 per cent). There was a general shift to part time positions for both cohorts.

• Staff with declared disabilities were more likely to be employed as permanent staff within the furthereducation college workforce than staff without a declared disability. Approximately three-quarters of staffwith a declared disability were in permanent positions in 2007/08 (74.3 per cent) which was more than the69.8 per cent of staff without a declared disability also working on a permanent basis.

• In 2007/08 only 2.1 per cent of staff recruited to the further education college workforce had a declareddisability while the majority of leavers had no declared disabilities. Recruitment of staff with disabilitiescontinued to be extremely low during the three reported years.

The second equality and diversity strand summarised in this report is disability. Trends and key characteristicsconcerning the proportion of staff with a disclosed disability are presented for the years 2005/06, 2006/07 and2007/08, as well as an in-depth comparative analysis of the employment roles and status of staff with andwithout a declared disability.

Further education colleges were asked to submit in their staff returns to the Staff Individualised Recorddatabase information on whether a staff member had a declared disability or not. The data was captured in thedatabase under the categories of ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘not known’. Through the years, the disclosure of disability forstaff has continued to be low, registering a high level of unknown records compared to data collected for theother three equality and diversity strands in this report (i.e. age, ethnicity and gender). Research in the lifelonglearning sector has shown that staff with a declared disability are unlikely to disclose a disability for fear of beingdiscriminated against. A study by NIACE (2008) stated that there were indications that staff did not declaretheir disabilities because their career progression could be affected. A recent survey of disabled people holdingsenior management roles across the private, public and voluntary sectors found that people were worried thatif their ‘secret’ were discovered by others at work, their careers would be jeopardised (RADAR, 2009).

Section 2: Disability profile of the workforce


38

In 2007/08, 9.6 per cent of the further education college workforce had unknown disability status. This was asmall improvement on the levels of unknown records collected in previous years and Lifelong Learning UK iscommitted to continuing to improve these disclosure rates and enhance the sector’s ability to accuratelymonitor and support the needs of staff in colleges. It is recognised that disabled people are still subject todiscrimination. It is therefore the duty of further education colleges to take positive actions to ensure equality ofopportunity and treatment for disabled people and non-disabled people (UNISON, 2006b).

This report includes a breakdown of the types of disabilities recorded for the further education collegeworkforce in 2007/08. Information on type of disability was captured for the first time in the Staff IndividualisedRecord database for 2007/08, so where details were available, an overview of the various disabilities registeredis presented. Currently, disability types are represented by the categories:

• physical impairment

• mental ill health

• learning difficulty

• rather not say.

Lifelong Learning UK is continually reviewing and monitoring the data collection process and will continue todevelop this feature of the database to establish more comprehensive reporting categories.

Overall disability profileOnly 2.7 per cent of the further education college workforce had a declared disability in 2007/08. While thispercentage figure had remained very low over the three years, the overall trend was a slow increase from 2.3per cent in 2005/06 to 2.7 per cent in 2007/08. Nationally, approximately 17.9 per cent of the generalpopulation in England declared a disability (ONS, 2009), which was significantly higher than the 2.7 per centaccounted for in the college staff population. In comparison to the learner population in further educationcolleges, the proportion of staff with a declared disability continued to be considerably lower – in 2007/08 14.4per cent of learners (LSC, 2008) had a disability and/or learning difficulty. Disability across the further educationcollege workforce was therefore severely under-represented.

The proportion of staff in colleges that did not have a declared disability remained unchanged over the threeyears and in 2007/08, they represented 87.7 per cent of staff in colleges. The proportion of unknown disabilityrecords gradually decreased each year, and it is expected that in future reporting this proportion will continueto fall. The NIACE report on disabled staff working in lifelong learning (NIACE, 2008) has corroborated that wedo not know enough about the reasons for ‘non disclosure’. They suggest that further research is needed intowhy disclosure in the sector is low.


39

Figure 2-1 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by disabilities –England,2005/06 to 2007/08

For the first time in this series of Annual Workforce Diversity Profile reports, information on the type of disabilitiesregistered by staff can be reported on. This data was collected in the Staff Individualised Record database for2007/08 and the preliminary results generated from the database showed that 17.7 per cent of staff with adeclared disability had a physical impairment (see Table 2-1). Detailed information for more than three-quartersof staff however was still not available and the category ‘rather not say’ dominated the list. This category was alsoused by some colleges to submit entries on staff where they did not know the nature of their disability.

Table 2-1: Total count and percentage of staff in the further education college workforce with a discloseddisability – England, 2007/08Disclosed disability type Count Per cent

Physical impairment 1,268 17.7%

Learning difficulty 200 2.8%

Mental ill health 55 0.8%

Rather not say 5,661 78.8%

Total 7,184 100%

The summaries presented in this section outline the results of comparative analyses comparing staff with adeclared disability and those without. The aims of the analyses were to observe if there were any significantdifferences between the occupational and employment profiles of staff with a declared disability and those withoutwhich might raise fundamental issues affecting equality and diversity opportunities across the college workforce.


100

90

50

60

80

70

40

30

20

10

0Yes

2.3% 2.5% 2.7%

87.9% 87.4% 87.7%

9.9% 10.2% 9.6%

No Not known

%

2005/062006/072007/08

40

Occupational groupsIn 2007/08, staff with a declared disability demonstrated a very similar occupational profile to those staffwithout a declared disability: 51.8 per cent of staff with a declared disability were in teaching roles compared to52.7 per cent of staff without a disability. The representation across all other role types was not dissimilarbetween staff groups and, in particular, the difference noted across management roles was narrowing (seeFigure 2-2). In 2005/06, 4.8 per cent of staff with a declared disability were managers compared to 6.3 per centof staff without a declared disability (a difference of 1.5 percentage points). By 2007/08, 6.9 per cent of staffwith a declared disability and 7.1 per cent of staff without a declared disability were in management roles,meaning the gap had reduced to only 0.2 percentage points.

Figure 2-2 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by occupational groups anddisclosed disability status – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

Leadership and managementAcross the management roles in further education colleges, there was no major difference in therepresentation of staff with and without a declared disability in either senior or other manager positions (seeFigure 2-3). In 2007/08, 3.1 per cent of staff with a declared disability were in senior manager positions.Although this was slightly lower than the 3.7 per cent registered for those without a declared disability, thefigure was based on a very small cohort of staff and therefore may be exposed to data anomalies and notsufficiently robust to represent the actual situation. NIACE’s report states that heavy workloads in furthereducation can be a barrier for progression to senior levels for some disabled staff. Long hours and evening andweekend work create demands that they are not sometimes able to meet (NIACE, 2008).

As leadership/management programmes that support the development of disabled staff (LLUK, 2009) continueto grow, it is hoped that a cultural change will take place and more people can have the confidence to declaretheir disabilities. These changes together with the development of data collection processes in the upcomingyears will enhance the information available on disability disclosure and senior management positions. Weanticipate that future reporting will be able to more reliably measure this situation and help with theimplementation of more specific strategies to support disabled staff.


Yes No Yes No2006/07 2007/082005/06

Yes No

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

55.1

16.3

9.9

7.66.44.8

52.7

15.6

10.9

8.16.46.3

51.5

15.0

11.3

9.17.46.7

51.1

15.9

10.9

8.56.96.8

51.8

15.4

10.6

8.07.36.9

52.7

15.9

10.6

7.46.47.1 Managers

Technical staffAdministrative andprofessional staffWord processing,clerical andsecretarial staffService staffTeaching staff(Lecturers, Tutors and Trainers)

41

Figure 2-3 Total proportion of senior managers and other managers in the further education collegeworkforce by declared disability status – England, 2007/08

QualificationsWhen assessing the levels of qualifications among staff teaching in further education colleges with and without a declared disability, it was found that, on the whole, the qualification profiles of the cohorts were similar. In2007/08, 45.4 per cent of staff with a declared disability were educated to NQF Level 6/7/8. This was slightlyhigher than the 44.4 per cent of staff without a declared disability who were educated to the same level. Theproportion of staff with a declared disability who had no formal qualifications (5.2 per cent) has been fallingthrough the years – in 2005/06, 6.5 per cent of this staff group held no formal qualification.

Between 2005/06 and 2008/09 there was an important increase in the proportion of staff with a declared disabilityhaving an NQF Level 4/5 qualification. Originally 11.8 per cent of staff with a declared disability held this qualificationlevel but by 2007/08 this had increased to 17.7 per cent. A similar increase was noted for staff without a declareddisability; therefore overall it appears that both cohorts of staff were experiencing the same developments in thevarying levels of qualifications held. Qualitative data from NIACE’s study (NIACE, 2008) suggests that some disabledstaff find that new requirements regarding teaching qualifications could be a barrier to recruitment and progression.Please refer to Appendix 1 for the data tables for years 2005/06, 2006/07 and 2007/08.


Yes No

Senior ManagersOther Managers100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

3.1% 3.7%

96.9% 96.3%

42

Figure 2-4 Total proportion of staff in the further education workforce by qualification levels and discloseddisability status – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

Working patternsFigure 2-5 illustrates the working patterns of the further education college workforce according to whether theywere employed on a full time or part time basis. In 2007/08, 56.6 per cent of staff with a declared disability wereworking part time compared with 58.2 per cent of staff without a declared disability. Some small variations areevident from the chart in relation to changes in full time employment positions. Overall, the proportion of staffwith a declared disability working full time had dropped since 2005/06 (45.1 per cent to 43.4 per cent in2007/08). The proportion of staff without a declared disability working full time also fell, moving from 45.1 percent in 2005/06 to 41.8 per cent in 2007/08. There was a general shift to part time positions for both cohorts.

Figure 2-5 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by working patterns anddisclosed disability status – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08


Yes No Yes No2006/07 2007/082005/06

Yes No

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

48.4

11.8

16.8

12.2

4.36.5

50.2

11.2

15.6

12.3

4.26.5

50.8

11.1

16.1

11.7

4.26.0

50.1

11.3

15.8

12.6

4.06.3

45.4

17.7

17.0

10.93.95.2

44.4

17.1

17.0

12.03.65.8 No formal qualifications

NQF Level 1NQF Level 2NQF Level 3NQF Level 4/5NQF Level 6/7/8

Yes No Yes No2006/07 2007/082005/06

Yes No

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

54.9

45.1

54.9

45.1

52.9

47.1

53.9

46.1

56.6

43.4

58.2

41.8

Full-timePart-time

43

Type of contractStaff with declared disabilities were more likely to be employed in permanent contracts within the furthereducation college workforce than staff without a declared disability. Approximately three-quarters of staff witha declared disability (74.3 per cent) were permanent in 2007/08 compared with 69.8 per cent for staff withouta declared disability. There was a gradual decline in the proportion of staff with a declared disability working asfixed-term or casual staff members in the further education college sector. The proportion of staff working inthese contracts reached a low in 2007/08 of 15.7 per cent and 4.3 per cent respectively. The proportion of staffwithout a declared disability working fixed term fell from 21.0 per cent in 2005/06 to 16.1 per cent in 2007/08so there had been a general fall in this type of contract across both staff groups.

Figure 2-6 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by types of contract anddisclosed disability status – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

Workforce recruitment and leaversRecruitment of staff with declared disabilities continued to be extremely low, with the latest figures indicatingthat only 2.1 per cent of staff recruited to the further education college workforce declared a disability. Staffwithout a declared disability represented 87.3 per cent of the recruitment cohort in 2007/08 and this rate hadincreased noticeably from 84.0 per cent in 2005/06. While this suggests that a lot more needs to be done onpositively recruiting staff with disabilities, this trend may also be due to lower declaration amongst newentrants; therefore further work in promoting disclosure should also be undertaken.

Based on Figure 2-7, it appears that there continues to be a high proportion of unknown information recordson the disability status of staff recruited to colleges. In 2007/08, there were unknown records registered for10.6 per cent of staff recruited that year. Through the years the proportion of unknown records had beengradually falling but it will be important that this trend continues, so the accuracy of reporting needs to beimproved for better monitoring of recruitment across disability status.


Yes No Yes No2006/07 2007/082005/06

Yes No

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

73.2

17.9

5.4

3.5

68.6

21.0

6.9

3.5

75.9

16.5

5.42.1

71.5

19.1

6.9

2.5

74.3

15.7

4.35.7

69.8

16.1

6.67.6 Teaching staff employed

through an agencyCasual staffFixed term staffPermanent staff

44

Figure 2-7 Total proportion of recruitment by disclosed disability status – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

The disability profile of the leaver cohort was relatively similar to the recruitment analysis presented above,with the majority of leavers having no declared disabilities (86.7 per cent in 2007/08). There was a smallincrease in the proportion of leavers with a declared disability from 2.3 per cent in 2005/06 to 2.6 per cent in2007/08, but there was also a rise in the proportion of leavers without a declared disability. This trend may beprimarily attributed to the improvement in data provision (e.g. the reduction in the proportion of unknownrecords) rather than an actual shift in the profile of the leaver cohort. As the data collected becomes morecomprehensive and there are fewer missing details, the sector’s ability to monitor disability in both recruitmentand leaver cohorts will be greatly enhanced.

Figure 2-8 Total proportion of leavers by disclosed disability status – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08


100

90

50

60

80

70

40

30

20

10

0Yes

1.8% 2.1% 2.1%

84.0% 84.2%87.3%

14.2% 13.7%10.6%

No Not known

%

2005/062006/072007/08

100

90

50

60

80

70

40

30

20

10

0Yes

2.3% 2.7% 2.6%

85.2%83.6%

86.7%

12.6% 13.7% 10.7%

No Not known

%

2005/062006/072007/08

45

Key findings• In 2007/08, 84.3 per cent of the further education college workforce was from a white ethnic group. Black

and minority ethnic staff represented 8.5 per cent. Black and minority ethnic group representation acrossthe college sector was slightly lower than the ethnic profile of the general population in which 10.6 per centof the population in England was from a minority ethnic group (ONS, 2009).

• The difference in representation of black and minority ethnic groups between the college staff populationand learner population was significant – in 2007/08, 20.9 per cent of the further education learnerpopulation was from black and minority ethnic groups (LSC, 2008).

• There were no significant differences in ethnic representation across different types of roles. For example, in 2007/08, 52.5 per cent of staff from white ethnic groups were in teaching roles and this was parallel tothe 51.4 per cent of Asian staff in the same roles and the 52.6 per cent of staff from black ethnic groups.

• Staff from black and minority ethnic backgrounds were less likely to be in senior management than thosefrom white ethnic background (1.8 per cent compared with 4.0 per cent in 2007/08).

• A comparison of the different ethnic groups shows that black and minority ethnic groups were betterqualified than their white counterparts: 43.7 per cent of white staff held a NQF Level 6/7/8 qualification, as did 55.0 per cent of Asian and 52.8 per cent of Chinese/other staff.

• Staff from white ethnic groups registered the highest proportion of staff in permanent contracts. TheChinese/other ethnic cohort were the largest proportion of staff employed as casual staff and in part-time contracts.

• The ethnicity profile of the further education college workforce recruited over the last three years has notundergone major changes. The representation of staff from black and minority ethnic groups increasedslightly from between 0.1 per cent and 0.2 per cent. The proportion of new recruits from white ethnicbackgrounds in 2007/08 was 82.1 per cent.

• The percentage of staff from black and minority ethnic backgrounds who left their roles seemed to haveincreased slightly in comparison with previous years. Among black and minority ethnic groups, Asian staffcontinued to be the group with the highest level of leavers in 2007/08 (4.1 per cent).

A detailed analysis of the further education college workforce according to ethnic groups is summarised in thissection. The ethnic profile of the workforce was examined across occupational roles, management levels,qualifications held, working patterns, type of contracts, and recruitment and leaver rates. The findings arehighlighted throughout the interpretive summary and charts.

The analysis is presented across five ethnic group categories: Asian, black, mixed, Chinese/other and white. The five ethnic groups are defined as:

• Asian: Asian or Asian British – Bangladeshi, Asian or Asian British – Indian, Asian or Asian British – Pakistani,Asian or Asian British – any other Asian or Asian British background

• black: black or black British – African, black or black British – Caribbean, black or black British – any otherblack or black British background

Section 3: Ethnicity profile of the workforce


46

• mixed: mixed – white and Asian, mixed – white and black African, mixed – white and black Caribbean,mixed – any other mixed background

• Chinese/other: Chinese and any other

• white: white – British, white – Irish, white – any other white background.

In some cases, specific findings are quoted for black and minority ethnic staff. This group included Asian, black,mixed and Chinese/other ethnic groups.

Staff returns on this strand where the data was captured on the Staff Individualised Record database registeredsimilar irregularities to those described earlier in Section 3 for disability disclosure rates and there was a highvolume of missing ethnicity records. In 2005/06, there were unknown ethnicity records for 9.4 per cent ofcollege staff. In 2007/08 this figure dropped to 7.2 per cent,11 suggesting an overall improvement in the qualityof the data registered for monitoring ethnicity. It will be important to ensure that this trend continues toprovide a more accurate picture for future reporting.

In 2007/08 an additional category titled ‘Prefer not to say’ was included in the field. For the purposes ofcarrying out a trend analysis across the three reported years, records registered under this category have beenincluded into the ‘Not known’ category.

Overall ethnicity profileIn 2007/08, 84.3 per cent of the further education college workforce were from a white ethnic group. Blackand minority ethnic staff represented 8.5 per cent of the further education college workforce in the same yearand comprised the following ethnic groups: Asian (3.4 per cent), black (2.9 per cent), Chinese/other (1.3 percent) and mixed (0.8 per cent). Due to rounding effects to one decimal point, the sum of the minority ethnicgroups black, mixed, Chinese/other and Asian equals 8.4 per cent.

In 2007/08 the ethnic profile of the college staff population did not reflect the learner population attendingprovision in the colleges: 20.9 per cent (LSC, 2007) of learners in further education were from black andminority ethnic groups which was significantly higher than the rate within the staff cohort.

In contrast, the ethnic profile of the further education college workforce on the whole was relatively similar tothe profile of the general census population, although the representation of black and minority ethnic groupswas slightly lower in the college sector. Annual population survey statistics showed that 10.9 per cent (ONS,2009) of the general population in England were from black and minority ethnic groups. This was slightly higherthan the 8.5 per cent registered in the college sector.


11In 2007/08, an additional category titled ‘Prefer not to say’ was included in the field. For the purposes of carrying out a trend analysis across the threereported years, records registered under this category were aggregated into the ‘Not known’ category. In 2007/08, 0.7 per cent of records wererecorded as ‘Prefer not to say’.

47

Figure 3-1 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by ethnicity – England, 2007/08

Note: Due to rounding effects to one decimal point, the sum of the minority ethnic groups black, mixed,Chinese/other and Asian equals 8.4 per cent. In 2007/08, 0.7 per cent of records were recorded as ‘Prefer notto say’. For the purposes of reporting, these records have been included in the ‘Not known’ category.

Overall, the proportion of black and minority ethnic staff in the college workforce has gradually increased fromthe initial rates registered in 2005/06 of 7.8 per cent and 8.0 per cent in 2006/07 (see Figure 3-2) and theproportion of staff from white ethnic groups has been consistently falling. This proportion reached its lowestlevel in 2006/07 where they represented 82.6 per cent of the further education college workforce.

Figure 3-2 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by ethnicity (black andminority ethnic and white) – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

Figure 3-3 provides a more detailed outline of the trends across the various ethnic groups. On the whole,across the three years, the proportionate representation of the various black and minority ethnic groupsremained relatively unchanged, with only minor changes noted (e.g. an increase or decrease of 0.1 to 0.3percentage points)


WhiteNot knownAsianBlackMixedChinese/other

White, 9.4%

Not known, 7.2% Mixed, 0.8%

Chinese/other, 1.3%

Black, 2.9%

Asian, 3.4%

Black andminority

ethnic, 8.5%

90

50

60

80

70

40

30

20

10

0Black and minority ethnic

7.8% 8.0% 8.5%

82.8% 82.6% 84.3%

9.4% 9.4% 7.2%

White Not known

%

2005/062006/072007/08

48

Figure 3-3 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by ethnicity – England,2005/06 to 2007/08

Occupational groupsWhile the ethnic profile of all occupational groups showed that there was a low representation of black andminority ethnic groups within the different ethnic groups (e.g. Asian, white, black, mixed etc.), there were nosignificant differences in incidences of the role types (see Figure 3-4). For example, in 2007/08, 52.5 per cent ofstaff from white ethnic groups were in teaching roles and this was parallel to the 51.4 per cent of Asian staff inthe same roles and the 52.6 per cent of staff from black ethnic groups.

In manager roles, while 7.2 per cent of staff from white ethnic groups were employed in these roles, between4.0 per cent and 6.2 per cent of staff from black and minority ethnic groups were in equivalent job types.Although these levels had remained consistent over the three years, it will be important to monitor thisdistribution to ensure that management opportunities are accessed equally across all ethnic groups so that thedifferences in rates are minimised (Priority 3, Theme 9 of the Implementation of the Workforce Development,LLUK 2009).


90

50

60

80

70

40

30

20

10

0Asian

3.1 3.1 3.4 2.7 2.7 2.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.4 1.4 1.3

82.8 82.6 84.3

9.4 9.4 7.2

Black Chinese/other

Mixed Not knownWhite

%

2005/062006/072007/08

49

Figure 3-4 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by occupational groups andethnicity – England, 2007/08

Leadership and managementFigure 3-5 illustrates the management profiles of staff from white and minority ethnic groups. It is evident thatstaff from white ethnic profiles are more likely to be in senior management roles than those from minorityethnic backgrounds. In 2007/08, 4.0 per cent of staff from white backgrounds were in senior management rolescompared to only 1.8 per cent of staff from minority ethnic groups.

Figure 3-5 Total proportion of senior managers and other managers in the further education collegeworkforce by ethnicity – England, 2007/08


Asian Black Chinese/other Mixed White

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

51.4

17.0

11.9

7.06.56.2

52.6

18.1

9.6

8.15.36.2

57.4

16.6

9.26.36.54.0

53.6

16.1

10.4

7.26.85.8

52.5

15.7

10.5

7.76.57.2 Managers

Technical staffAdministrative andprofessional staffWord processingclerical andsecretarial staffService staffTeaching staff(Lecturers, Tutors and Trainers)

Black and minority ethnic White


90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

1.8% 4.0%

98.2% 96.0%

50

QualificationsIn 2007/08, NQF Level 6/7/8 was the highest level of qualification across the different ethnic groups followedby NQF Level 4/5 and NQF Level 3. Only a small proportion of further education college staff held lowest levelqualifications such as NQF Level 1 or no qualification at all. A comparison among the different ethnic groupssuggested that black and minority ethnic groups were better qualified than their white counterparts. Forexample, while 43.7 per cent of white staff held a Level 6/7/8 qualification, 55.0 per cent of Asian and 52.8 percent of Chinese/other staff held the same qualification. These findings echo data from Lindley’s research(Lindley, 2009) which found that not only were UK immigrants and minority ethnic groups better educated interms of their highest national vocational qualification; non-white men were more likely to be ‘over-educated’(p84) than their white counterparts. Dex and Lindley (2009) found similar trends in a different study.

The proportion of staff from white ethnic groups that held a lower level qualification was slightly higher than thatof other minority ethnic groups. In most cases, 10 per cent or less of staff across the different minority ethnicgroups were qualified to Level 2 in comparison with 12.2 per cent of staff from white backgrounds. The ethnicgroups with the highest proportion of staff with Level 3 qualifications were from white and mixed ethnic groups(both 17.4 per cent) (see Figure 3-6). 18.2 per cent of staff from black ethnic groups held a Level 4/5qualification, the highest percentage among all ethnic groups for this level. These trends may be accounted for bythe fact that some black and minority ethnic groups aim to be better qualified than staff from white backgroundsin order to compensate for the lack of UK labour market experience (Sicherman, cited in Lindley, 2009). Forthose born in the UK the literature reveals that they have on average higher qualifications than their parents(Simpson et al, 2006), and this is a feature of most minority groups’ experience across generations. As Platt states‘educational achievement is clearly crucial to minority group success’ (Platt, 2005, p.4).

There were some changes over the three reported years. Perhaps the most important was that the proportionof staff with NQF Level 6/7/8 qualifications seemed to have fallen slightly across all ethnic groups. For examplethe percentage of white staff qualified to NQF Level 6/7/8 decreased from 49.5 per cent and 49.4 per cent in2005/6 and 2006/07 respectively, to 43.7 per cent in 2007/08. Likewise in 2005/06 the proportion ofChinese/other and Asian staff holding the same qualification decreased from 59.0 per cent and 58.3 per cent, to52.8 per cent and 55 per cent in 2007/08. Please refer to Appendix 1 for a summary of the data tables.

There was a significant increase in the proportion of further education college staff with NQF Level 4/5qualifications. Although black ethnic groups represented the highest proportion of staff holding thesequalifications, the number of white staff with the same qualification appeared to have increased significantly(from 11.3 per cent in 2005/06 and 2006/07, to 17.2 per cent in 2007/08).


51

Figure 3-6 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by qualification levels andethnicity – England, 2007/08

Figure 3-7 shows the qualification levels of black and minority ethnic managers and white managers. Comparedwith staff from white ethnic groups, managers from black and minority ethnic groups had a higher proportionof NQF Level 6/7/8 (61.8 per cent had this qualification compared to 53.1 per cent of white staff). Theproportional difference between black and minority ethnic staff and white staff across other types ofqualifications was not as significant.

Figure 3-7 Total proportion of managers in the further education college workforce by qualification levelsand ethnicity – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08



100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

55.0

14.5

13.7

8.92.55.3

47.8

18.2

12.7

10.04.27.2

52.8

16.7

12.0

9.02.86.8

47.3

16.3

17.4

9.23.95.8

43.7

17.2

17.4

12.23.65.8 No formal qualifications

NQF Level 1NQF Level 2NQF Level 3NQF Level 4/5NQF Level 6/7/8

Black andminority ethnic

White Black andminority ethnic

White

2006/07 2007/082005/06

Black andminority ethnic

White

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

67.4

10.4

9.1

8.42.22.6

62.7

11.1

12.2

9.02.32.8

67.5

10.3

8.98.51.63.1

61.0

11.2

13.0

10.02.02.7

61.8

15.2

8.8

8.21.8

4.2

53.1

18.0

13.8

9.22.0

3.8

No formal qualificationsNQF Level 1NQF Level 2NQF Level 3NQF Level 4/5NQF Level 6/7/8

52

Working patternsThe incidences of part time and full time employment across the different ethnic groups did not differsignificantly as displayed in Figure 3-8 (see Appendix 1 Ethnic profile for data tables showing trends between2005/06 and 2007/08). The key findings observed included:

• Chinese/other and mixed ethnic groups continued to have the highest proportion of staff in part-timecontracts (62.1 per cent and 61.8 per cent in 2007/08). Both ethnic groups continued to record the highestrates of part time employment since 2005/06 compared to other ethnic groups.

• College staff from black ethnic groups tended to be employed more in full time positions than part timecompared to other ethnic groups. In 2007/08, 45.8 per cent of staff from black ethnic groups wereemployed full time and this trend was consistent during the three years.

• In 2007/08 there was a slight increase in the proportion of staff in part time work and a decrease in theproportion of full time staff across all the reported ethnic groups.

Figure 3-8 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by working patterns andethnicity – England, 2007/08

Type of contractThe most noticeable trends that we can draw from the data on types of contracts are below.

• In 2007/08 staff from white ethnic groups were more likely to be in permanent roles than black andminority ethnic groups (see Figure 3-9): 68.1 per cent of staff from black ethnic groups were in permanentpositions in 2007/08 which was the highest rate registered across black and minority ethnic groups.

• The largest proportion of staff employed as casual staff was recorded for the Chinese/other ethnic cohortand this was steady across the three years (e.g. 6.5 per cent of staff in this ethnic group were working on acasual basis in 2005/06 compared to 7.8 per cent in 2006/07 and 2007/08).



100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

60.7

39.3

54.2

45.8

62.1

37.9

61.8

38.2

57.8

42.2

Full-timePart-time

53

Figure 3-9 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by types of contracts andethnicity – England, 2007/08

Workforce recruitment and leaversThe ethnicity profile of the further education college workforce recruited over the last three years had notundergone major changes (see Figure 3-10). The highest proportion of staff recruited were from white ethnicbackgrounds. This group represented 82.1 per cent of all recruited staff in 2007/08, a much higher figure thanin previous years (77.0 per cent in 2005/6; 76.4 per cent in 2006/07).

Recruitment of staff from all minority ethnic groups (Asian, black, Chinese/others and mixed) had remainedrelatively unchanged since 2005/06. Figure 3-10 shows that these ethnic groups experienced very smallincreases of between 0.1 and 0.3 percentage points between 2005/06 and 2007/08. It is encouraging to seethat, overall, there was a fall in the proportion of staff recruited with unknown ethnicity records; between2006/07 and 2007/08 the proportion fell significantly from 13.5 per cent to 7.2 per cent.


100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

Asian

63.8

17.3

5.5

13.5

Black

68.1

14.4

6.6

10.9

Chinese/other

63.7

17.0

7.8

11.5

Mixed

62.0

18.8

7.2

12.0

White

70.4

15.7



54

Figure 3-10 Total proportion of recruitment by ethnicity – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

The highest percentage of leavers were staff from white ethnic groups, reflecting again the profile of the overallfurther education college workforce and general population in England. Among black and minority ethnicgroups, Asian staff continued to be the group with the highest level of leavers (4.1 per cent in 2007/08). Thepercentage of staff from black ethnic backgrounds that left the sector seemed to have increased slightly incomparison with previous years (see Figure 3-11). It is expected that projects like the Black LeadershipInitiative’ (Network for Black Professionals) will help to retain and improve career development opportunitiesfor black and minority ethnic staff, a priority of the Workforce Strategy for further education sector in England,2007–2012 (see Priority 3, Theme 9 in LLUK, 2009).

Figure 3-11 Total proportion of leavers by ethnicity – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08


100

90

50

60

80

70

40

30

20

10

0Asian

4.1 4.0 4.3 3.4 3.5 3.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.3

77.0 76.4 82.1

12.9 13.57.2

Black Chinese/other


%

2005/062006/072007/08

100

90

50

60

80

70

40

30

20

10

0Asian

3.7 3.0 4.1 3.1 2.6 3.5 1.6 3.6 1.9 0.8 0.8 1.1

80.9 78.282.5

9.9 11.7 6.8

Black Chinese/other


%

2005/062006/072007/08

55

Key findings• The further education college workforce is predominantly female, and this trend has remained unchanged

through the years. In 2007/08, approximately two-thirds of the workforce was female and one third male.This profile was different to the national gender profile of the general workforce in which, according toLabour Force Survey statistics for 2007/08, females represented 46.0 per cent and males 54.0 per cent(ONS, 2008).

• Female staff were more likely to be employed in administrative and service staff roles than male college staff.A higher proportion of male staff were in teaching roles (59.4 per cent) than female staff (49.2 per cent).Male staff had a higher rate of incidence in management roles (7.3 per cent) compared to females (6.6 percent of staff).

• Across the management group, males were twice as likely to be in senior management roles as females (5.3 per cent and 2.8 per cent respectively).

• The majority of both female and male staff were qualified with NQF Level 6/7/8. However, higherproportions of female staff held lower level of qualifications (NQF Level 2 and below) than the male staffwhich may be explained by a higher proportion of women occupying non-technical roles.

• Female staff (65.0 per cent) were more likely to be employed in colleges on a part time basis than theirmale colleagues (47.1 per cent).

• Male staff were more inclined to work full time in administrative/professional roles (67.8 per cent) thanfemale staff in equivalent roles (55.0 per cent). The majority of female staff in service role occupations wereworking part time (81.2 per cent) compared to male service staff (51.8 per cent).

• There were no gender disparities across the further education college workforce in relation to the types ofcontract offered across the sector. The majority of male and female staff were permanent.

• The majority of staff recruited to the further education college workforce were female, representing in2007/08, 63.0 per cent of all recruited staff. The gender profile of the leaver cohort reflected a similar picture.

• Disparities in the average annual pay of male and female full time staff in colleges continued through thereportedyears, with male staff on average earning more than females.

• In 2007/08 the average annual pay for a male full time staff member was £25,600, whereas the equivalentpay for female staff working full time was £23,300. The pay gender gap had decreased slightly in the last twoyears and in 2007/08 the difference was measured at 9.9 per cent (equivalent to approximately £2,300).

This section of the report presents a detailed overview of the gender profile of the further education collegeworkforce. As in previous sections, the results of the analyses have been presented across occupational roles,leadership and management positions, qualifications, working patterns, type of contract, and recruitment andleaver activities; there is also an outline of annual pay data according to gender. Annual pay was a supplementarysection to the previous Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07 report. The data presented for ‘annual pay’ isbased on 2007/08 records and the results highlight key variations between the average pay of full time staffacross genders, regions and according to different occupational groups. In Lifelong Learning UK’s FurtherEducation Workforce Data for England: an analysis of the Staff Individualised Record Data 2007/08, an analysis of theannual pay for college staff across a number of areas not specific to gender is presented, so please refer to thisreport for further information on pay trends across the further education college sector.

Section 4: Gender profile of the workforce


56

Overall gender profileThe further education college workforce is predominantly female, and this trend has remained unchangedthrough the years (see Figure 4-1). In 2007/08 women represented nearly two-thirds of the workforce (63.9per cent); just over one-third of the workforce was male (36.1 per cent). Compared to the gender profile ofgeneral workforce across England, the college sector had a significantly higher representation of female staffthan males. In 2007/08, less than half (46.0 per cent) of the national workforce was female (ONS, 2008).

The staff population was more similar to the further education learner population, but even there theproportion of female staff was slightly higher than the learner rate of 58.5 per cent (LSC, 2008).

These rates had remained the same across the years: the gender ratio (female: male) has been steadily almost2:1. That is, on average, there were two female staff members for every male staff member.

It is important to note that until 2006/07 the Staff Individualised Record database was designed to collect data intwo gender categories: male and female. In 2007/08 the category ‘prefer not to say’ was included and for thefirst time 421 people (0.2 per cent) selected not to disclose their gender. In the absence of a transgendercategory, ‘prefer not to say’ is currently the only option for college staff who do not fit into traditional gendercategories. We recognise that there are several issues in relation to collection of the data that merit discussionand are not reflected in this report.

Figure 4-1 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by gender – England,2005/06 to 2007/08

Note: In 2007/08, 0.2 per cent of records were registered under the category ‘Prefer not to say’. This categoryhas been excluded from the table above as it was only specific to 2007/08.

Within the age groups, the age spread of female and male staff was very similar, with only marginal differencesnoted (see Figure 4-2). The most significant difference noted between male and female staff populations wasacross the 60-64 age band, with 9.6 per cent of male college staff compared to 5.2 per cent of female in theequivalent age band. There was also a noticeable disparity across the 55-59 year old cohort, where 14.2 percent were male and 11.1 per cent female.


Female Male

2005/062006/072007/08

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

63.5% 63.4% 63.9%

36.5% 36.6% 36.1%

57

In contrast to the trends observed above, there was a slightly higher proportion of females aged 40-44 in thecollege workforce (15.4 per cent) compared to male staff (12.6 per cent).

Figure 4-2 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by gender and age groups –England, 2007/08

Occupational groupsThe occupational profile of male and female staff in colleges varied, with particular differences observed acrosscertain roles. Figure 4-3 shows the share of occupational roles across the male and female workforce for2007/08. Firstly, it appeared that a higher proportion of male staff were in teaching roles (59.4 per cent)compared to 49.2 per cent of female staff. Female staff, instead, were on average more likely to be employedin administrative and service staff roles than male college staff. For example, in 2007/08, 17.2 per cent of thefemale workforce were service staff, but only 13.3 per cent of the male college workforce. When we examinedin more detail the working patterns of staff of different genders in service roles (and other occupational groups,see Figure 4-3), prominent variations were observed. The majority of female staff in service role occupationswere working part time (81.2 per cent) compared to male service staff (51.8 per cent).

In relation to word-processing/secretarial positions and administrative/professional roles, 13.8 per cent and afurther 9.0 per cent of the workforce were female compared to 4.5 per cent and 5.3 per cent male staff. Inrelation to word-processing roles, there did not appear to be a difference between the working patterns ofgenders, but there were in administrative/professional roles (see Figure 4-3). Male staff were more inclined towork full time in this occupation (67.8 per cent) than female staff in equivalent roles (55.0 per cent).

A higher proportion of the male workforce were technical staff (10.3 per cent) than of the female workforce(4.2 per cent). There was a clear difference in the working patterns of technical staff of different genders: themajority of males in this profession were working full time (69.9 per cent) but less than a third (30.4 per cent)of female technical staff.


Under 25

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

Gender

Female Male

45-49

50-54

60-64

55-59

65 and over

Under 25

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

60-64

55-59

65 and over

05 510 1015 1520 20

%

Age groupA

ge g

roup

58

Male staff were also more likely to be in management roles (7.3 per cent) than female (6.6 per cent of staff). Asin other occupational groups, female staff in management roles were also more likely to work part time thantheir male counterparts. In 2007/08, one third (33.3 per cent) of female managers were working part timecompared to 15.6 per cent of male managers. Gender differences across management positions are exploredfurther in the next section on leadership and management (see Figure 4-4).

Figure 4-3 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by occupational groups andgender – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

Figure 4-4 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by occupational groups,working patterns and gender – England, 2007/08


Female Male Female Male2006/07 2007/082005/06

Female Male

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

49.3

17.0

14.4

9.74.05.6

59.2

13.3

4.45.610.6

6.8

47.7

17.2

14.6

10.14.36.2

57.6

13.8

4.46.0

11.1

7.2

49.2

17.2

13.8

9.04.26.6

59.4

13.3

4.55.310.3

7.3 ManagersTechnical staffAdministrative andprofessional staffWord processingclerical andsecretarial staffService staffTeaching staff(Lecturers, Tutors and Trainers)

Female Male Female Male FemaleManagers Administrative

and professionalstaff

Technicalstaff

Word processing,clerical andsecretarial

staff

Servicestaff

Teaching staff(Lecturers, Tutors

and Trainers)

Male Female FemaleFemaleMale MaleMale

Full-timePart-time

46.8

15.6

45.0

32.2

69.6

30.1

54.2 81.2 51.8 53.2

33.3

66.7 84.4 55.0 67.8 30.4 69.9

58.4

41.6 45.818.8

48.2

68.9

31.1

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

59

Leadership and managementThe 2007/08 data available on management positions showed that there was a difference between genders(see Figure 4-5). Deem et al’s study reported more than nine years ago that ‘senior management in furthereducation remains more men’s work than women’s’ (Deem et al, 2000, p231). It appears that little hadchanged since then. Of the female workforce in management positions, 2.8 per cent were senior managers andthe remaining 97.2 per cent were in other management type roles. The percentage of females in seniormanagement positions was visibly less than the 5.3 per cent of male managers in these roles.

Recent research carried out by the Women’s Leadership Network recognised that women, particularly fromblack and minority ethnic backgrounds, are still under-represented in senior positions (WLN, 2009). Thefurther education college sector has the challenge to create more opportunities for women to access highermanagerial positions, especially when they are more likely to hold part time jobs (see sub-section workingpatterns, figure 4-7). Research in this area has already highlighted how women in the UK ‘are often penalisedfor part time jobs as they rarely provide career paths and often under-utilise women’s skills as they are locatedin a narrow range of low skilled, low paid occupations’ (Tomlinson and Gardiner, 2009, p674). The analysis ofthe further education college sector corroborates these findings. Figure 4-3, referred to earlier, shows thatfemale staff were more likely to occupy administrative and service staff positions than male colleagues.

Figure 4-5 Total proportion of senior managers and other managers in the further education collegeworkforce by gender – England, 2007/08

Qualification levelsInterestingly, there were some variations noted in the qualification levels of the female and male furthereducation college workforce. While the majority of both female and male staff were qualified with an NQFLevel 6/7/8 (42.2 per cent and 47.7 per cent respectively), a different pattern was observed across staff withlower level qualifications. More male staff held an NQF Level 4/5 (19.5 per cent) than NQF Level 3 (15.3 percent), whereas within the female workforce a higher proportion held an NQF Level 3 (18.0 per cent) than anNQF Level 4/5 (15.9 per cent). Based on Figure 4-6, it appears that higher proportions of female staff held


Female Male


90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

2.8% 5.3%

97.2% 94.7%

60

lower levels of qualifications (e.g. NQF Level 2 and below) than the male college workforce. A likelyexplanation is that women tended to occupy non-technical roles in the further education college sector asshown earlier in Figure 4-3 and were not expected to hold higher qualifications to be employed inadministrative and service positions.

Through the years, the proportion of female and male staff with an NQF Level 4/5 increased, and in turn, theproportion of staff from both genders with higher end qualifications (e.g. NQF Level 6 and above) fell.

Figure 4-6 Total proportion of staff across all occupational roles in the further education college workforceby qualification levels and gender – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

Working patternsFemale staff in general were more likely to be employed in colleges on a part time basis than their male colleagues.In 2007/08, nearly two-thirds (65.2 per cent) of the female college workforce were employed part time. This wassignificantly higher than the 47.1 per cent of male staff working at the same pattern (see Figure 4-7).

Through the years, there was a fall in the proportion of staff working full time and a rise in those working parttime across both genders. There was a shift of three percentage points between 2005/06 and 2007/08 in bothmale and female staff working full time and part time.



Female Male

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

47.3

9.7

16.9

14.8

4.7

54.0

13.9

13.7

8.43.4

47.4

9.9

16.9

15.0

4.4

53.8

13.9

14.0

8.73.3

42.2

15.9

18.0

13.9

3.8

47.7

6.6 6.6 6.4 6.3 6.1 5.7

19.5

15.3

8.73.2

NQF Level 1NQF Level 2NQF Level 3NQF Level 4/5NQF Level 6/7/8No formal qualifications

61

Figure 4-7 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by working patterns andgender – England, 2007/08

Type of contractThere were no gender disparities across the further education college workforce in relation to the varioustypes of contracts offered across the sector (see Figure 4-8). Both the majority of male, and female, staff wereon permanent contracts in 2007/08 (69.7 per cent and 69.5 per cent). Since 2005/06 the proportion of maleand female permanent staff has increased across the sector.

The second most popular type of contract across both gender cohorts were fixed-term contracts, with 15.5per cent of male staff and 16.7 per cent of female staff employed on this basis. Over the years, the proportionof staff of both genders in these roles fell and there was a shift into permanent contracts instead. Theproportion of casual staff from both genders remained similar and consistent across the three reported years.

Figure 4-8 Total proportion of staff in the further education college workforce by types of contract andgender – England, 2007/08



Female Male

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

62.2

37.8

44.1

55.9

61.4

38.6

43.4

56.6

65.2

34.8

47.1

52.9

Full-timePart-time


Female Male

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

67.3

22.1

7.03.6

69.4

19.8

7.13.7

70.0

20.1

7.22.8

71.8

18.0

7.42.8

68.5

16.7

7.27.7

69.7

15.5



62

Workforce recruitment and leaversThe gender profile of staff recruited to the further education college workforce was similar to the overallgender profile of the workforce. That is, the majority of staff recruited were female; representing, in 2007/08,63.0 per cent of all recruited staff (while males represented 37.0 per cent). There were no substantial changesin this recruitment profile through the years (see Figure 4-9).

Figure 4-9 Total proportion of recruitment by gender – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08

The gender profile of the leaver cohort reflected a similar picture to that described above. A higher proportionof leavers were female (63.6 per cent in 2007/08) than male (36.4 per cent) but since female staff dominate thecollege workforce, these trends of recruitment and leaver activity are expected to be significantly higher forfemale staff.

Figure 4-10 Total proportion of leavers by gender – England, 2005/06 to 2007/08


Female Male

2005/062006/072007/08

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

62.8% 62.2% 63.0%

37.2% 37.8% 37.0%

Female Male

2005/062006/072007/08

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

63.5% 62.9% 63.6%

36.5% 37.1% 36.4%

63

Annual payAs stated at the beginning of the gender section, the following analysis on gender and pay is a new part of theWorkforce Diversity Profile report series. The data is based on the Staff Individualised Record database whichincludes information on the annual pay of the further education college workforce. Colleges were asked toselect a pay band, for example ‘£3,000-£3,999’, for each member of staff. By assessing a numeric value to themidpoint of each band (£3,500 for ‘£3,000 – £3,999’, etc.), it is possible to roughly calculate average pay forstaff, once outlying values (i.e. ‘zero’) were filtered out. Average pay is therefore the key measure used forreporting pay in this instance.

The Staff Individualised Record provided the annual pay for the tax year, so for the 2007/08 collection, thiswould cover the period 6 April 2007 to 5 April 2008. Hence this was the actual pay received by an individualcontract for that particular tax year, not the annual pay, so for example, if a full time member of staff startedpart way through the tax year, then their annual pay might show as being less than their annual pay.

In addition, where staff received no pay for the 2007/08 tax year, i.e. if they started working for a college after5 April 2008, an entry of ‘001’ (£0 to £1,999) was recorded in this field. For this reason, ‘001’ is filtered out ofthe analysis.

It was also necessary to focus only on full time contracts, as the ‘fraction of full time’ for part time contractsvaries enormously, and within it the rates of pay; to the extent that it becomes difficult to draw a meaningfulcomparison.

The results of the analysis are summarised in the following subsections. It concentrates on analysing trendsacross the years, 2005/06, 2006/07 and 2007/08, and within the different regions and occupational groups. Tohelp contextualise the findings in this section of the report, it is important to understand the occupationalgrouping structure used within the Staff Individualised Record. Colleges classify each staff member into 1 of 59occupational categories, which are then grouped into eight broad categories for reporting purposes. Beforeproceeding, it needs to be noted that if the majority of staff from a particular gender were working in the lowpaid occupations within a broad group, then their average annual pay across the broad occupational group aswell as the average pay for that gender overall will be affected.

It is evident from Figure 4-11 that disparities in the average pay of male and female full time staff in collegesexisted during the three years, with male staff on average earning more than females. In 2007/08 the averageannual pay for a male full time staff member was £25,600, whereas the equivalent pay for female staff workingfull time was £23,300. The gender gap between pay earned decreased slightly over the last two reported years,and in 2007/08 the difference was measured at 9.9 per cent (equivalent to approximately £2,300).


64

Figure 4-11 Average annual pay full time further education staff across all occupational groups by gender – England 2005/6-2007/8

Across all regions, male full time staff in colleges on average earned more than female staff (see Figure 4-12).The difference in pay earned between genders however varied across regions and the key trends noted wereas follows.

• In London, the annual pay of both male and female college staff was higher than staff working in otherregions. While the higher pay in this region was not unexpected due to the London weighting allowance12,there was a difference between the average pay of male and female staff. In 2007/08 the average pay of amale full time college staff member was nearly £31,000, while the average pay for a female staff memberwas £29,100.

• The largest difference noted between genders in terms of full time pay was recorded in the East Midlands.Male full time staff on average earned approximately 11 per cent more than their female colleagues. Malestaff earned £26,600, which was just over £2,700 more per year than female staff in the region.

• The South East, South West and West Midlands also noted prominent differences in the average paybetween genders in 2007/08. Male full time staff earned approximately 10 per cent more than female staff in all three regions.

• The smallest gender gap in annual pay was in the North East, where the average pay for full time malecollege staff was £24,300 compared to £23,800 (a difference of 2.0 per cent). Overall this region had thelowest pay for male and female staff in England.

• East of England, Greater London and the North West noted gender differences in annual pay of between 6.0 and 8.5 per cent.


12‘London Weighting is an allowance paid to those who work in London in the public sector. Traditionally its purpose has been to compensate Londonworkers for the additional costs of working in the capital.’(London Assembly, 2002, p.1)

£26

Thou

sand

s

£25

£24

£23

£22

£20

£21

2005/06

£22,435£21,983

£23,335

£24,347£24,870

£25,602

2006/07 2007/08

MaleFemale

65

Figure 4-12 Average annual pay full time further education staff across all occupational groups by region andgender – England 2007/8

Across the different occupational groups within a college there were variations in the average annual pay ofmale and female staff. For example, the average pay of a male full time manager was 6.8 per cent higher than a female full time manager. In 2007/08 the average pay of a male senior manager was approximately £58,700,whereas a female manager was £55,000.

The largest disparity between genders in relation to average annual pay was recorded across the ‘othermanager’13 positions. Male staff employed as ‘other managers’ on average earned £35,900 whereas female staffin equivalent roles earned £30,000.


£32

£30

£28

£26

£24

£22

£20East

MidlandsEast ofEngland

GreaterLondon

NorthEast

NorthWest

SouthEast

SouthWest

WestMidlands

Yorkshireand theHumber

Tho

usan

ds

FemaleMale

13Other managers represent the roles: college administrator/manager, centre (sub_college) administrator, finance administrator/manager (bursar),librarian, marketing administrator/manager, computer/database manager, estate/site manager, ‘other senior management’ and ‘otheradministrator/manager’. Please refer to the ‘Introduction’ section for further details on the occupational groups.

66

The smallest variation between male and female annual pay was noted within the cohort of staff doing word-processing, clerical and secretarial roles. Less than one per cent difference was registered between the pay ofmales (£15,610) and females (£15,707). Minor variations were also noted in teaching roles with the average payof a male member of staff being £27,800 and a female being £27,100.

Figure 4-13 Average full-time further education pay by occupational groups and gender –England, 2007/08


£70

£50

£60

£40

£30

£20

£10

£0Senior

managerOther

managersAdmin.

andprofessional

staff

Technicalstaff

Wordprocessing,clerical andsecretarial

staff

Servicestaff

Teachingstaff

Assessor/verifier

Tho

usan

ds

Female average payMale average pay

67

This report is based on the Staff Individualised Record Database, a powerful tool that helps to collate and storethe staff records of further education institutions. The value of the Staff Individualised Record database isdetermined by the number of further education colleges that submit their returns and this number hasincreased in recent years.

The report provides significant information about the nature and trends of the further education collegeworkforce. The data will assist colleges to benchmark their progress in relation to equality and diversity,inform future planning and set equality targets as part of their equality schemes. Lifelong Learning UK iscommitted to equality and diversity and will continue to produce this kind of analysis to assist colleges inmeeting their legal duties.

Overall the analysis of workforce data indicates that there have been some changes in the further educationcollege staff profile, including a rise in staff numbers in recent years. However teaching staff continued torepresent the highest proportion of college occupational groups. While staff in the youngest and oldest agebands represented the smallest staff groups across all three reported years, the youngest age band (under 25years old) also registered the largest proportion of staff recruited.

These figures indicate that positive changes are taking place. Some colleges are implementing strategies toaddress under-representation of young people in the further education college workforce but there is still littleevidence to show that the 60-64 and 65 and over age bands are being targeted in recruitment strategies. Ingeneral the business case for recruiting older people has been reported elsewhere (Koc-Menard, 2009). Highlevels of job satisfaction and a strong work ethic are the most prominent attributes that older workers canoffer. The further education college sector would benefit from promoting flexible job and training opportunitiesfor these age groups.

Staff with a declared disability are under-represented in the further education workforce and recruitmentfigures have continued to be low throughout the three years. It is clear from the data that colleges shoulddevelop more specific recruitment strategies to employ disabled people. The fact that staff with a declareddisability represented a significantly lower figure than the national average workforce across England alsoindicates that more needs to be done to encourage disclosure. Further research is required to understand whypeople do not feel confident to disclose their disabilities. There is an indication that staff do not declare theirdisabilities because their career progression could be affected (NIACE, 2008) or jeopardised (RADAR, 2009).

The report shows that no major differences in relation to managerial roles and qualifications were found whencomparing staff with a declared disability with staff without a declared disability. However, this was not the casefor female and male staff. Male staff were twice as likely to be in senior management roles as females. Thistrend and the fact that females were more likely to be employed on a part time basis than their male colleaguesmight indicate that there are not enough opportunities for female staff to take on managerial roles on part timeor flexible basis.

The further education college workforce is predominantly female but women were more likely to beemployed in administrative and service staff roles than male colleagues. A higher proportion of male staff thanfemale were in teaching roles. Although it was evident that the majority of staff recruited in 2007/08 werefemale, the focus should be to increase their representation in teaching and managerial roles. Flexible workingarrangements can facilitate women’s participation in senior roles and can potentially be the mechanism toreduce the gender pay gap (Anderson et al cited in Tomlinson and Gardener, 2009).

Conclusions


The representation of black and minority ethnic groups in the further education college sector was slightlylower (8.5 per cent) than in the overall workforce sector in England (10.9 per cent). Again, as with disabledstaff, issues of disclosure should be considered. It is encouraging to observe that there was a fall in theproportion of staff recruited with unknown ethnicity records (from 13.5 per cent in 2006/07 to 7.2 per cent in2007/08). In order to increase the representation of black and minority ethnic groups in the sector, collegesneed to work more on their strategies to encourage staff to disclose their ethnicity information.

Like female staff, the report shows that staff from minority ethnic backgrounds were less likely to be in seniormanagement than white staff. There is a clear indication that it is not the lack of appropriate qualifications thathinders progression to higher management roles. Black and minority ethnic groups seemed to be betterqualified than their white counterparts, and therefore more progression opportunities for these particulargroups should be created in the sector. It is a priority of the Workforce Strategy for FE 2007–2012 to improvethe career development opportunities of black and minority ethnic staff and projects like the Black LeadershipInitiative (Network for Black Professionals) are trying to achieve this objective.

The report suggests that colleges need to develop further strategies to improve equality and diversity in thesector. As pointed out in the 2006/07 Annual Workforce Diversity Profile report ‘we need a workforce whichembraces the talents of all and one that broadly reflects the increasing diversity of our learners’ (LLUK, 2008a).In order to achieve this goal, it is important to change the organisational culture of the further education collegesector and adopt an ethos that proactively promotes and appreciates diversity.

The recommendations outlined in the next section aim to address key issues highlighted in the main body ofthe report and assist principal stakeholders within the further education college sector in developing strategiesto ensure that equality and diversity are embedded across all areas in the organisation.

68


69

70

The recommendations support the implementation of the equality and diversity strategic themes of theWorkforce Strategy for the Further Education Sector in England (themes 2, 3, 5 and 9).14 They are designed tobuild on further support and activities that colleges need to implement to tackle diversity in the work place.They will also assist colleges to fulfil their new legal responsibilities in meeting equalities legislation.

Disclosure, data collection and monitoringKey messages from the report highlight the characteristics of the groups that are being recruited and are under-represented. It is clear that the representation of staff with a declared disability, and black and minority ethnicgroups is lower than the national workforce average. The figures do not only suggest that colleges need toimprove their recruitment strategies to address under-representation of these groups, but that disclosure issueshave not yet been sufficiently tackled.

This report provides data that will allow colleges to benchmark and monitor key equality information. This willonly be possible if appropriate data collection methods and systems are in place.

Managers, leaders and stakeholders need to:

• create a positive workplace environment that is as representative as it can be and takes into account localdemographics

• encourage staff to disclose their equality information: create a secure culture for disclosure

• put in place appropriate strategies to raise awareness of the importance of disclosure

• explain how the data is being or will be used to inform policy or strategy

• brief human resource and line managers and encourage them to set aside a specific time to talk to new staffabout the benefits of disclosing equality data and the reasons for asking this information, clearly explainingissues such as confidentiality and how the data will be stored

• develop appropriate methods to collect and monitor equality data accurately; seeking advice and guidancefrom the sector to improve data collection and monitoring across all equality strands (data monitoring shouldcover recruitment, promotion, training and staff leaving)

• embed equality and diversity in all the activities in the colleges (using appropriate data when measuring theimpact of policies, services and functions will help colleges to identify areas of improvement anddevelopment that meet the diverse needs of all the staff)

• involve staff and learners from diverse backgrounds when measuring the impact of policies, services andfunctions to ensure that specific needs and barriers faced by specific groups are considered

• ensure monitoring around disability is undertaken on a regular basis or that strategies are in place toencourage to disclose a new disability.

Recommendations


14Workforce Strategy for the Further Education Sector in England Priority 1: Understanding the nature of the workforce:

Theme 2: Using data to understand the workforce and improve future planning.Theme 3: Using data to understand workforce diversity and target actions.Theme 5: Increasing the diversity of the workforce at all levels.

Priority 3: Retaining and developing the modern, professionalised workforce:Theme 9: Ensuring appropriate leadership and management development exists at all levels throughout the organisation.

71


Recruitment and retention of staffFindings from the data indicate that the largest group in the leaver cohort in 2006/07 was aged under 25 years.In 2007/08 the under 25 year olds constituted the largest proportion of staff recruited in the further educationcollege sector. Recruitment strategies should also be developed to target staff in the older age bands who,together with the youngest band, represented the smallest staff groups in the further education college sector.

Attention should be paid to the recruitment and retention of staff with a declared disability, and staff from blackand minority ethnic backgrounds. Recruitment of staff with a declared disability had continued to be low overthe years. Recruitment of Asian, black, Chinese/others and mixed groups had remained relatively unchangedsince 2005/06 suggesting that more could to be done to recruit staff from these groups.

Female staff constituted the majority of staff recruited to the further education college workforce in 2007/08(63.0 per cent of all recruited staff) although they were more predominant in specific roles (e.g. administrative).The data indicated that the challenge is to change stereotypes in gender roles by developing more targetedrecruitment strategies to increase female representation in teaching and managerial jobs.

A successful recruitment and retention strategy should be linked to appropriate training plans and progressionroutes that address the needs of staff from particular groups (staff in younger age bands, older age bands, blackand minority ethnic groups, women and disabled people).


• review recruitment policies and marketing materials to explore innovative approaches to attracting peoplewho are under-represented

• work closely with local communities, under-represented groups and key organisations to attract staff fromdiverse backgrounds and needs

• encourage applications from disabled people and guarantee interviews to applicants with a declared disabilitywho meet the job requirements

• examine retention rates and progression figures to develop suitable training and professional developmentactivities that encourage specific groups of staff to continue working in the sector

• consider flexible working arrangements to recruit and retain staff from specific groups (e.g. women, disabledpeople)

• develop recruitment strategies to address gender stereotyping in occupational roles

• develop appropriate methods to collect information from staff leaving the sector to identify trends andreasons for leaving

• be transparent about staff profile to encourage under-represented groups to apply for vacancies.

72

73

Leadership and managementData from the report suggested that further education colleges should implement strategies to increase thediversity of leadership and management at all levels. Findings from the data analysis revealed that staff fromblack and minority ethnic backgrounds were less likely to be in senior management roles than their whitecounterparts. Similarly, the percentage of female staff in senior management positions was visibly less than themale. The percentage of staff with a declared disability in senior management positions was lower than thepercentage registered for those without a declared disability. Staff between 50 and 59 years were more likelyto be in senior management positions than staff of any other age group


• ensure that equality and diversity are embedded across all activities in the colleges

• promote an organisational culture that encourages staff to appreciate diversity

• encourage good relations among staff regardless of their personal characteristics such as race, age, disability,sexual orientation, religion or belief and gender or gender identity

• develop leadership and management skills for staff from under-represented groups within the organisation

• provide flexible working arrangements to attract under-represented groups and enable staff with diverseneeds to progress

• share good practice with other organisations in supporting specific groups with specific needs.


74


Deem, R; Ozga, J and Prichard, C (2000) ‘Managing Further Education: is it still men’s work too?’ Journal ofFurther and Higher Education, Vol 24, 2, pp 231–50

Dex, S & Lindley, JK (2007) Labour market job matching for UK minority ethnic groups. University of Sheffield,Department of Economics, Sheffield Economics Research Paper Series 2007003

Koc-Menard, S (2009) ‘Training Strategies for an aging workforce’ Industrial and Commercial Training. Vol 41, 6, pp334-38

Lindley, J (2009) ‘The over-education of UK immigrants and minority ethnic groups: Evidence from the LabourForce Survey’ Economics of Education Review. 28, pp. 80-89

LLUK (2008a) Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/2007. Lifelong Learning UK, London

LLUK (2008b) Further education workforce data for England: An Analysis of the Staff Individualised Record Data2007-08. Lifelong Learning UK, London

LLUK (2009) Implementing the Workforce Strategy for the Further Education sector in England, 2007-2012. A Guide for Learning Providers. Revised version 2009–10. Lifelong Learning UK, London

London Assembly (2002) Report of the London weighting advisory panel Available fromhttp://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/reports/econsd/lonweight.pdf (accessed 15 January 2010)

LSC (2007) FE Learner Numbers by Learning Difficulty or Disability Available fromhttp://www.lsc.gov.uk/providers/Data/statistics/learner/KeyFacts.htm (accessed 6 January 2010)

LSC (2008) Statistical First Release: ILR/SFR15 Further education, Work based learning, Train to Gain and Adultsafeguard learning – Learner numbers in England – October 2007 [online] Available fromhttp://readingroom.lsc.gov.uk/Lsc/National/nat-ilrsfr15final-apr08.pdf (accessed 6 January 2010)

LSIS (2009) ‘Age equality and the FE and skills sector – How are we doing?’ Learning and Skills ImprovementService News, 4 May [online] Available from www.lsis.org.uk (accessed 30 November 2009)

NATFHE (no date) Challenging age discrimination: NATFHE policy document. [online] Available fromwww.ucu.org.uk/media/pdf/6/g/agediscrim_1.pdf (accessed 8 October 2009)

NIACE (2008) From compliance to culture change. Disabled staff working in lifelong learning. Final report

NBP (2005) Black leadership initiative and senior leadership development participant tracking project. Network forBlack Professionals [online] Available from www.nbm.org.uk/files/file_manager/20/Factsheet3.pdf (accessed 8October 2009)

ONS (2008), LFS: In employment: UK: All aged 16+: 000s: SA: Annual = 4 quarter average [online] Available fromwww.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/tsdtables1.asp?vlnk=lms (accessed 6 January 2010).

ONS (2009), Annual Population Survey: % and number of working age by various breakdowns [online] Availablefrom www.nomisweb.co.uk/Default.asp (accessed 6 January 2010)

Platt, L (2005) Making education count: the effects of ethnicity and qualifications on intergenerational social class mobility. University of Essex. [online] Available from http://www.the-sra.org.uk/documents/pdfs/making_education_count_paper.pdf (accessed 15 January 2010)

References

75


QCDA (2006) The National Qualifications Framework Factsheet. [online] Available fromhttp://www.qcda.gov.uk/5967.aspx (accessed 5 January 2010)

RADAR (2009) Doing Seniority Differently. A Study of high fliers living with ill-health, injury or disability. Interim Report. RADAR. The Disability Network. [online] Available fromwww.radar.org.uk/radarwebsite/tabid/4/default.aspx (accessed 10 November 2009)

Simpson, L; Purdam, K; Tajar, A; Fieldhouse, E; Gavalas, V; Tranmer, M; Pritchard, J and D. Dorling (2006)Ethnic minority populations and the labour market: an analysis of the 1991 and 2001. Research Report 333 CensusDepartment for Work and Pensions. [online] Available from http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2005-2006/Report333.pdf (accessed 15 January 2010)

TAEN (2008) Key Facts. Age, Demographics and Employment. The Age and Employment Network. [online]Available from http://taen.org.uk/esf/resources/publications (accessed 12 November 2009)

Tomlinson, J and Gardiner, J (2009) ‘Organisational approaches to flexible working. Perspectives of equality anddiversity managers in the UK’ Equal Opportunities International. Vol. 28, 8, pp.671-686

UNISON (2006a) Joint Agreement on Guidance for Age Equality in Employment in Further Education between theAssociation of Colleges (AoC) and Association for College Management (ACM), Association of Teachers & Lecturers (ATL),GMB, University of College Union (UCU), Transport & General Workers’ Union (TGWU), UNISON. 1 September 2006[online] Available from www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=1831 (accessed 10 November 2009)

UNISON (2006b) Joint Agreement on Guidance for Disability Equality in Employment in Further Education Collegesbetween the Association of Colleges (AoC) and Association for College Management (ACM), Association of Teachers &Lecturers (ATL), Transport & General Workers’ Union (TGWU), UNISON. 4 December 2006. [online] Availablefrom www.unison.org.uk/education/further/pages_view.asp?did=1146 (accessed 10 November 2009)

WLN (2009) Women still under-represented at the top. The Women’s Leadership Network. Available fromwww.wlnfe.org.uk/downloads/2009-02WLNgenderResearch.pdf (accessed 8 October 2009)

Part of the Skills for Business network of25 employer-led Sector Skills Councils

Lifelong Learning UK

BELFAST2nd Floor, Midtown Centre, 25 Talbot Street, Cathedral Quarter,Belfast, BT1 2LDTel: 0870 050 2570 Fax: 02890 247 675

CARDIFFSophia House, 28 Cathedral Road, Cardiff, CF11 9LJTel: 029 2066 0238 Fax: 029 2066 0239

EDINBURGH CBC House, 24 Canning Street, Edinburgh, EH3 8EGTel: 0870 756 4970 Fax: 0131 229 8051

LEEDS 4th Floor, 36 Park Row, Leeds, LS1 5JLTel: 0870 300 8110 Fax: 0113 242 5897

LONDON Centurion House, 24 Monument Street, London, EC3R 8AQTel: 0870 757 7890 Fax: 0870 757 7889

Email: [email protected] and Advice Service: 0300 303 1877

www.lluk.org

RW03

/10/

3927

renataf

Text Box

Ref: R/E&D/FE/03 2010/01

Documents

Annual WorkforceDiversity Profile 2007/08