Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07 by Lifelong Learning UK

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

An analysis of further education colleges in England

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Contents Foreword

Executive summary

Introduction Equalities and the priorities of The Workforce Strategy for the Further Education Sector in England, 2007 - 2012 Why is equality and diversity important in the further education sector? How to use this report Legislative context Outline of data sources and structure of report

Findings: National profile of the workforce Overview Overall regional comparison Overall characteristics of staff

Section 1: Age profile of the workforce Overall age profile Occupational group Working patterns Type of contract

Section 2: Disability profile of the workforce Overall disability profile Occupational group Working patterns Type of contract

Section 3: Ethnicity profile of the workforce Overall ethnicity profile Occupational group Working patterns Type of contract

Section 4: Gender profile of the workforce Overall gender profile Occupational group Working patterns Type of contract

11 12 13 13 14 15

17 17 17 18

20 20 20 22 23

25 25 26 27 27

28 29 30 32 33

35 35 35 37 38

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Section 5: Workforce recruitment

Overall summary Regional overview and comparison Age profile Disability profile Ethnicity profile Gender profile

39 39 40 40 41 41

Section 6: Workforce leaving rates Overall summary Regional overview and comparison Age profile Disability profile Ethnicity profile Gender profile

Section 7: Profile of governors Research process Background of sample Age profile of governors Disability profile of governors Ethnicity profile of governors Gender and gender identify profile of governors Religion or belief Sexual orientation

42 42 42 43 44 44 45

46 46 46 47 47 48 49 50 50

Conclusion

Recommendations

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Foreword It has never been more important for the further education sector in England to be equipped to meet the growing needs of individuals and employers. With rising unemployment and a global recession, businesses and learners are increasingly looking to the sector to retrain and upskill, and it is crucial that we are all equipped to embrace change and respond positively to the opportunities and challenges it brings. At Lifelong Learning UK our role is to support lifelong learning employers, including those in further education, to recruit, retain and develop suitably skilled and effective employees at all levels. We do this by providing authoritative labour market information, developing and promoting national occupational standards, ensuring qualifications meet employersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; needs, raising employer engagement and demand for and investment in skills and by building the capacity and capability of the sector. Using data to understand workforce diversity to target actions and increase the diversity of the workforce at all levels are key themes within the Workforce Strategy for the Further Education Sector 2007- 2012. To address under-representation it is vital that the sector provides good quality and complete data and continues to realise the value of workforce monitoring. This report guides us to where we need to take action in a comprehensible and focused way. We have used the reportâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s analysis to develop a set of recommendations that, from our perspective as a sector skills council, we believe will enable us to support employers to facilitate access to and progression within the further education workforce for those from all backgrounds.

We need a workforce which embraces the talents of all and one that broadly reflects the increasing diversity of our learners. It is vital for us all in England to ensure that the whole further education workforce is appropriately trained, has the flexibility to respond to these changing needs and is recruiting the best people from a wide talent pool. It is our vision that the UK lifelong learning sector will be the best in the world, and I believe that with your continued hard work and commitment we can achieve this.

David Hunter Chief Executive Lifelong Learning UK

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Executive summary The aim of this report is to highlight the characteristics of the further education workforce in England, in the context of equality and diversity traits. The Staff Individualised Record database for the years 2004/05, 2005/06 and 2006/07 has been analysed in order to establish the most recent staff participation levels and trends. The analysis concentrates on the equality and diversity strands currently monitored in the Staff Individualised Record. These are: • age; • disability; • ethnicity; • gender. These strands have been examined across the workforce according to occupational roles, working pattern and staff contract types. Both national and individual regional overviews of trends in the further education workforce are provided, with the regional comparisons outlined in the appendices. In addition to the analysis of the further education workforce, the report focuses on staff recruitment and leaving rates across these four equality and diversity strands. It also includes the findings of a recent study carried out on the profile of governors in the further education sector. The main findings from the analysis are outlined below.

Age profile of the workforce • In 2006/07, the largest age group represented in the further education workforce were those aged 45-49 years, accounting for 14.7 per cent of the total workforce in England. The second and third largest cohorts of staff were aged 40-44 years (14.4 per cent) and 50-54 years (13.8 per cent). • The under 25 years and 60 years and over age groups represented the smallest staff populations. In 2006/07, these were 7.1 per cent and 7.7 per cent respectively.

The workforce is generally populated by older staff and trends in the last few years show that the change in this profile has been minimal. The continuity of this trend will certainly raise several issues for further education providers in relation to their succession planning. Managing the loss of staff through retirement is a key issue that the sector will need to sympathetically plan for to ensure the impact is minimised through the years. This may be further exacerbated by the high leaver rates of staff aged under 30, which has steadily increased over the three-year period analysed. • The age groups with the largest representation in managerial roles were 50-54 years (17.2 per cent in 2006/07), 45-49 years (16.6 per cent) and 5559 years (15.7 per cent). Teaching staff noted a similar age profile to that of managers. • The most significant difference in profile was noted in staff categorised as all other staff. Nearly a quarter of all other staff were aged under 30 years, which is significantly higher than this age group’s representation in managerial roles (equivalent to 10.5 per cent) or teaching roles (9.8 per cent). • Staff aged under 25 years or 60 years and over are more likely to be employed on fixed term or temporary contracts than staff of other ages. In 2006/07, 47.1 per cent of under 25 year olds and 43.5 per cent of staff aged 60 and over were on fixed term or temporary contracts, which is significantly higher than staff from the other age groups. Apart from those engaged in teaching, it is not clear from the statistical evidence what roles members of staff are fulfilling in the sector. The significant figure for under 30 year olds in the ‘all other staff’ category is likely to reflect those young people opting to start their careers in the further education sector rather than in other sectors (for example, in administration, finance or building services). Those staff aged 60 years

and over also show high levels of temporary and fixed term contracts. While this could be because they are working to top up pensions and work at times that match other commitments, it might also be that sector employers are negotiating different types of employment patterns in order to retain the experience of older people.

Disability profile of the workforce • Records collected on disability across the further education workforce are limited. • The proportion of staff with a declared disability remained very low over the three years and moved from 2.0 per cent in 2004/05 to 2.6 per cent in 2006/07. • While providers are asked to submit records on disclosed disability, the type of disability is not collected. • There is a high proportion of disability non-disclosure, which may not give a true representation of actual disabled staff in the further education sector. • The proportion of managers with a declared disability was slightly lower than that for teaching staff (2.7 per cent had a declared disability) and all other staff (2.6 per cent). • Overall, there has been an increase in the proportion of staff with a declared disability working full-time. In 2004/05, 41.6 per cent of staff were working full-time and by 2006/07, this rate increased to 48.3 per cent. While it may make the sector’s job of equalities monitoring easier if employees would disclose any disability they may have, the reality is that people generally do not wish to make such disclosures. The individual’s reasons for this are numerous and it seems that people are still concerned that disclosure poses a risk to securing an interview and any subsequent post.

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

The data returns do not make it clear how many disabled staff in the sector are in teaching roles or how many are in support roles. That information would begin to draw a more detailed picture about the employment patterns and career pathways of disabled people in the sector. Detail is important in understanding employment patterns and the experiences of disabled people because disability is not a homogeneous condition (the experience of someone with a visual impairment will be very different from that of someone with a HIV or cancer). It is essential that organisations are pro-active in creating disability friendly environments regardless of whether disabled job applicants, members of staff, visitors or learners declare their disability or not. It is also important to bear in mind that most disabilities are acquired during a person’s working life, requiring adequate support and provision for staff who may become newly disabled whilst in post.

Ethnic profile of the workforce • The majority of staff in the further education workforce were from a white ethnic group. This percentage figure has gradually declined since 2004/05, to 82.6 per cent of all staff in 2006/07. • In 2004/05, staff from black and minority ethnic groups represented 7.3 per cent of the further education workforce and this increased slightly to 7.7 per cent in 2006/07. • Black and minority ethnic staff in the further education workforce were significantly under represented across all categories of work when compared to the proportion of learners in further education who are from black and minority ethnic groups. In 2006/07, 16.8 per cent of learners were from black and minority ethnic groups, making black and minority ethnic staff (7.7 per cent) significantly under represented in comparison.

• The proportion of staff with an unknown ethnic group has risen year on year and by 2006/07 it reached 9.6 per cent. It is important that providers encourage disclosure amongst staff by raising awareness of the need for monitoring, being transparent about its use and supporting staff that do disclose details. If non-disclosure continues to increase, the quality of the data available will be inaccurate, making it difficult to plan effectively. Estimates of black and minority ethnic groups that live and work in England are notoriously difficult to obtain. Due to the nature of monitoring, the statistics can only be estimates. One reason for this is that people do not always respond to questions about their racial and cultural origins on official (or any other) forms. There may be a number of reasons for not disclosing this information, including suspicion of what the organisation will do with the information or that monitoring may be seen as an intrusion. Something of this nature could be happening in the further education sector as the number of people responding to ethnicity questions in staff surveys appears to be decreasing. • Since 2004/05, there has been a fall in the percentage of staff from black and minority ethnic groups in managerial roles. In 2004/05, 6.3 per cent of staff in management roles were from black and minority ethnic backgrounds and in 2006/07, this fell to 5.9 per cent. It will be important to monitor this distribution through the years to ensure that opportunities of management are accessed equally across all ethnic groups. • The proportion of full-time staff from black and minority ethnic groups has remained consistent and in 2006/07, they represented 7.9 per cent of this cohort.

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

The data provides some base line information about the percentage of staff from black and minority ethnic backgrounds working in the further education sector nationally. However there has been a steady increase in non-disclosure of staff ethnic background between 2004/05 and 2006/07, which may affect the accuracy of the data. As work roles in the sector cut across the teaching and support functions, it is difficult to understand from the data the levels which staff from various non-white backgrounds might be working at. Future monitoring exercises will need to take a holistic approach to improve the rate of disclosure, which may include being transparent about the need for monitoring, building confidence among staff of diverse ethnic origins and using the data to assist targeted recruitment, retention and positive action initiatives. According to the level of black and minority ethnic staff amongst leavers, this has remained steady across the three years analysed. However, there has been a marked increase amongst staff who have not disclosed their ethnicity in 2006/07.

Gender profile of the workforce • Overall, females have continued to make up the majority of the further education workforce across the years and in 2006/07 they represented nearly two thirds of the workforce (63.4 per cent). The gender ratio (female:male) has remained the same over the years at almost 2:1. • Across the different age categories the gender distribution was relatively consistent except across the older cohorts whereby the proportion of male staff became more prominent. 43.3 per cent of staff aged 55-59 years were male and across the age group 60 years and over, the proportion of staff that were male was higher than the proportion of females.

• The gender split across the different occupational roles has not changed significantly through the years and in 2006/07 the largest difference was noted in the occupational group of all other staff, where 69.4 per cent were female and 30.6 per cent were male. The smallest gap was observed across teaching staff where 58.7 per cent were female and the remaining 41.3 per cent were male. • Male staff are more likely to be in manager roles than female staff. In 2006/07, 7.1 per cent of male staff were in managerial roles compared to 6.2 per cent of females. Male staff are also more likely to work in teaching roles with 57.4 per cent of males in these roles compared to 47.2 per cent of females in. These gender disparities suggest that there are high levels of occupational gender segregation, which could mean that in some areas of the sector women are concentrated in occupations associated with clerical, child and personal care, whereas men are concentrated in senior management or manual occupations. There may be several related factors contributing to this gender segregation. For example, some jobs have been historically associated with male or female attributes, which, although challenged in the further education sector, may still continue to: influence individual career expectations and choices; make occupations outweighed by one gender appear unattractive to others considering a career in that domain; and influence managers to seek recruits who resemble the present workforce.

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

This gender segregation means that further education providers are only recruiting from a portion of the potential pool and may miss out on more diverse skills and commitment. This gender imbalance is potentially embarrassing in a sector whose core business is to develop the talents of all to prepare the workforce of the future. • The female workforce tends to work more on a part-time basis than the male workforce. 61.2 per cent of female staff were found to be working on a part-time basis compared to 42.9 per cent of male staff. • In 2006/07, 62.9 per cent of staff on permanent contracts were female and the remaining 37.1 per cent were male. A similar gender breakdown was measured for staff on fixed term or temporary contracts. It is noticeable that while women form the larger part of the workforce in general, they also form the larger part of the part-time workforce. More male staff are in management positions than women, and an important factor in this may be that men are much less likely to have interrupted career patterns or take part-time positions in the formative periods of their careers. Women may be more likely to choose part-time employment in consideration of family responsibilities.

Workforce recruitment and leaving rates (based on returns) • Since 2004/05, the total number of staff recruited to the workforce dropped by 35.6 per cent. During the same period, the number of staff leavers also decreased and by 2006/07 there were approximately an additional 7,844 staff working in the sector. • In 2006/07, 17.1 per cent of staff recruited were aged under 25 years. A further 13.6 per cent and 13.0 per cent of staff recruited were aged 40-44 years and 35-39 years respectively. In the same year the largest proportion of leavers were aged

40-44 years and represented 12.5 per cent of all leaving staff. The second largest group of leavers were aged under 25 years and represented 12.3 per cent of all staff leavers. • Recruitment was very low for staff aged 55 years and over with 55-59 year olds representing 7.7 per cent of recruited staff and staff aged 60+ representing 5.1 per cent of all staff recruited in 2006/07. The highest levels of turnover were among staff aged under 25 years and also those aged 35 to 45 years. The levels of turnover among younger staff may be due to the proportion of those who are on temporary contracts. The loss of more experienced people in their mid-30s and 40s would seem to be of concern to employers and more information will need to be gathered to ascertain their reasons for leaving the sector. In addition, the low recruitment levels of older staff are of equal concern, particularly with an increase to the statutory retirement age expected in the future. The sector will therefore need to take responsibility for ensuring equality of opportunity for all age groups during recruitment. • Over the years, the proportion of female staff leaving the sector has fallen slightly. In contrast, the proportion of male staff leaving the sector has increased. • The leaving rates for most black and minority ethnic groups have fallen since 2004/05 and were at their lowest levels at the end of the three year period from 2004/05 – 2006/07. • In 2006/07, 2.1 per cent of new staff recruited had a declared disability. Whilst this proportion remains relatively low, through the years it has been increasing slightly. Similarly to the profile of new recruits, 2.7 per cent of staff leavers had a declared disability and this rate has also increased marginally through the years.

Profile of governors The data and findings presented for this section are based on research carried out by the Centre for Excellence in Leadership (now called the Learning and Skills Improvement Service) on behalf of Lifelong Learning UK in order to establish the current profile of governors in the further education sector. The response rate represented approximately 12-13 per cent of all governors in the sector. • The data collected clearly showed that the most common age profile of governors surveyed was 56 years and over. Nearly half (46.7 per cent) of responding governors indicated they were aged 56 years or over. • There are more male governors (64.6 per cent) in the sector than female governors (34.5 per cent). Approximately 0.1 per cent indicated that their sexual orientation was trans, and a further 0.8 per cent preferred not to say. • 89.4 per cent of all governors who responded were of white ethnic origin. Black and minority ethnic governors represented 9.5 per cent of the sample, which is higher than the rate of black and minority ethnic people across the national population (7.9 per cent, based on Census data 2001). • Overall, the percentage of disabled governors is low at 5.7 per cent. However, on average the rates of disability across the governor population are slightly higher than those of the total further education workforce. In 2006/07, 2.6 per cent of further education staff declared they had a disability.

It is significant that this research into the characteristics of governors in the further education sector encompasses all equality and diversity strands. The data gives an early indication, although across a small sample, that governors are willing to provide information across all equality and diversity strands, and in future can provide the sector with good quality intelligence of the profile of its representatives. College governors are predominately white males aged 50 years and over, although change is clearly in progress. It is also encouraging to note the higher proportion of black and minority ethnic groups represented amongst governors in comparison to the wider further education workforce. It is also essential for the sector to recognise the role that governors can play in shaping the appearance and growth of an organisation when considering the equality and diversity of their workforce. Disabled people, although not well represented amongst college governors, are better represented than disabled staff in the wider further education workforce. In future it will be important that disability disclosure is encouraged and promoted as governors play a key part in ensuring that local communities are represented at all levels of the sector and that people from diverse backgrounds, from a wide talent pool are engaged to make the further education sector world-class.

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Introduction The Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07 provides an analysis of the national and regional profiles of the further education workforce in England. It looks at the further education workforce according to categories of age, disability, ethnicity and gender, but also recognises that there are now seven equality strands that sector employers need to consider. The seven equality strands are: • age; • disability; • gender; • gender identity; • race; • religion or belief; • sexual orientation. These seven strands are currently covered by a variety of legislative and regulatory measures. Three of these areas (disability, gender and race) are covered by statutory duties while the other four are covered by employment regulations and other legislation. Equality legislation and regulations provide crucial legal protection to individuals experiencing discrimination on the grounds of these qualities and attributes. The legislation also helps dismantle barriers that prevent people from achieving their goals. The reason the legislation and regulations are important socially and economically, is that they help to ensure that the talents of everyone in the community can be harnessed and developed leading to more vibrant communities, greater participation in economic activity and a fairer society. Everyone can be affected by each of the above equality strands. Even disability is not restricted to particular individuals, and most people will experience incapacity or impairment at some stage in their lives. The statutory equality duties aim to improve and encourage relations between people,

for example, between women and men, between disabled people and non-disabled people, or between people of different races. Further encouragement of community cohesion of this type is anticipated in forthcoming legislation.

Lifelong Learning UK support for the sector Lifelong Learning UK is the independent employer-led sector skills council responsible for the professional development of all those working in community learning and development, further education, higher education, libraries, archives and information services, and work based learning across the UK. We represent the interests of over one million individuals working in lifelong learning in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and act as the voice of employers in this sector on skills issues. Lifelong Learning UK provides the strategic perspective for workforce planning and development and influences and shapes relevant policy across the four UK nations. We are also responsible for developing the Sector Qualifications Strategy for the lifelong learning sector and leading the collection of workforce data and providing analysis on workforce characteristics and trends to better inform future workforce planning. We also work with partners and stakeholders to improve the dialogue between employers and those who look to the lifelong learning sector to meet their own skills needs. Lifelong Learning UK is committed to, and actively promotes, equality and diversity in the sector. Promoting diversity in the lifelong learning workforce is about attracting and retaining the best people, regardless of what group they belong to. Increasing the diversity of the further education workforce is a key priority of The Workforce Strategy for the Further Education Sector in England, 2007 – 2012. The data presented in this report will provide intelligence for the sector to develop a diverse workforce and monitor progress.

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Equalities and the priorities of The Workforce Strategy for the Further Education Sector in England, 2007 - 2012

people for the jobs offered across the sector; in which case we want to be sure we are not putting barriers in the way of their advancement.

The Workforce Strategy for the Further Education Sector in England, 2007 – 2012 was developed by Lifelong Learning UK and the wider further education sector and aims to help shape the workforce of the future. By providing a national framework, it is intended to support all colleges and learning providers to implement their own local workforce plans to support the delivery of excellent provision for young people, adults and employers. It will help ensure that the skills development needs of all staff working within the further education sector are identified and that there is agreement within the wider further education system of the priorities for national action and investment, which can help individual colleges and learning providers deliver locally.

The data gathered in this report is essential for supporting these priorities. The report:

The strategy contains four overarching priority areas that have been developed from an analysis of policy documents and primary and secondary sector research, supported by data analysis (where available) and refined through consultation with colleges and learning providers and other sector representatives. These four priorities are: 1. Understanding the nature of the workforce. 2. Attracting and recruiting the best people. 3. Retaining and developing the modern, professionalised workforce. 4. Ensuring equality and diversity is at the heart of strategy, policy-making, planning and training. Equality is both a key priority in its own right and an integral element of the other priorities. For example, in understanding the nature of the workforce, we need to understand how the workforce is affected by legislation and regulations or how organisational policies and procedures impact upon their ability to carry out their professional role. We want to employ the best

• provides invaluable insights into the nature of the workforce in the context of the equality strands, in particular gender, race, disability and age; • illustrates how the sector is attracting and recruiting a range of diverse people; • contains information about staff retention and development in the sector; • demonstrates the sector’s equality and diversity employment profile.

Sector advisory groups The Workforce Race Advisory Group (WRAG) WRAG is a successor to the Commission for Black Staff in further education and acts as an advisory group for the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS). It was set up to ensure that the leaders of national partner organisations and learning providers have a mechanism to advise DIUS on issues of race equality, as they impact on the workforce. WRAG collectively ensures that the Commission for Black Staff in further education continues to shape and inform workforce development across the sector by: • challenging racism; • breaking down barriers for black staff; • raising the achievement level of all who work and learn in the further education sector. The WRAG Work Plan, 2007-10 identifies the key activities that will support increasing the racial diversity of the workforce. It will directly contribute to the Workforce Strategy, the Sector Skills Agreement and Sector Qualifications Strategy for the lifelong learning sector.

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

The Forum for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Equality in Post-School Education The Forum was established in April 2007 and brings together partners from across the lifelong learning sector in order to co-ordinate their work on sexual orientation and gender identity. Lifelong Learning UK provides secretariat for The Forum, which meets quarterly. Disability Equality Implementation Group (DEIG) DEIG was established following a report published by the Commission on Disabled Staff in Lifelong Learning, called From Compliance to Culture Change - Disabled Staff Working in Lifelong Learning (March 2008). DEIG brings together partners from across the lifelong learning sector in order to implement the recommendations highlighted in the report.

Why is equality and diversity important in the further education sector? Equality and diversity is of high importance in the further education sector. Colleges and other learning providers should be places where everyone can learn or work with dignity and respect. Promoting equality and diversity in the workforce enables the sector to develop and harness the talents of all staff, which in turn has benefit for learners, employers and other providers. Promoting diversity within the further education workforce is about attracting and retaining the best people, regardless of what group they belong to. Lifelong Learning UK has gathered considerable evidence to show that inclusive organisations benefit from diversity through: • Enhanced competitiveness - attracting and retaining more competent employees, who understand the needs of their learners and respect differences.

• Improved customer services - being able to reflect and meet the diverse needs of learners. • Improved staff relations, which reduce the risk of costly tribunals by complying with antidiscrimination legislation. A key element here is the establishment of high quality processes and procedures for equality and diversity monitoring.

How to use this report Lifelong Learning UK encourages employers and sector agencies to use this report to inform and direct their own efforts in workforce development planning. For planning and strategic development Using the sets of data in this report will help those with planning responsibilities in the sector to reflect critically on their own organisation’s position. It is important to prepare strategically for the challenges ahead. This report presents a rich supply of data against which human resources and others responsible for planning can measure their own figures in a range of criteria against national, and in some cases regional, benchmarks. Having made comparisons, providers can then set about identifying the questions they should ask in order to identify why their findings might vary from national figures, what is causing these variations and what are the implications for their workforce development strategy. For benchmarking While sets of data in this record concern further education providers, colleges may find similar data sets from other sources, such as from a local authority, to compare how their staffing reflects their local communities (for example, in terms of race and disability).

• Improved performance and outcomes - creating a working environment in which everyone is encouraged to perform to their maximum potential.

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

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

Acts of Parliament • Equal Pay Act 1970

Legislative context

• Gender Recognition Act 2004

As public bodies, providers in the further education sector have legal duties to ensure that staff, learners and other people who visit or use their services are not discriminated against on the grounds of disability, gender or race. Indeed, the legislation goes further and requires the sector to actively promote good relations between people of different races and to promote equality between men and women and between disabled people and non-disabled people.

• Civil Partnership Act 2004

In addition, further education providers are bound by employment equality regulations and other legislation that protect staff, learners and visitors from discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, sexual orientation, age or gender identity. In the further education sector, these Acts and related Regulations are aimed at improving the working lives of those employed in the sector and the learning opportunities of those who enrol as learners. It is therefore crucial that the further education sector takes an active role in adopting practices and raising awareness of the legal significance that equality and diversity has across the workforce. Key areas of legislation and regulations are listed below.

• Sex Discrimination Act 1975 • Race Relations Act 1976 • Disability Discrimination Act 1995 • Human Rights Act 1998 • Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000

• Disability Discrimination Act 2005 • Equality Act 2006 Regulations • Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999 • Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003 • Equal Pay Act 1970 (Amendment) Regulations 2003 • Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 • Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 • Employment Equality (Sex Discrimination) Regulations 2005 • Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 • Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 The detail of these Acts and Regulations can appear complex, however, in essence the key requirements of the legislation are straightforward. An overview of their key features is provided in Appendix A of this report.

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Outline of data sources and structure of report

The occupational groups used for reporting are:

The Staff Individualised Record database provides the basis for the annual collection of workforce statistics and represents staff currently working in further education institutions in England. Staff Individualised Record data has been collected by Lifelong Learning UK since 2008, and prior to this the Learning and Skills Council was responsible for the collection process.

• managers1;

Since 2005, Lifelong Learning UK has analysed the Staff Individualised Record data to produce annual reports on the characteristics and qualifications of the workforce in England. This is the second Annual Workforce Diversity Profile to be published by Lifelong Learning UK. It builds on the findings and trends presented in the previous report and provides an analysis of workforce characteristics for the academic years 2004/05 to 2006/07. It also includes a summary of recruitment and employment patterns of staff. The report is structured according to seven main sections.

Sections 5 and 6 provide an overview of the workforce in terms of recruitment and leaving rates. Each area is addressed according to the four key workforce characteristics of age, declared disability, ethnicity and gender.

The key characteristics of age, disability, ethnicity and gender are presented from Sections 1 to 4. Each section provides an overview of current staffing levels and trends, as well as breakdowns by occupational group, working pattern and type of contract. The aims of each area of analysis are to: • highlight changes in trends across the last three reported years; • highlight significant differences in the occupational profile and employment conditions of the workforce by age, gender, ethnicity and disability.

• teaching staff; • all other staff2. References to working pattern are stated as ‘fulltime’ and ‘part-time’ and the categories used to define types of contract refer to ‘permanent’ and ‘fixed term / temporary’.

Section 7 is a supplementary section to the previous report and shows a snap shot of the profile of governors in further education colleges. The analysis aims to enable policy makers and further education colleges to explore the profile of governors against those of learners and staff members. Further information on the survey and findings is provided in this section. The report is supported by Appendices, which provide additional legislative information, data tables and an outline of the unique characteristics and trends of the workforce for each of the nine regions in England. The Appendices are structured in four parts: • Appendix A: Outline of discrimination Acts and Duties • Appendix B: Summary data tables • Appendix C: Governor tables • Appendix D: Regional workforce diversity profiles

1 Manager category includes the following: 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. 2 All other staff’ category includes the following: administrative and professional staff, technical staff, word processing, clerical and secretarial staff, and service staff.

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Staff Individualised Record The data sample and consequent analysis in this report are primarily based on the annual returns from colleges which are collated centrally in the Staff Individualised Record database. The number of colleges that make returns varies each year. Please refer to Table 1 for a breakdown of how the numbers have varied in the last three years, nationally and regionally. Table 1: Number of further education institutions returning Staff Individualised Record data Region

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

East Midlands

East of England

Greater London

North East

North West

South East

South West

West Midlands

Yorkshire and the Humber

349

352

286

England

Despite the lower returns in 2006/07, this still represents a return rate of 76.6 per cent. In the past, where a further education institution has not returned the data within the time limit, data from the previous Staff Individualised Record collection has been used. This process of ‘back filling’ has been employed in previous year’s collections. However, due to the lower number of institutions making returns in 2006/07, this method has not been applied for the analysis presented in this report. Therefore, the data presented for all years in this report excludes all back filled data so a consistent approach is maintained.

Data limitations • It is important to note that some returns were not completed as thoroughly as necessary to make a robust analysis. This particularly applies to data according to ethnicity, where the high levels of ‘not known/not provided’ may compensate for the fact that, in almost every region, the percentage of white British managers, teachers and all other staff is lower than the 2001 Census data, which has been used as a benchmark. Overall, the ‘not known’ respondents were in the region of 10 per cent. • Data collected according to disability may not be wholly accurate as the number of staff records being submitted with ‘not known’ information has increased since 2004/05. Overall, 13.7 per cent of staff had no records available on disability in 2006/07. If the number of unknowns remains high then this will have implications for the sector to accurately measure future disability levels within the workforce and ultimately establish suitable recruitment strategies and workforce plans. • Information on type of disability is not collected via the Staff Individualised Record. We are therefore unable to provide an overview of this characteristic of the workforce. • No data has been captured through the Staff Individualised Record of alternative gender identity (other than male or female), sexual orientation, religion or belief.

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Findings:

National profile of the workforce Overview

Overall regional comparison

In 2006/07, over 175,000 staff returns were submitted to the Staff Individualised Record database by further education providers in England. Since 2004/05, the number of workforce returns has decreased by 21 per cent, with the most notable fall observed between 2005/06 and 2006/07 where returns fell by 19 per cent (the equivalent to approximately 47,000 staff). To a large extent this may be attributed to the fall in the number of providers that submitted returns in 2006/07, rather than an actual fall in numbers across the sector (see the introduction chapter of this report for a summary of submission processes and records). Nevertheless, the fall is significant and much larger than the fall measured across the further education learner population during the same period (learner numbers dropped by 9 per cent between 2005/06 and 2006/07)3.

Over the last three years, all regions have noted a fall in the total number of further education staff returns. As stated previously, this may have largely been due to data anomalies as a result of the lower number of colleges submitting data. This was unable to be investigated further for the purpose of this report. Regions have experienced different rates of change in their staff numbers and the overall change in the distribution is outlined in Figure 2.

With the data available, we were unable to investigate causal factors for the fall in staff numbers. It will therefore be important for the sector to continue to monitor this trend and investigate providers’ key motives, which are having an impact on workforce numbers to ensure that future provision is adequately planned for and delivered. Figure 1: Total number of staff in the further education workforce in England, 2004/05 to 2006/07

200,000 Total number of staff

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

20 18 16 14 12 % 10 8 6 4 2 0

East East of Greater Midlands England London

North East

North West

South East

South West

Region

150,000

100,000

50,000

The key regional trends observed were:

2004/05 222,164

2005/06 218,846

2006/07 175,025

• Greater London also hosted a significant proportion of staff representing 12.0 per cent of all staff in England.

First Release ILR/SFR12, Further Education, Work Based Learning for Young People, Train to Gain and Adult Community Learning – Learner Numbers in England – October 2006 (Learning and Skills Council)

West Yorkshire Midlands and the Humber

• In 2006/07, the largest proportion of staff were located in the North West representing 18.5 per cent of staff in England. The second and third largest cohorts of staff were located in the South East (12.9 per cent) and the West Midlands (12.3 per cent).

250,000

Figure 2: Total proportion of staff in the further education workforce in England by region, 2004/05 to 2006/07

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

• Regions with the smallest staff populations were North East (5.6 per cent), East Midlands (8.9 per cent) and the East of England (9.0 per cent).

Figure 3: Total proportion of staff in the further education workforce in England by occupational group, 2004/05 to 2006/07

• Since 2004/05, the proportionate size of the staff population in the North West has grown the most. It represented 15.7 per cent of staff in England in 2004/05 and 18.5 per cent in 2006/07. • Greater London and the South East on the other hand noted the largest falls in the size of their staff cohorts compared to other regions with both representing 13.1 per cent and 14.2 per cent respectively in 2004/05, and 12.0 per cent and 12.9 per cent respectively in 2006/07. • All other regions experienced a minimal change in the proportionate size of their staff cohorts across the last three years.

Overall characteristics of staff In relation to the characteristics of the workforce according to the occupational roles of staff, the main points observed were: • 6.5 per cent of staff in 2006/07 were managers, whereas 50.9 per cent were in teaching roles. The remaining 42.5 per cent were in roles classified as all other staff. • Since 2004/05 there has been a small increase in the proportion of staff working in manager roles and all other staff roles. In comparison, the size of teaching staff has fallen slightly from 53.4 per cent in 2004/05 to 50.9 per cent 2006/07.

53.4% 53.0%

50.9%

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 42.5% 40.6% 40.9%

6.1% 6.0% 6.5% Manager

Teaching staff

All other staff

In relation to the characteristics of the workforce according to terms of employment and working patterns, the main traits were: • In 2006/07, 54.4 per cent of staff were employed part-time and the remaining 45.6 per cent were full-time. • In 2006/07, 70.9 per cent were permanent and the remaining 29.1 per cent were fixed term or temporary. • Since 2004/05, there has been a small rise in the proportion of staff working full-time or on permanent contracts. In 2004/05, 43.3 per cent of staff were full-time and by 2006/07 this increased to 45.6 per cent. Staff on permanent contracts represented 70.9 per cent of staff in 2006/07 which is a rise from 66.8 per cent in 2004/05.

Figure 4: Total proportion of staff in the further education workforce in England by working pattern and type of contract, 2004/05 to 2006/07 66.8% 68.4% 70.9%

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

56.7% 55.4% 54.4% 43.3% 44.6% 45.6% 33.2% 31.6% 29.1%

Part-time Full-time Mode of attendance

Permanent Fixed term or temporary Type of contract

The following sections of the report provide an in-depth analysis of the characteristics and trends in the workforce in relation to age, declared disability, ethnicity and gender. These characteristics have been examined according to workforce occupational groups, working pattern and contract type in order to investigate underlying patterns of change and highlight the most dominant traits. The findings provide an overview of the national picture and regional comparisons have been presented where possible. Please refer to Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of staff characteristics and trends by region.

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Section 1:

Age profile of the workforce This section examines the overall age profile of the workforce and continues to explore the trends and issues that relate to distinctions in age by occupational groups as well as terms of employment. The analysis describes the overall age profile of the further education workforce, how the profile has changed through time and the distribution of staff of different ages across occupational groups, working pattern and contract types.

14 12 10 % 8 6 4 2

The main points noted were:

• The age groups 50-59 years and 35-39 years also represented a significant proportion of staff, 12.9 per cent and 12.0 per cent respectively. • The under 25 years and 60 years and over age groups represented the smallest staff populations. In 2006/07, these were 7.1 per cent and 7.7 per cent respectively. Based on Figure 5, the proportional representation of the age groups has remained broadly consistent over the three years with only a noteworthy change observed for the 60 and over age group (a rise from 6.8 per cent in 2004/05 to 7.7 per cent in 2006/07). The workforce is generally made up of older staff and the trends in the last few years show that the change in this profile has been minimal. This raises a number of issues in relation to how the sector evolves through the years with an ageing workforce and how succession planning is implemented.

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

Overall age profile • In 2006/07, the largest age group represented in the workforce were those aged 45-49 years, representing 14.7 per cent of all staff in England. The second and third largest cohorts of staff were aged 40-44 years (14.4 per cent) and 50-54 years (13.8 per cent).

Figure 5: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by age group, 2004/05 to 2006/07

Under 25 25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44 45-49 Age group

50-54

55-59

60 and over

Occupational group In relation to the characteristics of the workforce according to roles of staff, the findings have remained consistent over the last three years. The main trends observed were as follows: • The age groups with the largest representation in manager roles were 50-54 years (17.2 per cent in 2006/07), 45-49 years (16.6 per cent) and 5559 years (15.7 per cent). Teaching staff noted a similar age profile to that of managers. • The most significant difference in profile was noted in staff categorised as ‘all other staff’. Nearly a quarter of ‘all other staff’ were aged under 30 years which is significantly higher than this age group’s representation in manager roles (equivalent to 10.5 per cent) or teaching roles (9.8 per cent). Apart from those engaged in teaching, it is not clear from the statistical evidence what roles younger members of staff are fulfilling in the sector. The significant figure for under 30 year olds in the ‘all other staff’ category is likely to reflect those young people opting to start their careers in the further education sector rather than in other sectors (for example, in administration, finance or building services).

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Table 2: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by age and occupational group, 2004/05 to 2006/07 2004/05 Age group (years)

2005/06

2006/07

Managers Teaching All other Managers Teaching All other Managers Teaching All other (per staff (per staff (per (per staff (per staff (per (per staff (per staff (per cent) cent) cent) cent) cent) cent) cent) cent) cent)

Under 25

4.4

2.9

14.0

3.9

2.8

13.2

4.0

2.6

12.8

25-29

6.6

6.7

9.6

6.4

7.1

9.9

6.5

7.2

10.0

30-34

9.0

10.2

9.6

8.7

9.8

9.4

8.6

9.4

9.2

35-39

11.7

13.2

11.7

11.5

12.8

11.3

12.2

12.7

11.0

40-44

14.4

15.3

13.4

14.5

15.3

13.3

14.1

15.2

13.3

45-49

17.3

15.8

12.6

16.7

15.7

12.8

16.6

15.8

13.1

50-54

18.8

15.3

11.6

18.8

15.1

11.6

17.2

15.2

11.6

55-59

14.6

13.3

10.6

15.6

13.9

11.1

15.7

13.9

11.1

60 and above

3.3

7.1

6.8

4.0

7.5

7.4

5.1

7.9

7.8

100.0

Total

By observing the breakdown of roles within the age groups, the profiles from 2006/07 were broken down further and confirmed as demonstrated in Figure 6. The instances of younger staff in teaching and manager roles remains significantly low especially for those aged under 25 years. The under representation amongst teaching staff under 25 years shouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t necessarily be seen as something alarming. However, the figures may indicate that more could be done to attract young graduates to the further education sector.

Figure 6: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by occupational group and within age group, 2006/07 All other staff Teaching staff Managers 77.4%

50.9%

42.1%

39.1%

39.6%

37.9%

35.8%

36.8%

43.3%

18.9%

44.0%

51.8%

54.2%

54.0%

54.7%

56.0%

55.2%

52.4%

3.7%

5.1% 25-29

6.1% 30-34

6.7% 35-39

7.4% 6.4% 40-44 45-49 Age group

8.2% 50-54

8.0% 55-59

4.3% 60 and over

Under 25

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Working patterns In relation to the characteristics of the workforce according to working patterns, the findings have remained consistent over the last three years. The age group with the highest representation of part-time staff in 2006/07 were those aged 55-59

years (16.6 per cent) and those aged under 25 years represented the smallest group with 6.1 per cent. In the case of full-time staff, the largest groups were those aged 45-49 years (16.5 per cent) and 40-44 years (15.4 per cent).

Table 3: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by age groups and working patterns, 2004/05 to 2006/07 2004/05 Age group (years)

Part-time (per cent)

2005/06 Full-time (per cent)

Part-time (per cent)

Full-time (per cent)

Part-time (per cent)

Full-time (per cent)

Under 25

7.6

7.5

7.2

7.1

6.1

8.2

25-29

6.9

9.1

7.1

9.5

7.9

8.8

30-34

9.8

10.1

9.3

9.9

9.6

8.9

35-39

13.3

11.5

12.8

11.3

12.2

11.7

40-44

14.9

14.0

14.9

13.8

13.5

15.4

45-49

13.8

15.6

13.9

15.4

13.2

16.5

50-54

12.7

15.8

12.7

15.4

13.1

14.7

55-59

12.1

12.6

12.5

13.2

16.6

8.3

60 and over

8.9

3.9

9.5

4.4

7.8

7.5

100.0

Total

Overall, although staff aged between 40-54 years represented the largest age groups in full-time and part-time employment, the division of full-time and part-time attendance within the age groups were very similar. For example, Figure 7 shows that of those staff aged under 25 years, 43.9 per cent were working full-time. This is not significantly different to the 43.7 per cent and 47.9 per cent of 40-44 or 45-49 year olds who were working full-time as well. Only for staff aged 60 years and over did the fulltime and part-time breakdown differ where over 70 per cent of the age group worked part-time and 28.9 per cent worked full-time.

2006/07

Figure 7: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by working pattern and within age group, 2006/07 Full-time Part-time

43.9%

52.1%

47.5%

43.1%

43.7%

47.9%

50.2%

47.6%

28.9%

56.1%

47.9%

52.5%

56.9%

56.3%

52.1%

49.8%

52.4%

71.1%

Under 25

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44 45-49 Age group

50-54

55-59

60 and over

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Type of contract Similar to the age composition of the different occupational groups and working patterns, the age groups which represented the largest groups of staff in permanent positions were those aged 45-49 years (15.5 per cent), 50-54 years (14.9 per cent) and 40-44 years (14.8 per cent). Of staff on fixed term or temporary contracts, 13.4 per cent were aged 40-44 years. All other age groups represented between 8.4 per cent and 12.6 per cent of this contract type signifying a minimal difference across age groups.

There have been some changes noted through the years in the size of the age groups representing permanent and fixed term or temporary contracts. While the proportion of staff on permanent contracts has increased slightly for staff aged 25-29 years, 55-59 years and 60 years and over, staff aged 50-54 years experienced a drop from 15.4 per cent in 2004/05 to 14.9 per cent in 2006/07. All other age groups noted minimal or no change over the years.

Table 4: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by age group and type of contract, 2004/05 to 2006/07 2004/05 Age group (years)

Permanent

2005/06 Fixed term or temporary

Permanent

2006/07 Fixed term or temporary

Permanent

Fixed term or temporary

Under 25

6.0

10.5

5.5

10.8

5.3

11.4

25-29

7.9

7.8

8.2

8.1

8.3

8.4

30-34

9.9

9.7

9.3

9.5

8.7

35-39

12.4

12.8

12.1

12.2

12.1

11.7

40-44

14.8

13.9

14.7

13.8

14.8

13.4

45-49

15.4

12.9

15.4

12.7

15.5

12.6

50-54

15.4

11.3

15.2

11.3

14.9

11.2

55-59

12.9

11.1

13.5

11.4

13.6

11.2

60 and over

5.2

9.8

5.7

10.5

6.1

11.5

100.0

Total

Staff aged under 25 years and 60 years and over are more likely to be employed on fixed term or temporary contracts than staff of other ages. In 2006/07, 47.1 per cent of under 25 year olds and 43.5 per cent of staff aged 60 years and over were on fixed term or temporary contracts, which is significantly higher than the 23.5 per cent to 29.3 per cent of staff from the other age groups, as displayed in Figure 8. The high levels of temporary or fixed term contracts across the workforce aged 60 years and over could be due to older staff working to top up pensions or working at times that match other commitments. It might also be that sector employers are negotiating different types of employment patterns in order to retain the experience of older people. More research would be required to ascertain the reasons for this trend. Figure 8: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by contract type and within age group, 2006/07 Fixed term or temporary Permanent

47.1%

29.3%

27.2%

28.5%

27.1%

25.0%

23.5%

25.3%

43.5%

52.9%

70.7%

72.8%

71.5%

72.9%

75.0%

76.5%

74.7%

56.5%

Under 25

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44 45-49 Age group

50-54

55-59

60 and over

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Section 2:

Disability profile of the workforce This section examines the overall profile of the further education workforce according to disability and provides a detailed outline of the characteristics of those staff with a declared disability by occupational group, working pattern and contract type. Records collected on disability across the further education workforce are limited and it is important to note that the Staff Individualised Record disability disclosure rates between 2004/05 and 2006/07 were low. This was also highlighted by the Commission for Disabled Staff in Lifelong Learning in their report From Compliance to Culture Change. In 2006/07, 10.5 per cent of staff had a ‘not known’ disability disclosure status. As a result, the data on disability presented throughout this section should only be used as an estimate, as these numbers represent declared disability within the sector rather than actual disability as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act. In addition, while providers are asked to submit records on whether staff have a disclosed disability, information on the full range of impairments has not been captured. Therefore, at this time it is not possible to provide a breakdown of the different types of disability. Lifelong Learning UK is looking into providing a breakdown of types of disability in future reports.

• In 2006/07, the majority of staff were registered as not having a declared disability (84.2 per cent). This rate has gradually been decreasing through the years. • The size of the group of staff with ‘not known’ disability disclosure information has been increasing and by 2006/07 10.5 per cent of staff were within this category. As previously stated, the high levels of unknown records mean that the figures and percentages reported for this analysis may not be representative of the workforce and therefore the results are presented as estimates of the actual situation. Figure 9: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by declared disability, 2006/07

89.2% 87.8% 86.9%

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

8.8% 9.6% 10.5% 2.0% 2.3% 2.6% Yes

No Declared disability

Not known

Overall disability profile The key characteristics noted are as follows: • While the proportion of staff with a declared disability remained very low over the three years it has increased from 2.0 per cent in 2004/05 to 2.6 per cent in 2006/07. This is significantly lower than the Disability Rights Commission estimate of disabled people in the national population (20 per cent).

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Occupational group As a result of the large proportion of staff with ‘not known’ as their declared disability status, significant findings were unable to be drawn on the distinctions in the disability profile of staff across different occupational groups. Based on the data available, the main observations made were:

• In 2006/07, 90.6 per cent of staff in management roles did not have a declared disability while 2.2 per cent of managers did. The proportion of managers with a declared disability was slightly lower than that for teaching staff (2.7 per cent had a declared disability) and all other staff (2.6 per cent). • Across the last three reported years, the proportion of staff with a declared disability has increased marginally across all occupational groups.

Table 5: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by declared disability and occupational group, 2006/07 2004/05 Declared disability

2005/06

Yes

1.8

2.2

1.9

2.0

2.3

2.2

2.7

2.6

92.1

88.8

89.3

91.5

87.3

87.7

90.6

86.4

86.8

Not known

6.1

9.0

8.9

6.5

9.9

9.7

7.1

10.9

10.6

100.0

Total

When the roles were examined separately for staff with a declared disability and those without, the overall picture displayed was very similar (see Figure 10). 50.7 per cent of all those staff who declared no disability were working in teaching roles. Of those staff who did declare a disability, 52.1 per cent were working in teaching roles. It appeared that a marginally higher proportion of staff with no declared disabilities were in management roles compared to those with declared disabilities. However, due to the large proportion of unknown records in the field, this trend is inconclusive.

2006/07

Figure 10: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by occupational group and within the declared disability groups, 2006/07 All other staff Teaching staff Managers 42.2%

42.5%

42.7%

52.1%

50.7%

52.9%

5.6% Yes

6.8% No Declared disability

4.4% Not known

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Working patterns

Type of contract

For this analysis, only data on those staff with a declared disability was available. Therefore, please note that no comparative analysis is provided against those staff without declared disabilities.

Similarly to the outline provided above for working pattern, information on contract type was only available for those staff with a disclosed disability. Therefore, a comparative analysis is not provided against those staff without declared disabilities.

Overall, there has been an increase in the proportion of staff with a declared disability working full-time. In 2004/05, 41.6 per cent of staff were working fulltime and by 2006/07, this rate increased to 48.3 per cent. On the other hand, the proportion of staff working on a part-time basis with a declared disability fell slightly from 58.4 per cent in 2004/05 to 51.7 per cent in 2006/07 (see Figure 11). Figure 11: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England with a declared disability by working pattern, 2004/05 to 2006/07 Full-time Part-time

41.6%

45.8%

Just over three quarters of staff with a declared disability worked on a permanent basis in 2006/07. The proportion of staff working on permanent contracts increased consistently through the years, whereas the proportion working on fixed term or temporary contracts has been falling (see Figure 12). Figure 12: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England with a declared disability by type of contract, 2004/05 to 2006/07 Fixed term or temporary Permanent 29.3%

25.5%

22.6%

70.7%

74.5%

77.4%

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

48.3%

58.4%

54.2%

51.7%

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

Note: The chart shows findings for staff with a declared disability only.

Note: The chart shows findings for staff that declared a disability only.

Section 3:

Ethnicity profile of the workforce Ethnicity across the further education workforce has been analysed according to six categories: Asian, black, mixed, Chinese/Other, white and Unknown. An outline of how the ethnicity groups have been defined is provided below: • 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 other black or black British background. • 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 background. • White: white – British; white – Irish; white – any other white background. • Unknown – not known / not provided.

This section aims to provide an outline of the ethnic profile of the further education workforce and determine how the representation of staff from black and minority ethnic groups has changed over recent years. Black and minority ethnic groups include those staff from Asian, black, mixed and Chinese / other ethnic groups. Where possible, a comparison has been made to the black and minority ethnic profile of the further education learner population. Please note that in the case of ethnicity data, there were a large number of staff with ‘not known/not provided’ records and the proportionate size of this unknown cohort has increased through the years. Due to high levels of unknown records, the figures and percentages stated for all ethnic categories may not be fully representative of the actual situation.

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Overall ethnicity profile The main characteristics were: • The proportion of staff with an unknown ethnic group has risen year on year and by 2006/07 it reached 9.6 per cent. The continuation of this trend will certainly have a detrimental impact on the sector as the lack of records will affect the ability to accurately measure developments in the workforce in terms of race equality and ensure that the workforce advances in line with other sectors. • The reported figures show that the majority of staff in the further education workforce were from a white ethnic group and in 2006/07, they represented 82.6 per cent of all staff. Since 2004/05, this percentage has been gradually falling. This proportion is slightly higher than the 79.6 per cent of learners in further education who are of a white ethnic group.4 • Black and minority ethnic staff in the further education workforce appear to be severely under represented in comparison to the learner population. In 2006/07, 16.8 per cent of learners were from black and minority ethnic groups whereas only 7.7 per cent of staff were from this ethnic group. The proportion of learners from black and minority ethnic groups has increased at a faster rate than that in the staff population5. • When compared to the profile of the general population across England, black and minority ethnic representation in the further education workforce continued to be low. Based on Census 2001 population statistics, 9.1 per cent of the national population were from black and minority ethnic groups, which is higher than the latest staff figure of 7.7 per cent. Although the Census population figures are outdated and the ethnic profile of the country has developed significantly over the years, this comparison provides a minimum benchmark figure for the sector to use in order to compare how representative the staff population is.

• Staff from mixed ethnic groups represented the smallest proportion of the workforce and in 2006/07, 0.7 per cent were from this background. Overall, the proportion of staff from mixed ethnic groups has remained broadly the same over the three years. • Staff from the Chinese/other ethnic group represented the second smallest ethnic group with 1.4 per cent of staff in 2006/07. • Staff from Asian and black ethnic groups represented a slightly higher proportion of the staff population with 3.0 per cent from Asian ethnic groups and 2.6 per cent from black ethnic groups in 2006/07. Similar to the trend recorded for staff from mixed ethnic groups, the profile of Asian and black staff has remained relatively unchanged over the years. Figure 13: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by ethnicity, 2004/05 to 2006/07 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 84.4%

82.6%

8.3% 2.9%

3.1%

Asian

3.0% 2.6%

2.7%

2.6%

Black

Learner proportions are based on the Individualised Learner Record 2006/07, Learning and Skills Council. Source: Individualised Learner Record, 2006/07, Learning and Skills Council.

83.5%

8.7%

9.6%

1.4% 0.7% 1.4% 0.6% 0.7% 1.2%

Chinese/other

Mixed

White

Unknown

Ethnic group

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Occupational group Overall, the ethnic profile of staff across the three main occupational groups (managers, teaching staff and all other staff) is not significantly different and has remained consistent over the last three years. In 2006/07, 87.5 per cent of managers were of a white ethnic group. This is broadly similar to the proportion of teaching staff from white ethnic groups (82.1 per cent) and all other staff (82.5 per cent).

The proportion of Asian and black staff across the different occupational groups ranged from 2.2 per cent to 3.1 per cent and this has remained fairly consistent since 2004/05. The proportion of staff from mixed and Chinese / other ethnic groups has continued to be very low across all occupational groups, especially in management roles where only 0.5 per cent of staff were from a mixed background and 0.9 per cent were Chinese / other.

Table 6: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by ethnicity and occupational group, 2004/05 to 2006/07 2004/05 Ethnic group

2006/07

Asian

2.5

2.8

3.1

2.5

3.0

3.3

2.4

3.0

3.1

Black

2.4

2.6

2.7

2.3

2.7

2.8

2.2

2.7

2.6

Mixed

0.6

0.7

0.5

0.7

Chinese/other

0.9

1.4

1.1

0.9

1.5

1.3

0.9

1.5

1.4

White

88.6

83.6

84.7

88.8

82.7

83.9

87.5

82.1

82.5

Unknown

5.1

9.0

7.8

5.0

9.5

8.0

6.5

10.1

9.6

100.0

Total

2005/06

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Table 7 provides an outline of the total number and proportion of staff from black and minority ethnic groups across the different occupational groups, as well as the percentage figure based on the Staff Individualised Record returns. When observing the aggregated figures for this ethnic group, the key findings were:

• In 2006/07, 7.8 per cent of teaching staff were from black and minority ethnic groups. This proportion has risen since 2004/05.

• Since 2004/05, there has been a fall in the percentage of staff from black and minority ethnic groups in manager roles. In 2004/05, 6.3 per cent of staff in management roles were from black and minority ethnic groups and in 2006/07, this fell to 5.9 per cent.

The data provides some base line information about the percentage of people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds working in the further education sector nationally, but the overall picture is not clear. As job roles cut across the teaching and support functions, it is difficult to ascertain from the data the levels at which employees from various non-white backgrounds might be working at.

• The proportion of staff from black and minority ethnic groups in roles defined as all other staff has increased slightly through the years to reach 7.9 per cent in 2006/07.

Table 7: Percentage and number of black and minority ethnic staff in the further education workforce in England by occupational group, in comparison to the black and minority ethnic learner population, 2004/05 to 2006/07 2004/05 Occupational group

Managers

Count

2005/06 per cent

Count

2006/07 per cent

Count

per cent

845

6.3

824

6.2

674

5.9

Teaching staff

8,667

7.3

9,030

7.8

6,992

7.8

All other staff

6,729

7.5

7,222

8.1

5,871

7.9

Total black and minority ethnic staff

16,241

7.3

17,076

7.8

13,537

7.7

Learner population (black and minority ethnic)

975,720

14.7

946,758

15.9

884,328

16.8

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Whilst the ethnic profile of all occupational groups shows that there was a low representation of black and minority ethnic staff within the different ethnic groups (e.g. Asian, white, black, mixed etc.) there were no significant differences in incidences of occupational group (see Figure 14). For example, in 2006/07, 50.6 per cent of staff from white ethnic groups were in teaching roles. This is parallel to the 50.2 per cent of Asian staff and the 52.3 per cent of black staff working in the same roles. Whilst 6.9 per cent of staff from white ethnic groups were employed in management roles, between 4.1 per cent and 5.4 per cent of staff from black and minority ethnic groups were in equivalent job types. Although these levels have remained consistent over the three years, it will be important to monitor this distribution in future to ensure that there are equal opportunities for all ethnic groups to access management roles, so the differences in rates are kept to a minimum.

Figure 14: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by occupational group and within ethnic group, 2006/07 All other staff Teaching staff Managers 44.5%

42.4%

43.4%

43.7%

42.5%

42.4%

50.2%

52.3%

52.5%

51.7%

50.6%

53.2%

5.2% Asian

5.4% Black

4.6% 4.1% Chinese/other Mixed Ethnic group

6.9% White

4.4% Unknown

Working patterns Overall, there has not been a large change in the ethnic profile of the further education workforce by working pattern in relation to full-time and parttime employment. • In 2006/07, 83.5 per cent of staff working full-time in further education were from white ethnic groups, which is lower than the 86.2 per cent share they represented in 2004/05. • The proportion of full-time further education staff from black and minority ethnic groups has remained consistent and in 2006/07, they represented 7.9 per cent of this cohort. • The representation of staff from black and minority ethnic groups in part-time employment is very similar to that in full-time, In 2006/07, 8 per cent of part-time staff were from a black and minority ethnic group.

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Table 8: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by ethnicity and working pattern, 2004/05 to 2006/07 2004/05 Ethnic group

Part-time (per cent)

2005/06 Full-time (per cent)

Part-time (per cent)

2006/07 Full-time (per cent)

Part-time (per cent)

Full-time (per cent)

Asian

2.8

2.9

3.1

3.0

3.1

Black

2.3

3.0

2.6

2.4

3.0

2.7

Mixed

0.6

0.7

Chinese/other

1.4

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.3

1.4

White

83.0

86.2

84.4

81.8

85.6

83.5

Unknown

9.8

6.4

8.3

10.5

6.5

8.7

100.0

Total

The incidences of part-time and full-time employment across the different ethnic groups do not differ significantly as displayed in Figure 15. The most noticeable trend is that there was a significantly higher proportion of staff in the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;unknownâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; ethnic group category that worked part-time (69.4 per cent in 2006/07) than the other ethnic groups. This trend could not be analysed further with the data available. This may indicate that there are inconsistencies in collecting ethnicity records from staff working on a part-time basis, which may need to be addressed in a wider context by the sector.

Figure 15: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by working pattern and within ethnic group, 2006/07 Full-time Part-time 46.0%

49.0%

42.2%

43.1%

47.2%

30.6%

54.0%

51.0%

57.8%

56.9%

52.8%

69.4%

Asian

Black

White

Unknown

Mixed Chinese/other Ethnic group

Type of contract Due to the high levels of unknown ethnicity records for staff working on fixed term or temporary contracts, conclusive trends on the ethnicity profiles of staff working on different contract types were unable to be drawn. The following summary is provided as an indicative picture rather than an actual representation of the ethnic profile.

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

In 2006/07, 14.4 per cent of staff on fixed term or temporary contracts did not have records available on their ethnic background. This raises specific questions in regards to why this data is not available and whether there are specific barriers which are impeding the data collection process. There is a specific need to raise awareness of the importance of capturing ethnicity information for

all staff employed across the sector, no matter the contract type, to ensure that equality across all roles is monitored. It is important that the sector establishes functional mechanisms to capture key pieces of information on the characteristics of the workforce to ensure that providers and stakeholders adequately meet their legislative duties to monitor and promote race equality across the workforce.

Table 9: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by ethnicity and type of contract, 2004/05 to 2006/07 2004/05 Ethnic group

Permanent

2005/06 Fixed term or temporary

Fixed term or temporary

Permanent

Fixed term or temporary

Asian

2.7

3.2

2.9

3.6

2.9

3.4

Black

2.7

2.5

2.8

2.5

2.7

2.5

Mixed

0.6

0.7

Chinese/other

1.1

1.5

1.3

1.5

1.4

1.5

White

85.7

81.8

85.4

79.4

84.7

77.6

Not known/ not provided

7.3

10.4

7.0

12.4

7.7

14.4

100.0

Total

Similar limitations to those described above apply to Figure 16. Staff with unknown ethnicity records are more likely to work on fixed term or temporary contracts than any other ethnic group. This verifies the need for the sector to review its systems of collecting staff records, specifically on ethnicity, to ensure that the profile of the further education workforce can be accurately measured and observed to support workforce development strategies and planning processes.

Permanent

2006/07

Figure 16: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by contract type and within ethnic groups, 2006/07 Fixed term or temporary Permanent

32.6%

27.4%

31.1%

29.9%

27.4%

43.7%

67.4%

72.6%

68.9%

70.1%

72.6%

56.3%

Asian

Black

White

Unknown

Mixed Chinese/other Ethnic group

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Section 4:

Gender profile of the workforce The following analysis presents an overview of the gender profile of the workforce according to occupational group and terms of employment. The analysis describes the overall gender profile of the workforce by key characteristics and highlights where there are significant gaps between genders.

Overall gender profile Firstly an overall profile of the gender distribution was analysed (Figure 17a) and then a more detailed look at the gender profile of staff across different age categories was examined (Figure 17b). The main points noted on the general gender profile of staff were: • Female staff have continued to represent the majority of the workforce across the years and in 2006/07 they represented nearly two thirds of the workforce (63.4 per cent). This rate varies across the different occupational groups (this is explored in the next section).

The gender distribution was relatively consistent across all age groups except for the older cohorts where the proportion of male staff is greater. 43.3 per cent of staff aged 55-59 years were male, and across the age group 60 years and over the proportion of staff that were male was higher than the proportion of females. This is the only instance where this occurs in the sector whereby the gender split for staff aged 60 years and over was recorded as 53.6 per cent male and 46.5 per cent female. The age band and gender division is examined further across occupational groups below. Figure 17b: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by age and gender, 2004/05 to 2006/07 Male Female

36.7%

34.3%

34.1%

32.3%

33.1%

36.2%

43.3%

53.6%

63.3%

65.7%

65.9%

67.7%

66.9%

63.8%

56.7%

46.4%

Under 25

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44 45-49 Age group

50-54

55-59

60 and over

• 36.6 per cent of staff in 2006/07 were male and this percentage has remained consistent over the three reporting years. • The ratio of female:male staff has remained the same over the years of almost 2:1, meaning that on average there were two female staff for every male staff member. Figure 17a: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by gender, 2004/05 to 2006/07 63.5%

63.6%

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

63.4%

36.5%

Female

36.4%

36.6%

Occupational group The gender split across the different occupational groups has not changed significantly over the years from 2004/05 to 2006/07. In 2006/07, the largest difference was noted across staff in roles categorised as ‘all other staff’ where 69.4 per cent were female and 30.6 per cent were male (a gender ratio of 2.2:1). The smallest difference was observed across teaching staff where 58.7 per cent were female and the remaining 41.3 per cent were male.

Male Gender

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Table 10: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by gender and occupational group, 2004/05 to 2006/07 2004/05 Gender

2005/06

2006/07

Female

58.1

59.2

70.0

59.0

59.3

69.9

60.1

58.7

69.4

Male

41.9

40.8

30.0

41.0

40.7

30.1

39.9

41.3

30.6

Total

100.0

90 80 70 60 % 50 40 30 20

Under 25 25-29

30-34

40-44

50-54

Male

55-59

Female

Male

45-49

Female

Male

35-39

Female

Male

Female

10 Female

• The proportion of male managers in the older age groups was significantly higher than the younger age groups. For managers aged 55-59 years, the gender split was equal (50 per cent male and 50 per cent female) and for management staff aged 60 years and over, 54.0 per cent were male and 46.0 per cent were female.

All other staff Teaching staff Managers

100

Male

• 71.0 per cent of managers aged under 25 years were female and the remaining 29.0 per cent were male. This was the largest gender gap noted within management roles across different age groups.

Figure 18: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by occupational group, gender and age, 2006/07

Female

When the gender profile was observed across the different occupational and age groups, certain disparities became more noticeable and some interesting points were observed.

60 and over

Age group

• Within teaching roles, females generally represented the largest proportion of staff across all age groups except for those aged 60 years and over. For teaching staff within this age group, there was a slightly higher proportion of male staff (57.4 per cent) than female (42.6 per cent). • Across roles classified as ‘all other staff’, the gender distribution within the younger age group (under 30 year olds) was approximately two thirds female and one third male. This gender gap increased as age increased. However, this trend stopped for staff aged over 55 years, which is when the difference in proportions between male and female staff decreased.

Figure 19 displays the distribution of the female and male further education workforce population according to occupational group. Interestingly, while the female staff population is significantly higher than the male population, males are more likely than females to be in managerial roles. In 2006/07, 7.1 per cent of male staff were in manager roles compared to 6.2 per cent of females. Males are also more likely to work in teaching roles with 57.4 per cent of males in these roles compared to 47.2 per cent of females in identical roles.

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Figure 19: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by occupational group and within group and gender, 2006/07 All other staff Teaching staff Managers 46.6%

35.5%

47.2%

57.4%

6.2% Female

7.1% Male

Working patterns In terms of working pattern, the gender gap amongst part-time staff is much larger than that for staff working full-time. 71.1 per cent of staff working part-time were female and only 28.9 per cent were male in 2006/07. In the case of full-time staff, 54.1 per cent were female and 45.9 per cent were male in the same year.

Gender

Table 11: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by gender and working pattern, 2004/05 to 2006/07 2004/05 Working pattern

2005/06

2006/07

Part-time (per cent)

Full-time (per cent)

Part-time (per cent)

Full-time (per cent)

Part-time (per cent)

Full-time (per cent)

Female

70.8

54.0

71.2

54.1

71.1

54.1

Male

29.2

46.0

28.8

45.9

28.9

45.9

Total

100.0

This demonstrates that the female workforce tends to work more on a part-time basis than the male workforce. 61.2 per cent of female staff work on a part-time basis compared to 42.9 per cent of male staff (see Figure 20).

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Figure 20: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by working pattern and gender, 2006/07 Full-time Part-time

38.8%

57.1%

61.2%

42.9%

Female

Type of contract The gender distribution across permanent and fixed term or temporary contracts has been stable across the years. In 2006/07, 62.9 per cent of staff on permanent contracts were female and the remaining 37.1 per cent were male. A similar gender breakdown was measured for staff on fixed or temporary contracts (see Table 12).

Male Gender

Table 12: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by contract type and gender, 2006/07 2004/05 Type of contract

Permanent

2005/06 Fixed term or temporary

Fixed term or temporary

Permanent

Fixed term or temporary

Female

62.8

64.9

62.9

65.2

62.9

64.6

Male

37.2

35.1

37.1

34.8

37.1

35.4

Total

100.0

Whilst female staff made up the majority of the workforce in both types of contract, the proportion of contract types across both genders was very similar. That is, there was no significant difference in the instances of both contract types within either the female or male workforce. Figure 21 illustrates that, whilst 70.3 per cent of females were on permanent contracts, an equivalent proportion of male staff were also on permanent contracts (71.8 per cent in 2006/07). Based on the statistics from the Staff Individualised Record, there is no clear evidence to suggest that either male or female staff were more likely to work on permanent, fixed term or temporary contracts, which reflects the overall gender distribution across the workforce.

Permanent

2006/07

Figure 21: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by contract type and within gender group, 2006/07 Fixed term or temporary Permanent 29.7%

28.2%

70.3%

71.8%

Female

Male Gender

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Section 5:

Workforce recruitment Overall summary

Regional overview and comparison

This section examines the data that was available from the Staff Individualised Record regarding the recruitment of staff in the further education workforce. The analysis provides an overview of recruitment trends across the years 2004/05, 2005/06 and 2006/07 according to region as well as characteristics including age, disability, ethnicity and gender. Recruitment figures are based on staff returns and therefore the fall in numbers in 2006/07 may be attributed to the general fall in returns rather than an actual drop in recruitment.

In 2006/07 the largest proportion of staff recruited regionally were located in the North West, representing 19.3 per cent of all staff recruited in England. The second and third largest cohorts of staff were recruited in Greater London (13.6 per cent) and the South East (12.2 per cent). Regions with the smallest staff recruitment populations were the North East (5.6 per cent), East Midlands (8.9 per cent) and the East of England (9.0 per cent). This pattern is consistent with the general distribution of the staff population across regions and with the overall size of each region.

Recruitment is calculated using start date information. Please note that the data cannot identify whether a staff member is new to the further education sector or whether they have come from another role within the sector. Therefore, the aim of this analysis is to provide a general overview of employment patterns and characteristics across the sector rather than a picture of actual changes. The number of staff recruited across all roles in 2004/05 was just over 49,800. In 2005/06, staff recruitment fell to 42,903 and in 2006/07 recruitment numbers fell again 32,301. Since 2004/05, the number of staff recruited has dropped by 35.6 per cent. Please note that while recruitment has been falling, the number of staff leaving has also dropped and is further explored in the next section (Section 6: Workforce leaving rates).

Since 2004/05, the proportionate size of the staff population in the North West has grown the most representing 16.5 per cent of staff in England in 2004/05 and a significant 19.3 per cent in 2006/07. The South West and East Midlands noted the largest regional drop in the numbers of staff recruited across the three years, reporting a 10.7 per cent and 9.9 per cent drop respectively in 2004/05 and a 9.7 per cent and 9.2 per cent drop in 2006/07. Figure 23: Total proportion of staff recruited to the further education workforce in England by region, 2004/05 to 2006/07 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

20 18

Figure 22: Number of staff recruited to the further education workforce in England in the last three years, 2004/05 to 2006/07 50,000

16 14 12 % 10 8

49,819

6 4

45,000

42,903

40,000

East East of Greater Midlands England London

North East

North West

South East

South West

West Yorkshire Midlands and the Humber

35,000 32,301 30,000

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Age profile

Disability profile

In 2006/07, 17.1 per cent of all staff recruited to the workforce were aged under 25 years. A further 13.6 per cent and 13.0 per cent of recruited staff were aged 40-44 years and 35-39 years respectively. Recruitment was very low for staff aged 55 years and over with 55-59 year olds representing 7.7 per cent of recruited staff and staff aged 60 years and over representing 5.1 per cent of all staff recruited in 2006/07.

In 2006/07, 2.1 per cent of staff recruited had a declared disability. Whilst this proportion remains relatively low, through the years it has been increasing slightly. In 2004/05, 1.7 per cent of new recruits had a declared disability and in the following year (2005/06), 1.8 per cent of staff had a declared disability.

Almost all age groups experienced reductions in the number of new staff recruited in 2006/07 when compared to the numbers reported in 2004/05. In particular, the age group of 30-34 years noted the largest reduction (12.3 per cent in 2004/05 compared to 11.0 per cent in 2006/07). Recruitment of staff aged under 25 years rose in proportion to the other age groups from 15 per cent in 2004/05 to 17.1 per cent in 2006/07. Figure 24: Percentage of staff recruited to the further education workforce in England by age group, 2004/05 to 2006/07

Similar to the issue raised on ethnicity records for recruited staff, a large proportion of unknown information has continued to be registered for staff returns on disability declared. In 2006/07, 13.7 per cent of staff recruited were registered with a disability status of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;not knownâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and through the years this proportion has continued to increase. This indicates that providers will need to be proactive in encouraging new recruits to disclose information about disability, if data is to improve in the future. Figure 25: Percentage of staff recruited to the further education workforce in England by declared disability, 2004/05 to 2006/07

85.8% 84.0% 84.2%

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

20 18

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

16 14 12 % 10 8

12.5% 14.2% 13.7%

1.7% 1.8% 2.1%

Yes

2 0

Under 25 25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44 45-49 Age group

50-54

55-59

60 and over

No Declared disability

Not known

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Ethnicity profile

Gender profile

The highest proportion of staff recruited were from a white ethnic group. In 2004/05, staff from white ethnic groups represented 76.4 per cent of all recruited staff. However, this proportion fell slightly through the years. In 2006/07, 72.6 per cent of staff recruited were from a white ethnic group. Although black and minority ethnic groups represented a small proportion of staff recruited, through the years there has been an overall rise in the size of individual black and minority ethnic groups. In particular, the proportion of staff recruited from Asian ethnic groups increased marginally from 3.8 per cent to 4.0 per cent and staff from black ethnic groups increased from 3.2 per cent to 3.5 per cent.

The number of female staff recruited across the three reported years outnumbered the number of male recruits in the same period. In 2004/05, 64.1 per cent of staff recruited were female and 35.9 per cent were male. Overall, the proportion of female staff recruited has fallen slightly and the proportion of male recruits has risen. In 2006/07, 62.2 per cent of staff recruited were female and 37.8 per cent were male. This recruitment pattern is generally uniform to the gender profile of staff across the further education workforce (see Section 4: Gender profile of workforce).

The percentage of staff in the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;not known / not providedâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; category rose year on year and in many cases accounted for over 10 per cent of returns. This presents significant challenges for equality monitoring in the workforce. Figure 26: Percentage of staff recruited to the further education workforce in England by ethnicity, 2004/05 to 2006/07

From the information available on staff recruited, it was not possible to ascertain which occupational groups men and women were recruited to over this period. Figure 27: Percentage of staff recruited to the further education workforce by gender, 2004/05 to 2006/07 64.1%

62.8%

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

62.2%

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

80 70

35.9%

37.2%

37.8%

60 50 % 40 30

Female

Male Gender

20 10 0

Asian

Black

Mixed

WhiteBritish

Whiteother

Other

Not known/ not provided

Ethnic group

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Section 6:

Workforce leaving rates Overall summary This section explores the leaving rates that were recorded in the Staff Individualised Record for the three academic years from 2004/5 to 2006/07. The aim of the analysis is to provide the sector with an overall picture of the leaving rates of further education staff, how trends have changed and the key features in the trends based on the four reported equality and diversity strands. It should be noted that an individual recorded as a leaver in the Staff Individualised Record may not have left the sector, but may have joined another institution within the sector. Reasons may include promotion, to secure a full-time or permanent role, or a change from full-time to part-time employment. Further evidence is needed to determine the destinations of these leavers. Based on returns, the number of staff leaving the workforce since 2004/05 has reduced significantly over the three years (see Figure 28). In 2004/05, the leaving rate was 18.2 per cent (this rate is based on the total number of leavers divided by total number of staff in the sector for the year). The leaving rate increased to 18.8 per cent in 2005/06, but by 2006/07 the rate reduced significantly to 14.0 per cent.

Figure 28: Number of staff leaving the further education workforce in England in the last three years, 2004/05 to 2006/07 250,000

200,000

218,846

222,164

Number of staff leaving Number of staff recruited All staff

174,997 150,000

100,000

50,000

49,819 40,523

2004/05

42,903 41,076 2005/06

32,301 24,457 2006/07

Figure 28 also outlines how the number of staff leaving compares to the recruitment of staff. Please refer to the previous section for a detailed analysis of recruitment in the further education workforce (Section 5: Workforce recruitment). On the whole, more staff were recruited each year than the number who left their current employer. The gap between leavers and recruitment was narrow in 2005/06. However, in 2006/07 there were 32,301 staff recruited to the workforce, whereas just 24,457 left, indicating a difference of just over 7,800 staff.

Regional overview and comparison In 2006/07, the highest regional rate of staff leaving the workforce was reported in the North West, representing 16.5 per cent of all staff leaving across England. The second and third largest cohorts of staff leaving were located in the South East (13.9 per cent) and Greater London (12.0 per cent).

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Regions with the lowest rates of staff leaving the workforce were the North East (4.4 per cent) and the East of England (9.7 per cent) in 2006/07. These leaving rates broadly reflect the overall size of the workforce in each region. The North West represents the largest regional number of staff in England and the North East and East of England have smaller populations. The number of leavers is therefore consistent with these respective staff populations. All regions have reported a fall in the number of staff leaving. Since 2004/05 the rates at which staff of different ages left the sector has varied and, similar to the regional analysis, the overall proportions has affected the total percentages of leavers per region. Based on Figure 29, the regions that experienced a drop in the rate of staff leaving between 2004/05 and 2006/07 were Yorkshire and the Humber (1.7 per cent), Greater London (0.8 per cen), the North East (3.7 per cent) and the North West (2.5 per cent). Figure 29: Percentage of staff leaving the further education workforce in England by region, 2004/05 to 2006/07 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

20 18

Figure 29 displays the age profile of all staff leaving the workforce over the last three years. In 2006/07, the age group with the largest proportion of leavers were those aged 40-44 years, representing 12.5 per cent of all leaving staff. The second largest group of leavers were those aged under 25 years and represented 12.3 per cent of all leaving staff. Since 2004/05, the rates at which staff of different ages left the sector has varied and similar to the regional analysis, the overall proportions of age groups within the leaving cohort has changed. The age groups that experienced increases in the percentage of leaving staff between 2004/05 and 2006/07 were: • 60 years and over (1.3 per cent); • under 25 years (0.9 per cent); • 55-59 years (0.8 per cent); • 25-29 years (0.6 per cent). Figure 30: Percentage of staff leaving the further education workforce in England by age group, 2004/05 to 2006/07 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

% 10

2 0

Age profile

East East of Greater Midlands England London

North East

North West Region

South East

South West

West Yorkshire Midlands and the Humber

2 0

Under 25 25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44 45-49 Age group

50-54

55-59

60 and over

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Disability profile

Ethnicity profile

Similar to the profile of the general staff population, the majority of staff leavers did not have a declared disability. In 2006/07, 83.6 per cent of staff leavers did not have a declared disability and 2.7 per cent did. Information on declared disability for the remaining 13.7 per cent of the staff leaver population was not known and this proportion has increased since 2004/05.

In 2004/05, 79.0 per cent of staff leavers were from a white ethnic group. All non-white ethnic groups represented small proportions over the three years and overall the ethnic profile of leavers remained consistent with the ethnicity profile of the overall workforce. The leaving rates for most black and minority ethnic groups have fallen since 2004/05 and were at their lowest levels at the end of the three year period. Since 2004/05, there has been an increase in the leaving rates of staff from ethnic categories which are â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;not known/not providedâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;.

The continued lack of accurate records on declared disability will have a detrimental impact on the ability of the sector to reliably assess the characteristics of leavers and further investigate their reasons for leaving. Figure 31: Percentage of staff leaving the further education workforce in England by declared disability, 2004/05 to 2006/07 84.8% 85.2% 83.6%

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

It is essential that a concerted effort is made across the sector to capture information regarding ethnic origin as accurately as possible, to ensure that the rates for other ethnic groups are not distorted by unknown records. Figure 32: Percentage of staff leaving the further education workforce by ethnicity, 2004/05 to 2006/07 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

90 80 70 60 13.2% 12.6% 13.7% %

2.0% 2.3% 2.7% Yes

50 40

No Declared disability

Not known

30 20 10 0

Asian

Black

Mixed

White

Ethnic group

Chinese/other Not known/ not provided

Gender profile In general, there were more female staff leaving the workforce across all years compared to male staff and this was consistent with the overall gender profile of the workforce. In 2006/07, 62.9 per cent of staff leavers were female and 37.1 per cent were male. Across the years however, the proportion of female staff leaving the workforce has fallen slightly and the proportion of male staff has increased. In 2004/05, female staff leavers represented 63.4 per cent of all staff leavers and in 2006/07 this rate fell slightly to 62.9 per cent. In 2004/05, 36.6 per cent of staff leavers were male and in 2006/07, the rate increased to 37.1 per cent. Figure 33: Percentage of staff leaving the further education workforce by gender, 2004/05 to 2006/07 63.4%

63.5%

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

62.9%

36.6%

Female

36.5%

37.1%

Male Gender

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Section 7: Profile of governors

This section provides an overview of the diversity profile of governors in the further education sector. The data and findings are based on research carried out by the Centre for Excellence in Leadership (now called the Learning and Skills Improvement Service) on behalf of Lifelong Learning UK, in order to establish the current characteristics of governors in the sector.

Research process All clerks of further education providers in England were invited to participate in the research and received a letter from the Chief Executive of the Centre of Excellence and Leadership specifying the research purpose and aims. Data was collected via online and paper-based questionnaires during August and September 2008 and a total of 1,052 responses were received. Given an estimate of 8,000 - 9,000 governors in the sector this constitutes a response rate of between 12.0-13.0 per cent. The analysis of the data is structured according to the key characteristics identified below. • Age • Disability • Ethnicity • Gender / gender identity • Religion or belief • Sexual orientation

Background of sample Figure 34 establishes that the majority of those who participated in the survey started their role as governor in the last five years. From the data it has also been calculated that governors serve an average period of five years. Figure 34: Total number of respondents by start date, as at September 2008 160

No. of governors started during this year

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

75 77 78 79 80 81 82 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

Year

Figure 35 outlines the most common professional backgrounds of governors across the further education sector. These are sectors that governors are either currently working in or have previously worked in. In this case, governors were able to select more than one option so the percentage results are based on the total number of respondents (n=1,052) and therefore the sum of the percentages will be equal to more than 100 per cent. The two most popular sectors were the private sector (38.6 per cent) and the public sector (35.5 per cent). Seven per cent of respondents indicated ‘other professional backgrounds’ and specific examples of these included the higher education sector and the Royal Navy.

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Figure 35: Percentage of governors by professional background, September 2008 45 40 35 30 %

Some other professional backgrounds: Higher Education Clerk in Holy Orders Royal Navy

25 20 15 10 5 0

FE Sector Voluntary/ Retired Third Sector

Public Sector

Self Employed

Other

Private Sector

Disability profile of governors Overall, the percentage of disabled governors reported was very low (5.7 per cent) whereas the percentage of governors that indicated they do not have a disability was 92.4 per cent. On average, the rates of disability across the governor population are slightly higher than that for the further education workforce where in 2006/07, just 2.6 per cent of the further education workforce declared they had a disability.

Student

Figure 37: Percentage of governors by declared disability, September 2008

Professional Background

Note: The sum of all percentage figure does not add up to one hundred percent because respondents were allowed to select more than one category.

1.9% 5.7% Yes No Prefer not to say

Age profile of governors The age profile clearly demonstrates that the most common age group of governors was 56 years or over, with nearly half (46.7 per cent) of responding governors in this age group. Looking further into the age profile of governors, the second largest group was 46-55 years (34.2 per cent). The results indicated that governors aged 25-35 years and under 25 years were under represented (2.7 per cent and 3.0 per cent of the sample respectively). Figure 36: Percentage of governors by age group, September 2008

92.4%

In addition to asking governors to provide information on key characteristics such as age, gender, ethnicity and disability, respondents were also asked to complete a series of questions on their religion or belief as well as sexual orientation. The following sections provide a summary of these results.

70 60 50 40 % 30 20 10 0

Under 25

25-35

36-45 46-55 Age group

56+

Prefer not to say

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Ethnicity profile of governors Figure 38 shows the ethnicity profile of governors. Two categories were used to identify ethnic group in this survey: white and black and minority ethnic groups. In this case, black and minority ethnic groups represent all ethnic groups except white - British, white - Irish and white - any other background. Those respondents who selected ‘prefer not to say’ are identified separately and not included within black and minority ethnic figures. The findings show that the most common ethnic group is white, representing 89.4 per cent of all governors who responded. Black and minority ethnic governors represented 9.3 per cent of the sample, which is a higher percentage than the average rate of black and minority ethnic people across the national population (7.9 per cent, based on Census data 2001). It is recommended that the number of black and minority ethnic governors should represent the diversity of a further education provider’s learner body and the community in which it is situated. Overall responses seem to show that this is the case, however, this does not account for any regional variations, which are explored in Table 13. Figure 38: Percentage of governors by ethnic group, September 2008 100 90

70 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 White

Black and minority ethnic

Black and minority ethnic (Population Census 2001)

Ethnic category

• Greater London had the highest proportion of governors from black and minority ethnic groups, with 21.0 per cent of the regional governor population. This, however, remains lower than the regional population of 40.2 per cent black and minority ethnic groups (figures based on Census population 2001) and is significantly lower than the average 56.9 per cent within the overall learner population (figures based on the Individualised Learner Record). • East Midlands also had a high proportion of governors from black and minority ethnic groups (representing 14.7 per cent of all responses), which is significantly higher than the average 8.7 per cent representation of black and minority ethnic groups across the region’s population. In relation to the regional learner population, this proportion is slightly lower as on average 19.2 per cent of learners in the region are from black and minority ethnic groups. • Yorkshire and the Humber shows a similar profile to that described for the East Midlands. 14.8 per cent of responses in the region indicated they come from a black and minority ethnic group which is more than the 8.3 per cent recorded for the region’s general population but lower than the 18.4 per cent across the learner population. • The South West region had the lowest proportion of governors from black and minority ethnic groups (1.0 per cent) and this was slightly lower than the black and minority ethnic profile of the general regional population (4.6 per cent).

In this case, data was available to be examined at regional level. The main regional features noted from Table 13 are explained below.

Prefer not to say

• From responses, the East of England noted 6.6 per cent of governors to be from black and minority ethnic groups where as the West Midlands noted 10.0 per cent. These rates continued to be lower than the black and minority ethnic group rates within the populations of each region.

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Table 13: Percentage of governors by ethnic group, September 2008 Region

White (per cent)

Black and Prefer not to minority ethnic say (per cent) (per cent)

Black and minority ethnic learner profile (2006/07) (per cent)

Black and minority ethnic (Population Census 2001) (per cent)

East of England

92.5

6.4

4.4

10.6

8.6

East Midlands

83.6

14.8

13.1

15.1

8.7

Greater London

77.8

20.8

5.6

41.6

40.2

North East

94.6

4.1

4.0

5.8

3.6

North West

92.6

6.9

4.2

11.1

7.8

South East

91.7

6.1

2.2

10.7

8.7

South West

1.0

5.31

4.6

West Midlands

88.6

9.9

4.6

20.3

13.9

Yorkshire and the Humber

82.7

14.8

8.6

13.7

8.3

National average

89.4

9.3

4.7

16.8

7.9

Note: Due to rounding effects, the sum of the percentages in some cases will not be equal to 100 per cent.

Gender / gender identify profile of governors Figure 39 represents the overall gender profile of those governors who responded to the survey. Respondents were given the option of stating their gender as female, male, trans, or prefer not to say. The results indicated that there are more male governors (64.6 per cent) in the sector than female governors (34.5 per cent). Approximately 0.1 per cent indicated they were trans and a further 0.8 per cent stated they preferred not to say. These results highlight that the gender gap across governor roles is significant and it will be important to monitor future trends to see whether any progress is made to reduce this gap.

Figure 39: Percentage of governors by gender identity, September 2008 70 60 50 40 % 30 20 10 0

Male

Female

Trans Gender identity

Prefer not to say

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Religion or belief

Sexual orientation

Christianity emerged as the most popular religion that was followed by governors. 62.4 per cent of governors stated Christianity to be their main religion, followed by 22.1 per cent that indicated â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;noneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; and 6.9 per cent preferred not to say. 2.6 per cent of respondents were Muslim and 1.6 per cent indicated they were Hindu. All other religions were selected by less than 1 per cent of respondents .

Figure 41 shows a breakdown of the sexual orientation stated by those governors who responded. It is obvious from these results that the majority of governors identified themselves as heterosexual. The responses also indicated that lesbian, gay and bisexual people are under represented within this sample (representing 1.1 per cent of the total sample). According to statistics (Stonewall) approximately 6 per cent of the population is lesbian, gay or bisexual. There was also a high non-disclosure rate indicated by the high percentage of respondents preferring not to answer this question.

Figure 40: Percentage of governors by religion, September 2008 100 90 80 70 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0

Christian Muslim Buddhist

Sikh

Hindu

Jewish

Religion or belief

None Prefer not Other to say

As the sector progresses in collecting information from the workforce, it will be important to ensure that issues of disclosure and sensitivity are addressed. This will help support individuals to feel comfortable about providing this information and to develop an understanding of the significance of submitting accurate records for future planning, which will promote equality and diversity across the workforce. Figure 41: Percentage of governors by sexual orientation, September 2008 100 90 80 70 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0

Lesbian/Gay

Bisexual

Heterosexual Sexual orientation

Other

Prefer not to say

Conclusion This report provides an overview of the diversity profile of the further education workforce and has highlighted some changes in the staff profile that are indicative of developments in equality and diversity employment matters. Whilst there have been some minor developments in reducing the gender gap within the workforce and there has also been an increase in the participation of black and minority ethnic groups and those with a disclosed disability, the sector is still far from reaching a desirable level of improvement in equality and diversity opportunities.

The report has been based on the Staff Individualised Record data, which has comprehensive information about the characteristics of staff across the further education workforce. The Staff Individualised Record is a powerful tool for all further education institutions to collate and store staff records and also facilitates reporting requirements for providers and stakeholders across the sector. It is a unique mechanism and highly advanced in comparison to the systems used by international counterparts. Nevertheless, the value of the Staff Individualised Record is determined by the number of further education providers that submit their returns and this number has been falling over recent years.

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

This report highlights the specific characteristics of the further education workforce in relation to four diversity strands. These are age, disability, ethnicity and gender. Matters of equality and diversity have advanced rapidly within employment law in recent years and as a result there are now seven strands of equality that sector employers need to consider. The additional three are gender identity, religion or belief and sexual orientation. Information on these strands is not currently collected systematically, nor are further education providers required to submit this information on the Staff Individualised Record. In the future, it will be a requirement to collect data related to these additional equality strands and the Staff Individualised Record database will be updated to reflect this in due course. Submissions to the Staff Individualised Record are aggregated to not only display a national picture, but also to determine regional trends and local conditions. It is apparent that in recent years there has been a gradual fall in the number of further education providers submitting records and also a fall in the quality of data submitted. For example, in 2006/07 there were a large number of staff reporting ethnicity and disability status as unknown. The high level of unknowns across these areas has meant that the findings and trends in this report have been highlighted as estimates rather than an actual representation of the workforce. It is essential that all further education institutions commit to encouraging staff to disclose information, as well as to submit records. This will ensure that the sector can continue to monitor its progression in line with legislative and regulative responsibilities, and begin to set targets to address under representation in all equality strands across the sector and provide a world class service to our diverse stakeholders, staff and learners.

Lifelong Learning UK is committed to equality and diversity and will continue to work with providers to improve the collection of data so that it can provide a robust and informative profile of the further education workforce. The increasing instances of unknown staff records over this reporting period indicates that there is more work to be done to increase confidence in staff to disclose equality monitoring information. The reasons for this may be varied and it will be necessary for the sector to be creative in the way that it raises awareness of equality and diversity issues in the workplace, encourages and supports its staff pre and post disclosure across all equality strands and develops positive action and other initiatives to demonstrate that the information is being used constructively to address under representation and inequality. An increasing volume of activity is taking place around equality and diversity in the further education sector and all participants have a responsibility to promote and implement practices which eradicate discrimination and promote an equitable and open working environment. Recommendations are listed in the next section, which aim to address some of the issues mentioned in the main body of this report. This will be useful to principal stakeholders within the further education sector and ensure that they are well equipped and positioned to endorse equality and diversity across all areas.

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Recommendations The further education sector and its stakeholders, together with the support of Lifelong Learning UK, have a joint responsibility to ensure that equality and diversity is embedded in all activity. To become world class employers and service providers, the further education sector needs to understand the barriers and issues affecting people from diverse backgrounds, identities and abilities. This will mean that the sector needs to continue with the exemplary work that has already been taking place around equality and diversity by sharing and learning from good practice. The sector should be proud of what it has already achieved in relation to equality and diversity. However, it should always be looking for constant improvement as the needs and profile of our staff and learners constantly changes. The information in this report, and in subsequent workforce diversity profiles, will assist in achieving this. The areas highlighted below are just some of those that will require consideration and increased activity in order to achieve excellence in equality and diversity. These areas of improvement will affect the whole sector in differing degrees of impact.

Management and leadership Equality and diversity needs to be embedded across the further education sector, with managers providing leadership by example in the way they carry out their own roles and in the way they develop the priorities of their teams. In order to do this, the sectors managers, leaders and stakeholders need to: • understand why, and in what ways, equality and diversity is important to the further education sector; • contribute to the development of equality and diversity within their own organisation and share good practice; • encourage their teams to work within the ethos of equality and diversity; • be committed to embedding equality and diversity into their own professional development and also that of their teams; • commit to challenging any organisational culture that may create barriers for people of diverse groups; • support staff at all levels to bring about positive change and move towards a more diverse and inclusive sector; • provide guidance and support across all equality and diversity strands; • engage diverse staff and other stakeholder groups to improve and promote good relations.

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Disclosure and equality monitoring The business case for equality monitoring is well established, and it is important that the organisational benefits of data collection are understood by staff at all levels. In order to ensure that providers can meet the needs of their learners, they should aim for the workplace environment to be as representative as it can be. In doing so, the sector will not only provide positive role models to local communities, but the workforce will get the best out of those who interact with them at all levels. If staff feel confident to be themselves, the sector can harness the best from its workforce, enabling it to deliver an excellent service to the public. The messages provided in the Staff Individualised Record play a significant role in succession planning, target setting and performance management for sector employers. The data can highlight the characteristics of those who are being attracted to the sector, those who the sector is retaining and those groups that are under represented. It is therefore crucial that continuous effort is made to ensure that existing staff are encouraged to disclose their equality information and that the reasons for this are explained to them.

Encouraging staff to disclose can be challenging and managers need to be aware that, for a variety of reasons, staff may choose not to disclose their status in relation to certain equalities. Individual members of staff may be concerned about the consequences of disclosure, fearing, for example, that disclosure may invite discrimination or have a negative impact on their job prospects. They may be concerned at how the organisation manages confidential information about individuals. In order to encourage disclosure, it will be important for providers to address issues such as these. It is also worth bearing in mind that people are more likely to disclose this information if: • the benefits of disclosure are made clear; • an explanation of why the provider is asking for the information is given; • a guarantee of confidentiality is given, where the information is not collected anonymously; • there is clarification as to what will happen when a member of staff discloses their information; • the organisation is open about its reasons for seeking information and showing staff how the data is being or will be used to inform policy or strategy. As well as promoting and encouraging disclosure, recommended areas for improvement also include: • a consistent method of collecting equality and diversity monitoring information from governors who have a significant position as local community role models; • an extension of the Staff Individualised Record to capture characteristics including types of disability, sexual orientation, religion or belief and gender identity; • advice and guidance to facilitate equality monitoring across all equality strands;

• information about using data when completing equality impact assessments.

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Recruitment and retention of staff

Learning and development

Providers should measure the success rates of applicants, in terms of recruitment and promotion, to monitor how people from all backgrounds are faring within the organisation. Reviews should be conducted regularly across recruitment processes to ensure that no barriers have formed, which may prevent prospective candidates from diverse backgrounds being recruited or developing their careers within the organisation.

Training across all equality strands needs to be both a specific aspect of capacity building (for example, raising awareness around all equality strands) as well as being embedded within other training where appropriate (for example, interview training for managers). Consideration should be given to:

Attention should also be given to the following areas: • attracting young people into the further education sector as teaching staff; • identifying staff who are new to the further education sector and how this compares to individuals who are moving around the sector; • developing strategies to attract governors from diverse backgrounds; • marketing and raising the profiles of positive role models across diverse equality strands, from a staff and governor perspective; • improving the collection of information from those leaving the sector in order to ascertain their reasons for leaving and identify any trends; • succession planning to address an ageing workforce and retirement rates; • developing staff forums to explore experiences and inform policy and strategy.

• providing equality and diversity training that covers all equality and diversity strands; • exploring the use of positive action and other initiatives to address under representation and skills development; • continued support to groups, such as the Workforce Race Advisory Group, Disability Equality Implementation Group and The Forum for Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Equality in Post-School Education; • providing guidance and raising awareness across all equality strands.

Equality impact assessments Equality impact assessments are a powerful tool to objectively assess the level of impact that a policy, service or function may have on people from diverse backgrounds, which may include staff and/or learners. By completing equality impact assessments, the organisation will consider the workforce profile, learner profile and in some instances local demographics in order to assess a policy, service or function comprehensively. It will be necessary to prioritise those policies, services and functions to be assessed, and this should be done according to the impact that the policy, service or function has on the user. Engaging staff and learners alike, perhaps through forums or advisory groups, will ensure that the organisation has considered the specific needs and barriers faced by specific groups.

Lifelong Learning UK BELFAST 2nd Floor, Alfred House, 19-21 Alfred Street, Belfast, BT2 8ED Tel: 0870 050 2570 Fax: 02890 247 675 CARDIFF Sophia House, 28 Cathedral Road, Cardiff, CF11 9LJ Tel: 029 2066 0238 Fax: 029 2066 0239 EDINBURGH CBC House, 24 Canning Street, Edinburgh, EH3 8EG Tel: 0870 756 4970 Fax: 0131 229 8051 LEEDS 4th Floor, 36 Park Row, Leeds, LS1 5JL Tel: 0870 300 8110 Fax: 0113 242 5897

Email: enquiries@lluk.org Information and Advice Service: 020 7936 5798

www.lluk.org

Ref: 200809.037

Part of the Skills for Business network of 25 employer-led Sector Skills Councils

RW05/09/3318

LONDON 5th Floor, St Andrewâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s House, 18-20 St Andrew Street, London EC4A 3AY Tel: 0870 757 7890 Fax: 0870 757 7889