Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

An analysis of further education colleges in England

2

Foreword 4

Executive summary 5

Introduction 11Equalities and the priorities of The Workforce Strategy for the Further Education Sector in England, 2007 - 2012 12Why is equality and diversity important in the further education sector? 13How to use this report 13Legislative context 14Outline of data sources and structure of report 15

Findings: National profile of the workforce 17Overview 17Overall regional comparison 17Overall characteristics of staff 18

Section 1: Age profile of the workforce 20Overall age profile 20Occupational group 20Working patterns 22Type of contract 23

Section 2: Disability profile of the workforce 25Overall disability profile 25Occupational group 26Working patterns 27Type of contract 27

Section 3: Ethnicity profile of the workforce 28Overall ethnicity profile 29Occupational group 30Working patterns 32Type of contract 33

Section 4: Gender profile of the workforce 35Overall gender profile 35Occupational group 35Working patterns 37Type of contract 38

Contents


3

Section 5: Workforce recruitment 39Overall summary 39Regional overview and comparison 39Age profile 40Disability profile 40Ethnicity profile 41Gender profile 41

Section 6: Workforce leaving rates 42Overall summary 42Regional overview and comparison 42Age profile 43Disability profile 44Ethnicity profile 44Gender profile 45

Section 7: Profile of governors 46Research process 46Background of sample 46Age profile of governors 47Disability profile of governors 47Ethnicity profile of governors 48Gender and gender identify profile of governors 49Religion or belief 50Sexual orientation 50

Conclusion 51

Recommendations 53


4

Foreword


At Lifelong Learning UK our role is to supportlifelong learning employers, including those infurther education, to recruit, retain and developsuitably skilled and effective employees at all levels.We do this by providing authoritative labour marketinformation, developing and promoting nationaloccupational standards, ensuring qualifications meetemployers’ needs, raising employer engagement anddemand for and investment in skills and by buildingthe capacity and capability of the sector.

Using data to understand workforce diversity totarget actions and increase the diversity of theworkforce at all levels are key themes within theWorkforce Strategy for the Further Education Sector2007- 2012. To address under-representation it is vital that the sector provides good quality andcomplete data and continues to realise the value of workforce monitoring. This report guides us towhere we need to take action in a comprehensibleand focused way. We have used the report’s analysisto develop a set of recommendations that, from ourperspective as a sector skills council, we believe willenable us to support employers to facilitate accessto and progression within the further educationworkforce for those from all backgrounds.

We need a workforce which embraces the talents of all and one that broadly reflects the increasingdiversity of our learners. It is vital for us all in Englandto ensure that the whole further education workforceis appropriately trained, has the flexibility to respondto these changing needs and is recruiting the bestpeople from a wide talent pool. It is our vision thatthe UK lifelong learning sector will be the best in theworld, and I believe that with your continued hardwork and commitment we can achieve this.

David HunterChief ExecutiveLifelong Learning UK

It has never been more important for the further education sector in England to be equipped to meet the growing needs of individualsand employers. With rising unemployment and a global recession,businesses and learners are increasingly looking to the sector to retrainand upskill, and it is crucial that we are all equipped to embrace changeand respond positively to the opportunities and challenges it brings.

5

The aim of this report is to highlight the characteristicsof the further education workforce in England, in thecontext of equality and diversity traits. The StaffIndividualised Record database for the years 2004/05,2005/06 and 2006/07 has been analysed in order toestablish the most recent staff participation levels andtrends. The analysis concentrates on the equality anddiversity strands currently monitored in the StaffIndividualised Record. These are:

• age;

• disability;

• ethnicity;

• gender.

These strands have been examined across theworkforce according to occupational roles, workingpattern and staff contract types. Both national andindividual regional overviews of trends in the furthereducation workforce are provided, with the regionalcomparisons outlined in the appendices. In additionto the analysis of the further education workforce,the report focuses on staff recruitment and leavingrates across these four equality and diversity strands.It also includes the findings of a recent study carriedout on the profile of governors in the furthereducation 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 aged45-49 years, accounting for 14.7 per cent of thetotal workforce in England. The second and thirdlargest 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 agegroups represented the smallest staff populations.In 2006/07, these were 7.1 per cent and 7.7 percent respectively.

The workforce is generally populated by older staffand trends in the last few years show that the changein this profile has been minimal. The continuity of this trend will certainly raise several issues forfurther education providers in relation to theirsuccession planning.

Managing the loss of staff through retirement is a keyissue that the sector will need to sympathetically planfor to ensure the impact is minimised through theyears. This may be further exacerbated by the highleaver rates of staff aged under 30, which has steadilyincreased over the three-year period analysed.

• The age groups with the largest representation inmanagerial roles were 50-54 years (17.2 per centin 2006/07), 45-49 years (16.6 per cent) and 55-59 years (15.7 per cent). Teaching staff noted asimilar age profile to that of managers.

• The most significant difference in profile was notedin staff categorised as all other staff. Nearly aquarter of all other staff were aged under 30 years,which is significantly higher than this age group’srepresentation in managerial roles (equivalent to10.5 per cent) or teaching roles (9.8 per cent).

• Staff aged under 25 years or 60 years and overare 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 oldsand 43.5 per cent of staff aged 60 and over were on fixed term or temporary contracts,which is significantly higher than staff from theother age groups.

Apart from those engaged in teaching, it is not clearfrom the statistical evidence what roles members ofstaff are fulfilling in the sector. The significant figurefor under 30 year olds in the ‘all other staff’ categoryis likely to reflect those young people opting to starttheir careers in the further education sector ratherthan in other sectors (for example, in administration,finance or building services). Those staff aged 60 years

Executive summary


6

and over also show high levels of temporary and fixedterm contracts. While this could be because theyare working to top up pensions and work at timesthat match other commitments, it might also bethat sector employers are negotiating differenttypes 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 disabilityremained very low over the three years andmoved from 2.0 per cent in 2004/05 to 2.6 percent 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 truerepresentation of actual disabled staff in the further education sector.

• The proportion of managers with a declareddisability was slightly lower than that for teachingstaff (2.7 per cent had a declared disability) andall other staff (2.6 per cent).

• Overall, there has been an increase in theproportion of staff with a declared disabilityworking 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 equalitiesmonitoring easier if employees would disclose anydisability they may have, the reality is that peoplegenerally do not wish to make such disclosures. The individual’s reasons for this are numerous and it seems that people are still concerned thatdisclosure poses a risk to securing an interview and any subsequent post.

7


The data returns do not make it clear how manydisabled staff in the sector are in teaching roles orhow many are in support roles. That informationwould begin to draw a more detailed picture aboutthe employment patterns and career pathways ofdisabled people in the sector. Detail is important in understanding employment patterns and theexperiences of disabled people because disability isnot a homogeneous condition (the experience ofsomeone with a visual impairment will be verydifferent from that of someone with a HIV or cancer).

It is essential that organisations are pro-active increating disability friendly environments regardless ofwhether disabled job applicants, members of staff,visitors or learners declare their disability or not. It isalso important to bear in mind that most disabilitiesare acquired during a person’s working life, requiringadequate support and provision for staff who maybecome 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. Thispercentage figure has gradually declined since2004/05, to 82.6 per cent of all staff in 2006/07.

• In 2004/05, staff from black and minority ethnicgroups represented 7.3 per cent of the furthereducation workforce and this increased slightlyto 7.7 per cent in 2006/07.

• Black and minority ethnic staff in the furthereducation workforce were significantly underrepresented across all categories of work whencompared to the proportion of learners in furthereducation who are from black and minority ethnicgroups. In 2006/07, 16.8 per cent of learners werefrom black and minority ethnic groups, makingblack and minority ethnic staff (7.7 per cent)significantly under represented in comparison.

• The proportion of staff with an unknown ethnicgroup has risen year on year and by 2006/07 itreached 9.6 per cent. It is important that providersencourage disclosure amongst staff by raisingawareness of the need for monitoring, beingtransparent about its use and supporting staff thatdo disclose details. If non-disclosure continues toincrease, the quality of the data available will beinaccurate, making it difficult to plan effectively.

Estimates of black and minority ethnic groups thatlive and work in England are notoriously difficult to obtain. Due to the nature of monitoring, thestatistics can only be estimates. One reason for thisis that people do not always respond to questionsabout their racial and cultural origins on official (or any other) forms. There may be a number ofreasons for not disclosing this information, includingsuspicion of what the organisation will do with theinformation or that monitoring may be seen as anintrusion. Something of this nature could behappening in the further education sector as thenumber of people responding to ethnicity questionsin staff surveys appears to be decreasing.

• Since 2004/05, there has been a fall in thepercentage of staff from black and minority ethnicgroups in managerial roles. In 2004/05, 6.3 percent of staff in management roles were from blackand minority ethnic backgrounds and in 2006/07,this fell to 5.9 per cent. It will be important tomonitor this distribution through the years toensure that opportunities of management areaccessed equally across all ethnic groups.

• The proportion of full-time staff from black andminority ethnic groups has remained consistentand in 2006/07, they represented 7.9 per cent of this cohort.

8


The data provides some base line information aboutthe percentage of staff from black and minorityethnic backgrounds working in the further educationsector nationally. However there has been a steadyincrease in non-disclosure of staff ethnic backgroundbetween 2004/05 and 2006/07, which may affect theaccuracy of the data.

As work roles in the sector cut across the teachingand support functions, it is difficult to understandfrom the data the levels which staff from variousnon-white backgrounds might be working at. Futuremonitoring exercises will need to take a holisticapproach to improve the rate of disclosure, whichmay include being transparent about the need formonitoring, building confidence among staff of diverseethnic origins and using the data to assist targetedrecruitment, retention and positive action initiatives.

According to the level of black and minority ethnicstaff amongst leavers, this has remained steadyacross the three years analysed. However, there hasbeen a marked increase amongst staff who have notdisclosed their ethnicity in 2006/07.

Gender profile of the workforce• Overall, females have continued to make up the

majority of the further education workforce acrossthe years and in 2006/07 they represented nearlytwo thirds of the workforce (63.4 per cent). Thegender ratio (female:male) has remained the sameover the years at almost 2:1.

• Across the different age categories the genderdistribution was relatively consistent exceptacross the older cohorts whereby the proportionof male staff became more prominent. 43.3 percent of staff aged 55-59 years were male andacross the age group 60 years and over, theproportion of staff that were male was higherthan the proportion of females.

• The gender split across the different occupationalroles has not changed significantly through theyears and in 2006/07 the largest difference wasnoted in the occupational group of all other staff,where 69.4 per cent were female and 30.6 percent were male. The smallest gap was observedacross teaching staff where 58.7 per cent werefemale and the remaining 41.3 per cent were male.

• Male staff are more likely to be in manager rolesthan female staff. In 2006/07, 7.1 per cent ofmale staff were in managerial roles compared to6.2 per cent of females. Male staff are also morelikely to work in teaching roles with 57.4 percent of males in these roles compared to 47.2per cent of females in.

These gender disparities suggest that there are highlevels of occupational gender segregation, whichcould mean that in some areas of the sector womenare concentrated in occupations associated withclerical, child and personal care, whereas men areconcentrated in senior management or manualoccupations. There may be several related factorscontributing to this gender segregation. For example,some jobs have been historically associated with maleor female attributes, which, although challenged inthe further education sector, may still continue to:influence individual career expectations and choices;make occupations outweighed by one gender appearunattractive to others considering a career in thatdomain; and influence managers to seek recruits who resemble the present workforce.

9

This gender segregation means that furthereducation providers are only recruiting from aportion of the potential pool and may miss out onmore diverse skills and commitment. This genderimbalance is potentially embarrassing in a sectorwhose core business is to develop the talents of allto 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 beworking on a part-time basis compared to 42.9 per cent of male staff.

• In 2006/07, 62.9 per cent of staff on permanentcontracts were female and the remaining 37.1per cent were male. A similar gender breakdownwas measured for staff on fixed term ortemporary contracts.

It is noticeable that while women form the larger partof the workforce in general, they also form the largerpart of the part-time workforce. More male staff are inmanagement positions than women, and an importantfactor in this may be that men are much less likely tohave interrupted career patterns or take part-timepositions in the formative periods of their careers.Women may be more likely to choose part-timeemployment 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 staffleavers also decreased and by 2006/07 therewere approximately an additional 7,844 staffworking in the sector.

• In 2006/07, 17.1 per cent of staff recruited wereaged under 25 years. A further 13.6 per cent and13.0 per cent of staff recruited were aged 40-44years and 35-39 years respectively. In the sameyear the largest proportion of leavers were aged

40-44 years and represented 12.5 per cent of allleaving staff. The second largest group of leaverswere aged under 25 years and represented 12.3per cent of all staff leavers.

• Recruitment was very low for staff aged 55 yearsand 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 staffaged under 25 years and also those aged 35 to 45years. The levels of turnover among younger staffmay be due to the proportion of those who are ontemporary contracts. The loss of more experiencedpeople in their mid-30s and 40s would seem to beof concern to employers and more information willneed to be gathered to ascertain their reasons forleaving the sector. In addition, the low recruitmentlevels of older staff are of equal concern, particularlywith an increase to the statutory retirement ageexpected in the future. The sector will thereforeneed to take responsibility for ensuring equality ofopportunity for all age groups during recruitment.

• Over the years, the proportion of female staffleaving the sector has fallen slightly. In contrast,the proportion of male staff leaving the sectorhas increased.

• The leaving rates for most black and minorityethnic groups have fallen since 2004/05 and wereat their lowest levels at the end of the three yearperiod from 2004/05 – 2006/07.

• In 2006/07, 2.1 per cent of new staff recruitedhad a declared disability. Whilst this proportionremains relatively low, through the years it hasbeen increasing slightly. Similarly to the profile of new recruits, 2.7 per cent of staff leavers had a declared disability and this rate has alsoincreased marginally through the years.


Profile of governorsThe data and findings presented for this section arebased on research carried out by the Centre forExcellence in Leadership (now called the Learningand Skills Improvement Service) on behalf of LifelongLearning UK in order to establish the current profileof governors in the further education sector. Theresponse rate represented approximately 12-13 percent of all governors in the sector.

• The data collected clearly showed that the mostcommon age profile of governors surveyed was56 years and over. Nearly half (46.7 per cent) ofresponding governors indicated they were aged56 years or over.

• There are more male governors (64.6 per cent)in the sector than female governors (34.5 percent). Approximately 0.1 per cent indicated thattheir sexual orientation was trans, and a further0.8 per cent preferred not to say.

• 89.4 per cent of all governors who responded wereof white ethnic origin. Black and minority ethnicgovernors represented 9.5 per cent of the sample,which is higher than the rate of black and minorityethnic people across the national population (7.9 per cent, based on Census data 2001).

• Overall, the percentage of disabled governors is lowat 5.7 per cent. However, on average the rates ofdisability across the governor population are slightlyhigher than those of the total further educationworkforce. In 2006/07, 2.6 per cent of furthereducation staff declared they had a disability.

It is significant that this research into thecharacteristics of governors in the further educationsector encompasses all equality and diversity strands.The data gives an early indication, although across asmall sample, that governors are willing to provideinformation across all equality and diversity strands,and in future can provide the sector with good qualityintelligence of the profile of its representatives.

College governors are predominately white malesaged 50 years and over, although change is clearly in progress. It is also encouraging to note the higherproportion of black and minority ethnic groupsrepresented amongst governors in comparison tothe wider further education workforce. It is alsoessential for the sector to recognise the role thatgovernors can play in shaping the appearance andgrowth of an organisation when considering theequality and diversity of their workforce.

Disabled people, although not well representedamongst college governors, are better representedthan disabled staff in the wider further educationworkforce. In future it will be important thatdisability disclosure is encouraged and promoted as governors play a key part in ensuring that localcommunities are represented at all levels of thesector and that people from diverse backgrounds,from a wide talent pool are engaged to make thefurther education sector world-class.

10

11

Introduction


The Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07provides an analysis of the national and regionalprofiles of the further education workforce inEngland. It looks at the further education workforceaccording to categories of age, disability, ethnicityand gender, but also recognises that there are nowseven equality strands that sector employers needto 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 varietyof legislative and regulatory measures. Three ofthese areas (disability, gender and race) are coveredby statutory duties while the other four are coveredby employment regulations and other legislation.

Equality legislation and regulations provide cruciallegal protection to individuals experiencingdiscrimination on the grounds of these qualities and attributes. The legislation also helps dismantlebarriers that prevent people from achieving theirgoals. The reason the legislation and regulations areimportant socially and economically, is that theyhelp to ensure that the talents of everyone in thecommunity can be harnessed and developed leadingto more vibrant communities, greater participationin economic activity and a fairer society.

Everyone can be affected by each of the aboveequality strands. Even disability is not restricted to particular individuals, and most people willexperience incapacity or impairment at some stagein their lives. The statutory equality duties aim toimprove and encourage relations between people,

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

Lifelong Learning UK support for the sectorLifelong Learning UK is the independent employer-ledsector skills council responsible for the professionaldevelopment of all those working in communitylearning and development, further education, highereducation, libraries, archives and informationservices, and work based learning across the UK.We represent the interests of over one millionindividuals working in lifelong learning in England,Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and act as thevoice of employers in this sector on skills issues.

Lifelong Learning UK provides the strategicperspective for workforce planning and developmentand influences and shapes relevant policy across the four UK nations. We are also responsible fordeveloping the Sector Qualifications Strategy for thelifelong learning sector and leading the collection ofworkforce data and providing analysis on workforcecharacteristics and trends to better inform futureworkforce planning. We also work with partnersand stakeholders to improve the dialogue betweenemployers and those who look to the lifelonglearning sector to meet their own skills needs.

Lifelong Learning UK is committed to, and activelypromotes, equality and diversity in the sector.Promoting diversity in the lifelong learning workforceis about attracting and retaining the best people,regardless of what group they belong to. Increasingthe diversity of the further education workforce is akey priority of The Workforce Strategy for the FurtherEducation Sector in England, 2007 – 2012. The datapresented in this report will provide intelligence forthe sector to develop a diverse workforce andmonitor progress.

12

Equalities and the priorities of The WorkforceStrategy for the Further Education Sector inEngland, 2007 - 2012The Workforce Strategy for the Further Education Sectorin England, 2007 – 2012 was developed by LifelongLearning UK and the wider further education sectorand aims to help shape the workforce of the future.By providing a national framework, it is intended tosupport all colleges and learning providers toimplement their own local workforce plans tosupport the delivery of excellent provision for youngpeople, adults and employers. It will help ensure thatthe skills development needs of all staff workingwithin the further education sector are identified andthat there is agreement within the wider furthereducation system of the priorities for national actionand investment, which can help individual collegesand learning providers deliver locally.

The strategy contains four overarching priority areasthat have been developed from an analysis of policydocuments and primary and secondary sectorresearch, supported by data analysis (whereavailable) and refined through consultation withcolleges and learning providers and other sectorrepresentatives. 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 ofstrategy, policy-making, planning and training.

Equality is both a key priority in its own right and anintegral element of the other priorities. Forexample, in understanding the nature of theworkforce, we need to understand how theworkforce is affected by legislation and regulationsor how organisational policies and proceduresimpact upon their ability to carry out theirprofessional role. We want to employ the best

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

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

• provides invaluable insights into the nature of theworkforce in the context of the equality strands, in particular gender, race, disability and age;

• illustrates how the sector is attracting andrecruiting a range of diverse people;

• contains information about staff retention anddevelopment in the sector;

• demonstrates the sector’s equality and diversityemployment profile.

Sector advisory groupsThe Workforce Race Advisory Group (WRAG) WRAG is a successor to the Commission for BlackStaff in further education and acts as an advisorygroup for the Department for Innovation, Universitiesand Skills (DIUS). It was set up to ensure that theleaders of national partner organisations and learningproviders have a mechanism to advise DIUS on issuesof race equality, as they impact on the workforce.WRAG collectively ensures that the Commission forBlack Staff in further education continues to shape andinform 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 racialdiversity of the workforce. It will directly contributeto the Workforce Strategy, the Sector Skills Agreementand Sector Qualifications Strategy for the lifelonglearning sector.


13

The Forum for Sexual Orientation and GenderIdentity Equality in Post-School EducationThe Forum was established in April 2007 and bringstogether partners from across the lifelong learningsector in order to co-ordinate their work on sexualorientation and gender identity. Lifelong LearningUK provides secretariat for The Forum, whichmeets quarterly.

Disability Equality Implementation Group (DEIG)DEIG was established following a report publishedby the Commission on Disabled Staff in LifelongLearning, called From Compliance to Culture Change - Disabled Staff Working in Lifelong Learning (March2008). DEIG brings together partners from acrossthe lifelong learning sector in order to implementthe recommendations highlighted in the report.

Why is equality and diversity important in thefurther education sector?Equality and diversity is of high importance in thefurther education sector. Colleges and other learningproviders should be places where everyone canlearn or work with dignity and respect. Promotingequality and diversity in the workforce enables thesector to develop and harness the talents of all staff,which in turn has benefit for learners, employers andother providers.

Promoting diversity within the further educationworkforce is about attracting and retaining the bestpeople, regardless of what group they belong to.Lifelong Learning UK has gathered considerableevidence to show that inclusive organisations benefitfrom diversity through:

• Enhanced competitiveness - attracting and retainingmore competent employees, who understand theneeds of their learners and respect differences.

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

• Improved customer services - being able to reflectand meet the diverse needs of learners.

• Improved staff relations, which reduce the risk of costly tribunals by complying with anti-discrimination legislation.

A key element here is the establishment of highquality processes and procedures for equality anddiversity monitoring.

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

For planning and strategic developmentUsing the sets of data in this report will help thosewith planning responsibilities in the sector to reflectcritically on their own organisation’s position. It isimportant to prepare strategically for the challengesahead. This report presents a rich supply of dataagainst which human resources and othersresponsible for planning can measure their ownfigures in a range of criteria against national, and insome cases regional, benchmarks. Having madecomparisons, providers can then set about identifyingthe questions they should ask in order to identify whytheir findings might vary from national figures, what iscausing these variations and what are the implicationsfor their workforce development strategy.

For benchmarkingWhile sets of data in this record concern furthereducation providers, colleges may find similar datasets from other sources, such as from a localauthority, to compare how their staffing reflectstheir local communities (for example, in terms ofrace and disability).


14

To support equality and diversity monitoring activitiesThe data and analysis provide information forproviders to inform the level of activity required ata local level, particularly with the promotion andencouragement of staff disclosing equality-relatedinformation. The more accurate the information,the better the sector will be in its successionplanning, addressing under-representation andmeeting the needs of local communities.

Legislative contextAs public bodies, providers in the further educationsector have legal duties to ensure that staff, learnersand other people who visit or use their services arenot discriminated against on the grounds of disability,gender or race. Indeed, the legislation goes furtherand requires the sector to actively promote goodrelations between people of different races and topromote equality between men and women andbetween disabled people and non-disabled people.

In addition, further education providers are boundby employment equality regulations and otherlegislation that protect staff, learners and visitorsfrom discrimination on the grounds of religion orbelief, sexual orientation, age or gender identity.

In the further education sector, these Acts and relatedRegulations are aimed at improving the working livesof those employed in the sector and the learningopportunities of those who enrol as learners. It istherefore crucial that the further education sectortakes an active role in adopting practices and raisingawareness of the legal significance that equality anddiversity has across the workforce. Key areas oflegislation and regulations are listed below.

Acts of Parliament• Equal Pay Act 1970

• Sex Discrimination Act 1975

• Race Relations Act 1976

• Disability Discrimination Act 1995

• Human Rights Act 1998

• Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000

• Gender Recognition Act 2004

• Civil Partnership Act 2004

• 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 appearcomplex, however, in essence the key requirementsof the legislation are straightforward. An overviewof their key features is provided in Appendix A ofthis report.


15

Outline of data sources and structure of reportThe Staff Individualised Record database providesthe basis for the annual collection of workforcestatistics and represents staff currently working in further education institutions in England. StaffIndividualised Record data has been collected byLifelong Learning UK since 2008, and prior to thisthe Learning and Skills Council was responsible forthe collection process.

Since 2005, Lifelong Learning UK has analysed theStaff Individualised Record data to produce annualreports on the characteristics and qualifications of theworkforce in England. This is the second AnnualWorkforce Diversity Profile to be published by LifelongLearning UK. It builds on the findings and trendspresented in the previous report and provides ananalysis of workforce characteristics for the academicyears 2004/05 to 2006/07. It also includes a summaryof recruitment and employment patterns of staff. Thereport is structured according to seven main sections.

The key characteristics of age, disability, ethnicity andgender are presented from Sections 1 to 4. Eachsection provides an overview of current staffing levelsand trends, as well as breakdowns by occupationalgroup, working pattern and type of contract. Theaims of each area of analysis are to:

• highlight changes in trends across the last threereported years;

• highlight significant differences in the occupationalprofile and employment conditions of theworkforce by age, gender, ethnicity and disability.

The occupational groups used for reporting are:

• managers1;

• teaching staff;

• all other staff2.

References to working pattern are stated as ‘full-time’ and ‘part-time’ and the categories used todefine types of contract refer to ‘permanent’ and‘fixed term / temporary’.

Sections 5 and 6 provide an overview of theworkforce in terms of recruitment and leavingrates. Each area is addressed according to the fourkey workforce characteristics of age, declareddisability, ethnicity and gender.

Section 7 is a supplementary section to the previousreport and shows a snap shot of the profile ofgovernors in further education colleges. The analysisaims to enable policy makers and further educationcolleges to explore the profile of governors againstthose of learners and staff members. Furtherinformation on the survey and findings is provided in this section.

The report is supported by Appendices, whichprovide additional legislative information, data tablesand an outline of the unique characteristics and trendsof the workforce for each of the nine regions inEngland. 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


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

16

Staff Individualised Record The data sample and consequent analysis in thisreport are primarily based on the annual returnsfrom colleges which are collated centrally in theStaff 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 institutionsreturning Staff Individualised Record data

Region 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

East Midlands 24 21 19

East of England 33 33 27

Greater London 46 48 37

North East 21 20 17

North West 58 60 53

South East 57 60 47

South West 32 30 25

West Midlands 45 44 34

Yorkshire and the Humber 33 36 27

England 349 352 286

Despite the lower returns in 2006/07, this stillrepresents a return rate of 76.6 per cent. In the past,where a further education institution has not returnedthe data within the time limit, data from the previousStaff Individualised Record collection has been used.This process of ‘back filling’ has been employed inprevious year’s collections. However, due to thelower number of institutions making returns in2006/07, this method has not been applied for theanalysis presented in this report. Therefore, the datapresented for all years in this report excludes all backfilled data so a consistent approach is maintained.

Data limitations• It is important to note that some returns were

not completed as thoroughly as necessary tomake a robust analysis. This particularly applies todata according to ethnicity, where the high levelsof ‘not known/not provided’ may compensate for the fact that, in almost every region, thepercentage of white British managers, teachersand all other staff is lower than the 2001 Censusdata, 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 bewholly accurate as the number of staff recordsbeing submitted with ‘not known’ informationhas increased since 2004/05. Overall, 13.7 percent of staff had no records available on disabilityin 2006/07. If the number of unknowns remainshigh then this will have implications for the sectorto accurately measure future disability levels withinthe workforce and ultimately establish suitablerecruitment strategies and workforce plans.

• Information on type of disability is not collected viathe Staff Individualised Record. We are thereforeunable to provide an overview of this characteristicof the workforce.

• No data has been captured through the StaffIndividualised Record of alternative gender identity(other than male or female), sexual orientation,religion or belief.


17

OverviewIn 2006/07, over 175,000 staff returns were submittedto the Staff Individualised Record database by furthereducation providers in England. Since 2004/05, thenumber of workforce returns has decreased by 21 percent, with the most notable fall observed between2005/06 and 2006/07 where returns fell by 19 percent (the equivalent to approximately 47,000 staff).To a large extent this may be attributed to the fall inthe number of providers that submitted returns in2006/07, rather than an actual fall in numbers acrossthe sector (see the introduction chapter of this reportfor a summary of submission processes and records).Nevertheless, the fall is significant and much largerthan the fall measured across the further educationlearner population during the same period (learnernumbers dropped by 9 per cent between 2005/06and 2006/07)3.

With the data available, we were unable to investigatecausal factors for the fall in staff numbers. It willtherefore be important for the sector to continue tomonitor this trend and investigate providers’ keymotives, which are having an impact on workforcenumbers to ensure that future provision is adequatelyplanned for and delivered.

Figure 1: Total number of staff in the furthereducation workforce in England, 2004/05 to 2006/07

Overall regional comparisonOver the last three years, all regions have noted afall in the total number of further education staffreturns. As stated previously, this may have largelybeen due to data anomalies as a result of the lowernumber of colleges submitting data. This was unableto be investigated further for the purpose of thisreport. Regions have experienced different rates ofchange in their staff numbers and the overall changein the distribution is outlined in Figure 2.

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

The key regional trends observed were:

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

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

Findings: National profile of the workforce


250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

02004/05222,164

Tota

l num

ber

of s

taff

2005/06218,846

2006/07175,025

3First Release ILR/SFR12, Further Education, Work Based Learning for Young People, Train to Gain and Adult Community Learning – Learner Numbers inEngland – October 2006 (Learning and Skills Council)

20

16

14

12

10

8

18

6

4

2

0East

MidlandsEast ofEngland

GreaterLondon

NorthEast

NorthWest

Region

SouthEast

SouthWest

WestMidlands

Yorkshireand theHumber

%

2004/052005/062006/07

18

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

• Since 2004/05, the proportionate size of the staffpopulation in the North West has grown the most.It represented 15.7 per cent of staff in England in2004/05 and 18.5 per cent in 2006/07.

• Greater London and the South East on the otherhand noted the largest falls in the size of theirstaff cohorts compared to other regions withboth representing 13.1 per cent and 14.2 percent respectively in 2004/05, and 12.0 per centand 12.9 per cent respectively in 2006/07.

• All other regions experienced a minimal changein the proportionate size of their staff cohortsacross the last three years.

Overall characteristics of staffIn relation to the characteristics of the workforceaccording 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. Theremaining 42.5 per cent were in roles classified asall other staff.

• Since 2004/05 there has been a small increase inthe proportion of staff working in manager rolesand all other staff roles. In comparison, the sizeof teaching staff has fallen slightly from 53.4 percent in 2004/05 to 50.9 per cent 2006/07.

Figure 3: Total proportion of staff in the furthereducation workforce in England by occupationalgroup, 2004/05 to 2006/07

In relation to the characteristics of the workforceaccording to terms of employment and workingpatterns, the main traits were:

• In 2006/07, 54.4 per cent of staff were employedpart-time and the remaining 45.6 per cent werefull-time.

• In 2006/07, 70.9 per cent were permanent andthe 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 onpermanent contracts. In 2004/05, 43.3 per cent ofstaff were full-time and by 2006/07 this increasedto 45.6 per cent. Staff on permanent contractsrepresented 70.9 per cent of staff in 2006/07which is a rise from 66.8 per cent in 2004/05.


6.1% 6.0% 6.5%

53.4% 53.0%50.9%

40.6% 40.9% 42.5%

Manager Teaching staff All other staff

2004/052005/062006/07

Figure 4: Total proportion of staff in the furthereducation workforce in England by working patternand type of contract, 2004/05 to 2006/07

The following sections of the report provide an in-depth analysis of the characteristics and trends inthe workforce in relation to age, declared disability,ethnicity and gender. These characteristics havebeen examined according to workforce occupationalgroups, working pattern and contract type in order toinvestigate underlying patterns of change and highlightthe most dominant traits. The findings provide anoverview of the national picture and regionalcomparisons have been presented where possible.Please refer to Appendix D for a detailed breakdownof staff characteristics and trends by region.

56.7%55.4% 54.4%

43.3%44.6% 45.6%

66.8%68.4% 70.9%

33.2% 31.6%29.1%

Part-time Full-timeMode of attendance Type of contract

Permanent Fixed term or temporary

2004/052005/062006/07

19

20

This section examines the overall age profile of theworkforce and continues to explore the trends andissues that relate to distinctions in age by occupationalgroups as well as terms of employment. The analysisdescribes the overall age profile of the furthereducation workforce, how the profile has changedthrough time and the distribution of staff of differentages across occupational groups, working patternand contract types.

Overall age profileThe main points noted were:

• 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 wereaged 40-44 years (14.4 per cent) and 50-54 years(13.8 per cent).

• The age groups 50-59 years and 35-39 years alsorepresented a significant proportion of staff, 12.9per cent and 12.0 per cent respectively.

• The under 25 years and 60 years and over agegroups represented the smallest staff populations.In 2006/07, these were 7.1 per cent and 7.7 percent respectively.

Based on Figure 5, the proportional representationof the age groups has remained broadly consistentover the three years with only a noteworthy changeobserved for the 60 and over age group (a rise from6.8 per cent in 2004/05 to 7.7 per cent in 2006/07).

The workforce is generally made up of older staffand the trends in the last few years show that thechange in this profile has been minimal. This raises a number of issues in relation to how the sectorevolves through the years with an ageing workforceand how succession planning is implemented.

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

Occupational group In relation to the characteristics of the workforceaccording to roles of staff, the findings have remainedconsistent over the last three years. The main trendsobserved were as follows:

• The age groups with the largest representation inmanager roles were 50-54 years (17.2 per centin 2006/07), 45-49 years (16.6 per cent) and 55-59 years (15.7 per cent). Teaching staff noted asimilar age profile to that of managers.

• The most significant difference in profile wasnoted in staff categorised as ‘all other staff’.Nearly a quarter of ‘all other staff’ were agedunder 30 years which is significantly higher thanthis 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 clearfrom the statistical evidence what roles youngermembers of staff are fulfilling in the sector. Thesignificant figure for under 30 year olds in the ‘all otherstaff’ category is likely to reflect those young peopleopting to start their careers in the further educationsector rather than in other sectors (for example, inadministration, finance or building services).

Section 1: Age profile of the workforce


16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0Under 25 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44

Age group45-49 50-54 55-59 60 and

over

%

2004/052005/062006/07

21

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

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

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

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Age group (years)

By observing the breakdown of roles within the agegroups, the profiles from 2006/07 were broken downfurther and confirmed as demonstrated in Figure 6.The instances of younger staff in teaching andmanager roles remains significantly low especiallyfor those aged under 25 years.

The under representation amongst teaching staffunder 25 years shouldn’t necessarily be seen assomething alarming. However, the figures mayindicate that more could be done to attract younggraduates to the further education sector.

Figure 6: Percentage of staff in the further educationworkforce in England by occupational group andwithin age group, 2006/07

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

45-49 50-54 55-59 60 andover

All other staffTeaching staffManagers

77.4%

18.9%

3.7%

50.9%

44.0%

5.1%

42.1%

51.8%

6.1%

39.1%

54.2%

6.7%

39.6%

54.0%

6.4%

37.9%

54.7%

7.4%

35.8%

56.0%

8.2%

36.8%

55.2%

8.0%

43.3%

52.4%

4.3%


Managers(percent)

Teachingstaff (percent)

All otherstaff (percent)

Managers(percent)



Managers(percent)



22

Table 3: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by age groups and workingpatterns, 2004/05 to 2006/07

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

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

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Part-time (per cent)

Age group (years) Full-time (per cent)


Full-time (per cent)



Working patternsIn relation to the characteristics of the workforceaccording to working patterns, the findings haveremained consistent over the last three years.

The age group with the highest representation ofpart-time staff in 2006/07 were those aged 55-59

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

Overall, although staff aged between 40-54 yearsrepresented the largest age groups in full-time andpart-time employment, the division of full-time andpart-time attendance within the age groups werevery similar. For example, Figure 7 shows that ofthose staff aged under 25 years, 43.9 per cent wereworking full-time. This is not significantly differentto the 43.7 per cent and 47.9 per cent of 40-44 or45-49 year olds who were working full-time as well.Only for staff aged 60 years and over did the full-time 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.

Figure 7: Percentage of staff in the further educationworkforce in England by working pattern and withinage group, 2006/07

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

45-49 50-54 55-59 60 andover

43.9%

56.1%

52.1%

47.9%

47.5%

52.5%

43.1%

56.9%

43.7%

56.3%

47.9%

52.1%

50.2%

49.8%

47.6%

52.4%

28.9%

71.1%

Full-timePart-time


23


Type of contractSimilar to the age composition of the differentoccupational groups and working patterns, the agegroups which represented the largest groups of staffin 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 ortemporary contracts, 13.4 per cent were aged 40-44years. All other age groups represented between 8.4per cent and 12.6 per cent of this contract typesignifying a minimal difference across age groups.

There have been some changes noted through theyears in the size of the age groups representingpermanent and fixed term or temporary contracts.While the proportion of staff on permanent contractshas increased slightly for staff aged 25-29 years, 55-59years and 60 years and over, staff aged 50-54 yearsexperienced a drop from 15.4 per cent in 2004/05to 14.9 per cent in 2006/07. All other age groupsnoted 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 2005/06 2006/07

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 9.9 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

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

PermanentAge group (years) Fixed term ortemporary

Permanent Fixed term ortemporary


Staff aged under 25 years and 60 years and over aremore likely to be employed on fixed term ortemporary contracts than staff of other ages. In2006/07, 47.1 per cent of under 25 year olds and 43.5per cent of staff aged 60 years and over were on fixedterm or temporary contracts, which is significantlyhigher than the 23.5 per cent to 29.3 per cent of stafffrom the other age groups, as displayed in Figure 8.

The high levels of temporary or fixed term contractsacross the workforce aged 60 years and over couldbe due to older staff working to top up pensions orworking at times that match other commitments. Itmight also be that sector employers are negotiatingdifferent types of employment patterns in order toretain the experience of older people. More researchwould be required to ascertain the reasons for this trend.

Figure 8: Percentage of staff in the further educationworkforce in England by contract type and withinage group, 2006/07

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

45-49 50-54 55-59 60 andover

Fixed term or temporaryPermanent

47.1%

52.9%

29.3%

70.7%

27.2%

72.8%

28.5%

71.5%

27.1%

72.9%

25.0%

75.0%

23.5%

76.5%

25.3%

74.7%

43.5%

56.5%

24

25

This section examines the overall profile of thefurther education workforce according to disabilityand provides a detailed outline of the characteristicsof those staff with a declared disability by occupationalgroup, working pattern and contract type.

Records collected on disability across the furthereducation workforce are limited and it is importantto note that the Staff Individualised Record disabilitydisclosure rates between 2004/05 and 2006/07 werelow. This was also highlighted by the Commissionfor Disabled Staff in Lifelong Learning in their reportFrom Compliance to Culture Change. In 2006/07,10.5 per cent of staff had a ‘not known’ disabilitydisclosure status. As a result, the data on disabilitypresented throughout this section should only be usedas an estimate, as these numbers represent declareddisability within the sector rather than actual disabilityas defined by the Disability Discrimination Act.

In addition, while providers are asked to submitrecords on whether staff have a disclosed disability,information on the full range of impairments has not been captured. Therefore, at this time it is notpossible to provide a breakdown of the differenttypes of disability. Lifelong Learning UK is lookinginto providing a breakdown of types of disability infuture reports.

Overall disability profileThe key characteristics noted are as follows:

• While the proportion of staff with a declareddisability remained very low over the three yearsit has increased from 2.0 per cent in 2004/05 to 2.6 per cent in 2006/07. This is significantlylower than the Disability Rights Commissionestimate of disabled people in the nationalpopulation (20 per cent).

• In 2006/07, the majority of staff were registeredas not having a declared disability (84.2 per cent).This rate has gradually been decreasing throughthe years.

• The size of the group of staff with ‘not known’disability disclosure information has beenincreasing and by 2006/07 10.5 per cent of staffwere within this category. As previously stated,the high levels of unknown records mean that thefigures and percentages reported for this analysismay not be representative of the workforce andtherefore the results are presented as estimatesof the actual situation.

Figure 9: Percentage of staff in the further educationworkforce in England by declared disability, 2006/07

Section 2: Disability profile of the workforce

2.0% 2.3% 2.6%

89.2% 87.8% 86.9%

8.8% 9.6% 10.5%

Yes NoDeclared disability

Not known

2004/052005/062006/07


26

When the roles were examined separately for staffwith a declared disability and those without, theoverall picture displayed was very similar (see Figure10). 50.7 per cent of all those staff who declared nodisability were working in teaching roles. Of thosestaff who did declare a disability, 52.1 per cent wereworking in teaching roles. It appeared that amarginally higher proportion of staff with no declareddisabilities were in management roles compared tothose with declared disabilities. However, due to thelarge proportion of unknown records in the field, thistrend is inconclusive.

Figure 10: Percentage of staff in the further educationworkforce in England by occupational group andwithin the declared disability groups, 2006/07


Table 5: Percentage of staff in the further education workforce in England by declared disability andoccupational group, 2006/07

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

Yes 1.8 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.7 2.6

No 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

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Managers(percent)

Declared disability Teachingstaff (percent)


Managers(percent)



Managers(percent)




Not known


42.2%

52.1%

5.6%

42.5%

50.7%

6.8%

42.7%

52.9%

4.4%

Occupational groupAs a result of the large proportion of staff with ‘notknown’ as their declared disability status, significantfindings were unable to be drawn on the distinctionsin the disability profile of staff across differentoccupational groups. Based on the data available, the main observations made were:

• In 2006/07, 90.6 per cent of staff in managementroles did not have a declared disability while 2.2 percent of managers did. The proportion of managerswith a declared disability was slightly lower thanthat for teaching staff (2.7 per cent had a declareddisability) and all other staff (2.6 per cent).

• Across the last three reported years, theproportion of staff with a declared disability hasincreased marginally across all occupational groups.

27

Working patternsFor this analysis, only data on those staff with adeclared disability was available. Therefore, pleasenote that no comparative analysis is providedagainst those staff without declared disabilities.

Overall, there has been an increase in the proportionof 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 percent. On the other hand, the proportion of staffworking on a part-time basis with a declareddisability fell slightly from 58.4 per cent in 2004/05to 51.7 per cent in 2006/07 (see Figure 11).

Figure 11: Percentage of staff in the furthereducation workforce in England with a declareddisability by working pattern, 2004/05 to 2006/07

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

Type of contractSimilarly to the outline provided above for workingpattern, information on contract type was onlyavailable for those staff with a disclosed disability.Therefore, a comparative analysis is not providedagainst those staff without declared disabilities.

Just over three quarters of staff with a declareddisability worked on a permanent basis in 2006/07.The proportion of staff working on permanentcontracts increased consistently through the years,whereas the proportion working on fixed term ortemporary contracts has been falling (see Figure 12).

Figure 12: Percentage of staff in the furthereducation workforce in England with a declareddisability by type of contract, 2004/05 to 2006/07

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


2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

25.5%

74.5%

29.3%

70.7%

22.6%

77.4%


2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

41.6%

58.4%

45.8%

54.2%

48.3%

51.7%

Full-timePart-time

28

Ethnicity across the further education workforcehas been analysed according to six categories: Asian,black, mixed, Chinese/Other, white and Unknown.An outline of how the ethnicity groups have beendefined is provided below:

• Asian: Asian or Asian British – Bangladeshi; Asianor Asian British – Indian; Asian or Asian British –Pakistani; Asian or Asian British – any other Asianor Asian British background.

• Black: black or black British – African; black orblack British – Caribbean; black or black British – any other black or black British background.

• Mixed: mixed – white and Asian; mixed – whiteand black African; mixed – white and blackCaribbean; mixed – any other mixed background.

• Chinese / other: Chinese and any otherbackground.

• White: white – British; white – Irish; white – anyother white background.

• Unknown – not known / not provided.

This section aims to provide an outline of the ethnicprofile of the further education workforce anddetermine how the representation of staff from blackand minority ethnic groups has changed over recentyears. Black and minority ethnic groups include thosestaff from Asian, black, mixed and Chinese / otherethnic groups. Where possible, a comparison hasbeen made to the black and minority ethnic profileof the further education learner population.

Please note that in the case of ethnicity data, therewere a large number of staff with ‘not known/notprovided’ records and the proportionate size of thisunknown cohort has increased through the years.Due to high levels of unknown records, the figuresand percentages stated for all ethnic categories maynot be fully representative of the actual situation.

Section 3: Ethnicity profile of the workforce

29

Overall ethnicity profileThe main characteristics were:

• The proportion of staff with an unknown ethnicgroup has risen year on year and by 2006/07 itreached 9.6 per cent. The continuation of thistrend will certainly have a detrimental impact onthe sector as the lack of records will affect theability to accurately measure developments in theworkforce in terms of race equality and ensure thatthe workforce advances in line with other sectors.

• The reported figures show that the majority ofstaff in the further education workforce werefrom a white ethnic group and in 2006/07, theyrepresented 82.6 per cent of all staff. Since2004/05, this percentage has been graduallyfalling. This proportion is slightly higher than the79.6 per cent of learners in further educationwho are of a white ethnic group.4

• Black and minority ethnic staff in the furthereducation workforce appear to be severelyunder represented in comparison to the learnerpopulation. In 2006/07, 16.8 per cent of learnerswere from black and minority ethnic groupswhereas only 7.7 per cent of staff were from thisethnic group. The proportion of learners fromblack and minority ethnic groups has increased at a faster rate than that in the staff population5.

• When compared to the profile of the generalpopulation across England, black and minorityethnic representation in the further educationworkforce continued to be low. Based onCensus 2001 population statistics, 9.1 per cent of the national population were from black andminority ethnic groups, which is higher than thelatest staff figure of 7.7 per cent. Although theCensus population figures are outdated and theethnic profile of the country has developedsignificantly over the years, this comparisonprovides a minimum benchmark figure for thesector to use in order to compare howrepresentative the staff population is.

• Staff from mixed ethnic groups represented thesmallest proportion of the workforce and in2006/07, 0.7 per cent were from this background.Overall, the proportion of staff from mixed ethnicgroups has remained broadly the same over thethree years.

• Staff from the Chinese/other ethnic grouprepresented the second smallest ethnic groupwith 1.4 per cent of staff in 2006/07.

• Staff from Asian and black ethnic groupsrepresented a slightly higher proportion of thestaff population with 3.0 per cent from Asianethnic groups and 2.6 per cent from black ethnicgroups in 2006/07. Similar to the trend recordedfor staff from mixed ethnic groups, the profile ofAsian and black staff has remained relativelyunchanged over the years.

Figure 13: Percentage of staff in the furthereducation workforce in England by ethnicity,2004/05 to 2006/07


4Learner proportions are based on the Individualised Learner Record 2006/07, Learning and Skills Council.5Source: Individualised Learner Record, 2006/07, Learning and Skills Council.

2.9%3.1%

3.0% 2.6%2.7%

2.6%

Asian Black Chinese/other

Ethnic group

UnknownWhiteMixed

2004/052005/062006/07

1.2%1.4%

1.4% 0.6%0.7%

0.7%

8.3%8.7% 9.6%

84.4%83.5%

82.6%

30

Occupational groupOverall, the ethnic profile of staff across the threemain occupational groups (managers, teaching staffand all other staff) is not significantly different andhas remained consistent over the last three years.

In 2006/07, 87.5 per cent of managers were of awhite ethnic group. This is broadly similar to theproportion 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 thedifferent occupational groups ranged from 2.2 percent to 3.1 per cent and this has remained fairlyconsistent since 2004/05. The proportion of stafffrom mixed and Chinese / other ethnic groups hascontinued to be very low across all occupationalgroups, especially in management roles where only0.5 per cent of staff were from a mixed backgroundand 0.9 per cent were Chinese / other.


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

2004/05 2005/06 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 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.7 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

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Managers(percent)

Ethnic group Teachingstaff (percent)


Managers(percent)



Managers(percent)



31

Table 7 provides an outline of the total number andproportion of staff from black and minority ethnicgroups across the different occupational groups, as well as the percentage figure based on the StaffIndividualised Record returns. When observing theaggregated figures for this ethnic group, the keyfindings were:

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

• In 2006/07, 7.8 per cent of teaching staff werefrom black and minority ethnic groups. Thisproportion has risen since 2004/05.

• The proportion of staff from black and minorityethnic groups in roles defined as all other staffhas increased slightly through the years to reach7.9 per cent in 2006/07.

The data provides some base line information aboutthe percentage of people from black and minorityethnic backgrounds working in the further educationsector nationally, but the overall picture is not clear.As job roles cut across the teaching and supportfunctions, it is difficult to ascertain from the data thelevels at which employees from various non-whitebackgrounds might be working at.


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 2005/06 2006/07

Managers 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

CountOccupational group per cent Count per cent Count per cent

32

Whilst the ethnic profile of all occupational groupsshows that there was a low representation of blackand minority ethnic staff within the different ethnicgroups (e.g. Asian, white, black, mixed etc.) therewere no significant differences in incidences ofoccupational group (see Figure 14). For example, in 2006/07, 50.6 per cent of staff from white ethnicgroups were in teaching roles. This is parallel to the50.2 per cent of Asian staff and the 52.3 per cent ofblack staff working in the same roles.

Whilst 6.9 per cent of staff from white ethnic groupswere employed in management roles, between 4.1per cent and 5.4 per cent of staff from black andminority ethnic groups were in equivalent job types.Although these levels have remained consistent overthe three years, it will be important to monitor thisdistribution in future to ensure that there are equalopportunities for all ethnic groups to accessmanagement roles, so the differences in rates arekept to a minimum.

Figure 14: Percentage of staff in the furthereducation workforce in England by occupationalgroup and within ethnic group, 2006/07

Working patternsOverall, there has not been a large change in theethnic profile of the further education workforce by working pattern in relation to full-time and part-time employment.

• In 2006/07, 83.5 per cent of staff working full-timein further education were from white ethnicgroups, which is lower than the 86.2 per centshare they represented in 2004/05.

• The proportion of full-time further educationstaff from black and minority ethnic groups hasremained consistent and in 2006/07, theyrepresented 7.9 per cent of this cohort.

• The representation of staff from black andminority ethnic groups in part-time employmentis very similar to that in full-time, In 2006/07, 8 per cent of part-time staff were from a blackand minority ethnic group.


Asian Black Chinese/otherEthnic group

UnknownWhiteMixed


44.5%

5.2%

50.2%

42.4%

5.4%

52.3%

43.4%

4.1%

52.5%

43.7%

4.6%

51.7%

42.5%

6.9%

50.6%

42.4%

4.4%

53.2%

33

The incidences of part-time and full-time employmentacross the different ethnic groups do not differsignificantly as displayed in Figure 15. The mostnoticeable trend is that there was a significantlyhigher proportion of staff in the ‘unknown’ ethnicgroup category that worked part-time (69.4 percent in 2006/07) than the other ethnic groups. This trend could not be analysed further with thedata available. This may indicate that there areinconsistencies in collecting ethnicity records fromstaff working on a part-time basis, which may needto be addressed in a wider context by the sector.

Figure 15: Percentage of staff in the further educationworkforce in England by working pattern and withinethnic group, 2006/07

Type of contractDue to the high levels of unknown ethnicity recordsfor staff working on fixed term or temporarycontracts, conclusive trends on the ethnicity profilesof staff working on different contract types wereunable to be drawn. The following summary isprovided as an indicative picture rather than anactual representation of the ethnic profile.


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

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

Asian 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.1 3.0 3.1

Black 2.3 3.0 2.6 2.4 3.0 2.7

Mixed 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 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

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Ethnic group Full-time (per cent)





Asian Black MixedEthnic group

UnknownWhiteChinese/other

46.0%

54.0%

49.0%

51.0%

42.2%

57.8%

43.1%

56.9%

47.2%

52.8%

30.6%

69.4%

Full-timePart-time

34

Similar limitations to those described above apply toFigure 16. Staff with unknown ethnicity records aremore likely to work on fixed term or temporarycontracts than any other ethnic group. This verifiesthe need for the sector to review its systems ofcollecting staff records, specifically on ethnicity, toensure that the profile of the further educationworkforce can be accurately measured andobserved to support workforce developmentstrategies and planning processes.

Figure 16: Percentage of staff in the furthereducation workforce in England by contract typeand within ethnic groups, 2006/07


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 2005/06 2006/07

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 0.7 0.7 0.7 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

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

PermanentEthnic group Fixed term ortemporary



In 2006/07, 14.4 per cent of staff on fixed term ortemporary contracts did not have records availableon their ethnic background. This raises specificquestions in regards to why this data is not availableand whether there are specific barriers which areimpeding the data collection process.

There is a specific need to raise awareness of theimportance of capturing ethnicity information for

all staff employed across the sector, no matter thecontract type, to ensure that equality across all rolesis monitored. It is important that the sectorestablishes functional mechanisms to capture keypieces of information on the characteristics of theworkforce to ensure that providers and stakeholdersadequately meet their legislative duties to monitorand promote race equality across the workforce.

Asian Black MixedEthnic group

UnknownWhiteChinese/other

32.6%

67.4%

27.4%

72.6%

31.1%

68.9%

29.9%

70.1%

27.4%

72.6%

43.7%

56.3%


35

The following analysis presents an overview of the gender profile of the workforce according tooccupational group and terms of employment. Theanalysis describes the overall gender profile of theworkforce by key characteristics and highlightswhere there are significant gaps between genders.

Overall gender profileFirstly an overall profile of the gender distributionwas analysed (Figure 17a) and then a more detailedlook at the gender profile of staff across different agecategories was examined (Figure 17b). The main pointsnoted on the general gender profile of staff were:

• Female staff have continued to represent themajority of the workforce across the years and in2006/07 they represented nearly two thirds ofthe workforce (63.4 per cent). This rate variesacross the different occupational groups (this isexplored in the next section).

• 36.6 per cent of staff in 2006/07 were male andthis percentage has remained consistent over thethree reporting years.

• The ratio of female:male staff has remained thesame over the years of almost 2:1, meaning thaton average there were two female staff for everymale staff member.

Figure 17a: Percentage of staff in the furthereducation workforce in England by gender, 2004/05to 2006/07

The gender distribution was relatively consistentacross all age groups except for the older cohortswhere the proportion of male staff is greater. 43.3per cent of staff aged 55-59 years were male, andacross the age group 60 years and over theproportion of staff that were male was higher thanthe proportion of females. This is the only instancewhere this occurs in the sector whereby the gendersplit for staff aged 60 years and over was recordedas 53.6 per cent male and 46.5 per cent female.The age band and gender division is examinedfurther across occupational groups below.

Figure 17b: Percentage of staff in the furthereducation workforce in England by age and gender,2004/05 to 2006/07

Occupational groupThe gender split across the different occupationalgroups has not changed significantly over the yearsfrom 2004/05 to 2006/07. In 2006/07, the largestdifference was noted across staff in roles categorisedas ‘all other staff’ where 69.4 per cent were femaleand 30.6 per cent were male (a gender ratio of2.2:1). The smallest difference was observed acrossteaching staff where 58.7 per cent were female andthe remaining 41.3 per cent were male.

Section 4: Gender profile of the workforce


63.5% 63.6% 63.4%

36.5% 36.4% 36.6%

FemaleGender

Male

2004/052005/062006/07

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

45-49 50-54 55-59 60 andover

MaleFemale

36.7%

63.3%

34.3%

65.7%

34.1%

65.9%

32.3%

67.7%

32.3%

67.7%

33.1%

66.9%

36.2%

63.8%

43.3%

56.7%

53.6%

46.4%

36

When the gender profile was observed across thedifferent occupational and age groups, certaindisparities became more noticeable and someinteresting points were observed.

• 71.0 per cent of managers aged under 25 yearswere female and the remaining 29.0 per cent weremale. This was the largest gender gap noted withinmanagement roles across different age groups.

• The proportion of male managers in the older agegroups was significantly higher than the youngerage groups. For managers aged 55-59 years, thegender split was equal (50 per cent male and 50per cent female) and for management staff aged60 years and over, 54.0 per cent were male and46.0 per cent were female.

• Within teaching roles, females generallyrepresented the largest proportion of staff acrossall age groups except for those aged 60 years andover. For teaching staff within this age group,there was a slightly higher proportion of malestaff (57.4 per cent) than female (42.6 per cent).

• Across roles classified as ‘all other staff’, thegender distribution within the younger age group(under 30 year olds) was approximately twothirds female and one third male. This gendergap increased as age increased. However, thistrend stopped for staff aged over 55 years, whichis when the difference in proportions betweenmale and female staff decreased.

Figure 18: Percentage of staff in the furthereducation workforce in England by occupationalgroup, gender and age, 2006/07

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


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

2004/05 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 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Managers(percent)

Gender Teachingstaff (percent)


Managers(percent)



Managers(percent)



100

70

80

60

90

50

40

30

20

10

0

%


Fem

ale

Mal

e

Under 25

Fem

ale

Mal

e

25-29

Fem

ale

Mal

e

30-34

Fem

ale

Mal

e

35-39

Fem

ale

Mal

e

40-44

Fem

ale

Mal

e

45-49

Fem

ale

Mal

e

50-54

Fem

ale

Mal

e

55-59

Fem

ale

Mal

e

60 andover

Age group

37

Figure 19: Percentage of staff in the furthereducation workforce in England by occupationalgroup and within group and gender, 2006/07

Working patternsIn terms of working pattern, the gender gapamongst part-time staff is much larger than that forstaff working full-time. 71.1 per cent of staff workingpart-time were female and only 28.9 per cent weremale in 2006/07. In the case of full-time staff, 54.1per cent were female and 45.9 per cent were malein the same year.


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

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

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 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0


Working pattern Full-time (per cent)





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

FemaleGender

Male


46.6%

6.2%

47.2%

35.5%

7.1%

57.4%

Whilst female staff made up the majority of theworkforce in both types of contract, the proportionof contract types across both genders was verysimilar. That is, there was no significant difference inthe instances of both contract types within eitherthe female or male workforce.

Figure 21 illustrates that, whilst 70.3 per cent offemales were on permanent contracts, an equivalentproportion of male staff were also on permanentcontracts (71.8 per cent in 2006/07). Based on thestatistics from the Staff Individualised Record, thereis no clear evidence to suggest that either male orfemale staff were more likely to work on permanent,fixed term or temporary contracts, which reflects theoverall gender distribution across the workforce.

Figure 21: Percentage of staff in the furthereducation workforce in England by contract typeand within gender group, 2006/07

38

Figure 20: Percentage of staff in the furthereducation workforce in England by working patternand gender, 2006/07

Type of contractThe gender distribution across permanent and fixedterm or temporary contracts has been stable acrossthe years. In 2006/07, 62.9 per cent of staff onpermanent contracts were female and the remaining37.1 per cent were male. A similar gender breakdownwas measured for staff on fixed or temporarycontracts (see Table 12).


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

2004/05 2005/06 2006/07

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 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

PermanentType of contract Fixed term ortemporary



FemaleGender

Male

29.7%

70.3%

28.2%

71.8%


FemaleGender

Male

38.8%

61.2%

57.1%

42.9%

Full-timePart-time

39

Section 5: Workforce recruitment


Overall summaryThis section examines the data that was availablefrom the Staff Individualised Record regarding the recruitment of staff in the further educationworkforce. The analysis provides an overview of recruitment trends across the years 2004/05,2005/06 and 2006/07 according to region as well ascharacteristics including age, disability, ethnicity andgender. Recruitment figures are based on staffreturns and therefore the fall in numbers in 2006/07may be attributed to the general fall in returnsrather than an actual drop in recruitment.

Recruitment is calculated using start date information.Please note that the data cannot identify whether astaff member is new to the further education sectoror whether they have come from another role withinthe sector. Therefore, the aim of this analysis is toprovide a general overview of employment patternsand characteristics across the sector rather than apicture of actual changes.

The number of staff recruited across all roles in 2004/05was just over 49,800. In 2005/06, staff recruitment fellto 42,903 and in 2006/07 recruitment numbers fell again32,301. Since 2004/05, the number of staff recruitedhas dropped by 35.6 per cent. Please note that whilerecruitment has been falling, the number of staff leavinghas also dropped and is further explored in the nextsection (Section 6: Workforce leaving rates).

Figure 22: Number of staff recruited to the furthereducation workforce in England in the last threeyears, 2004/05 to 2006/07

Regional overview and comparisonIn 2006/07 the largest proportion of staff recruitedregionally were located in the North West,representing 19.3 per cent of all staff recruited inEngland. The second and third largest cohorts ofstaff were recruited in Greater London (13.6 percent) and the South East (12.2 per cent). Regionswith the smallest staff recruitment populations werethe North East (5.6 per cent), East Midlands (8.9 percent) and the East of England (9.0 per cent). Thispattern is consistent with the general distribution of the staff population across regions and with theoverall size of each region.

Since 2004/05, the proportionate size of the staffpopulation in the North West has grown the mostrepresenting 16.5 per cent of staff in England in2004/05 and a significant 19.3 per cent in 2006/07.

The South West and East Midlands noted the largestregional drop in the numbers of staff recruited acrossthe three years, reporting a 10.7 per cent and 9.9 percent drop respectively in 2004/05 and a 9.7 per centand 9.2 per cent drop in 2006/07.

Figure 23: Total proportion of staff recruited to thefurther education workforce in England by region,2004/05 to 2006/07

50,000

45,000

40,000

35,000

30,0002004/05

49,819

42,903

32,301

2005/06 2006/07

20

16

14

12

10

8

18

6

4

2

0East


GreaterLondon

NorthEast

NorthWest

SouthEast

SouthWest

WestMidlands


%

2004/052005/062006/07

40

Age profileIn 2006/07, 17.1 per cent of all staff recruited to theworkforce were aged under 25 years. A further 13.6per cent and 13.0 per cent of recruited staff wereaged 40-44 years and 35-39 years respectively.Recruitment was very low for staff aged 55 yearsand over with 55-59 year olds representing 7.7 percent of recruited staff and staff aged 60 years andover representing 5.1 per cent of all staff recruitedin 2006/07.

Almost all age groups experienced reductions in the number of new staff recruited in 2006/07 whencompared to the numbers reported in 2004/05. Inparticular, the age group of 30-34 years noted thelargest reduction (12.3 per cent in 2004/05 comparedto 11.0 per cent in 2006/07). Recruitment of staffaged under 25 years rose in proportion to the otherage groups from 15 per cent in 2004/05 to 17.1 percent in 2006/07.

Figure 24: Percentage of staff recruited to thefurther education workforce in England by agegroup, 2004/05 to 2006/07

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

Similar to the issue raised on ethnicity records forrecruited staff, a large proportion of unknowninformation has continued to be registered for staffreturns on disability declared. In 2006/07, 13.7 percent of staff recruited were registered with a disabilitystatus of ‘not known’ and through the years thisproportion has continued to increase.

This indicates that providers will need to be proactivein encouraging new recruits to disclose informationabout disability, if data is to improve in the future.

Figure 25: Percentage of staff recruited to thefurther education workforce in England by declareddisability, 2004/05 to 2006/07


1.7% 1.8% 2.1%

85.8% 84.0% 84.2%

12.5% 14.2%13.7%


Not known

2004/052005/062006/07

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0Under 25 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44

Age group45-49 50-54 55-59 60 and

over

%

2004/052005/062006/07

41

Ethnicity profileThe highest proportion of staff recruited were froma white ethnic group. In 2004/05, staff from whiteethnic groups represented 76.4 per cent of allrecruited staff. However, this proportion fell slightlythrough the years. In 2006/07, 72.6 per cent of staffrecruited were from a white ethnic group. Althoughblack and minority ethnic groups represented a smallproportion of staff recruited, through the yearsthere has been an overall rise in the size of individualblack and minority ethnic groups. In particular, theproportion of staff recruited from Asian ethnicgroups increased marginally from 3.8 per cent to4.0 per cent and staff from black ethnic groupsincreased from 3.2 per cent to 3.5 per cent.

The percentage of staff in the ‘not known / notprovided’ category rose year on year and in manycases accounted for over 10 per cent of returns.This presents significant challenges for equalitymonitoring in the workforce.

Figure 26: Percentage of staff recruited to thefurther education workforce in England by ethnicity,2004/05 to 2006/07

Gender profileThe number of female staff recruited across thethree reported years outnumbered the number ofmale recruits in the same period. In 2004/05, 64.1per cent of staff recruited were female and 35.9 percent were male. Overall, the proportion of femalestaff recruited has fallen slightly and the proportionof male recruits has risen. In 2006/07, 62.2 per centof staff recruited were female and 37.8 per centwere male. This recruitment pattern is generallyuniform to the gender profile of staff across thefurther education workforce (see Section 4: Genderprofile of workforce).

From the information available on staff recruited, itwas not possible to ascertain which occupationalgroups men and women were recruited to over this period.

Figure 27: Percentage of staff recruited to thefurther education workforce by gender, 2004/05 to 2006/07


64.1% 62.8% 62.2%

35.9% 37.2% 37.8%

FemaleGender

Male

2004/052005/062006/07

80

60

50

40

30

20

70

10

0Asian Black Mixed White-

British

Ethnic group

White-other

Other Not known/not provided

%

2004/052005/062006/07

42

Overall summaryThis section explores the leaving rates that wererecorded in the Staff Individualised Record for thethree academic years from 2004/5 to 2006/07. Theaim of the analysis is to provide the sector with anoverall picture of the leaving rates of furthereducation staff, how trends have changed and the keyfeatures in the trends based on the four reportedequality and diversity strands.

It should be noted that an individual recorded as aleaver in the Staff Individualised Record may nothave left the sector, but may have joined anotherinstitution within the sector. Reasons may includepromotion, to secure a full-time or permanent role,or a change from full-time to part-time employment.Further evidence is needed to determine thedestinations of these leavers.

Based on returns, the number of staff leaving theworkforce since 2004/05 has reduced significantlyover the three years (see Figure 28). In 2004/05, theleaving rate was 18.2 per cent (this rate is based onthe total number of leavers divided by total numberof staff in the sector for the year). The leaving rateincreased to 18.8 per cent in 2005/06, but by 2006/07the rate reduced significantly to 14.0 per cent.

Figure 28: Number of staff leaving the furthereducation workforce in England in the last threeyears, 2004/05 to 2006/07

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

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

Section 6: Workforce leaving rates


250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

0

50,000

2004/05

49,819

222,164218,846

174,997

42,90332,30124,45741,07640,523

2005/06 2006/07

Number of staff leavingNumber of staff recruitedAll staff

43

Regions with the lowest rates of staff leaving theworkforce were the North East (4.4 per cent) andthe East of England (9.7 per cent) in 2006/07. Theseleaving rates broadly reflect the overall size of theworkforce in each region. The North West representsthe largest regional number of staff in England andthe North East and East of England have smallerpopulations. The number of leavers is thereforeconsistent with these respective staff populations.

All regions have reported a fall in the number of staffleaving. Since 2004/05 the rates at which staff ofdifferent ages left the sector has varied and, similar tothe regional analysis, the overall proportions hasaffected the total percentages of leavers per region.Based on Figure 29, the regions that experienced adrop in the rate of staff leaving between 2004/05 and2006/07 were Yorkshire and the Humber (1.7 percent), 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 furthereducation workforce in England by region, 2004/05to 2006/07

Age profileFigure 29 displays the age profile of all staff leavingthe workforce over the last three years. In 2006/07,the age group with the largest proportion of leaverswere those aged 40-44 years, representing 12.5 percent of all leaving staff. The second largest group of leavers were those aged under 25 years andrepresented 12.3 per cent of all leaving staff.

Since 2004/05, the rates at which staff of differentages left the sector has varied and similar to theregional analysis, the overall proportions of agegroups within the leaving cohort has changed. Theage groups that experienced increases in thepercentage of leaving staff between 2004/05 and2006/07 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 furthereducation workforce in England by age group,2004/05 to 2006/07


20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0Under 25 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44

Age group45-49 50-54 55-59 60 and

over

%

2004/052005/062006/07

20

16

14

12

10

8

18

6

4

2

0East


GreaterLondon

NorthEast

NorthWest

Region

SouthEast

SouthWest

WestMidlands


%

2004/052005/062006/07

44

Disability profileSimilar to the profile of the general staff population,the majority of staff leavers did not have a declareddisability. In 2006/07, 83.6 per cent of staff leavers didnot have a declared disability and 2.7 per cent did.Information on declared disability for the remaining13.7 per cent of the staff leaver population was notknown and this proportion has increased since 2004/05.

The continued lack of accurate records on declareddisability will have a detrimental impact on the abilityof the sector to reliably assess the characteristics ofleavers and further investigate their reasons for leaving.

Figure 31: Percentage of staff leaving the furthereducation workforce in England by declareddisability, 2004/05 to 2006/07

Ethnicity profileIn 2004/05, 79.0 per cent of staff leavers were froma white ethnic group. All non-white ethnic groupsrepresented small proportions over the three yearsand overall the ethnic profile of leavers remainedconsistent with the ethnicity profile of the overallworkforce. The leaving rates for most black andminority ethnic groups have fallen since 2004/05 andwere at their lowest levels at the end of the threeyear period. Since 2004/05, there has been anincrease in the leaving rates of staff from ethniccategories which are ‘not known/not provided’.

It is essential that a concerted effort is made acrossthe sector to capture information regarding ethnicorigin as accurately as possible, to ensure that therates for other ethnic groups are not distorted byunknown records.

Figure 32: Percentage of staff leaving the furthereducation workforce by ethnicity, 2004/05 to 2006/07


90

80

60

50

40

30

20

70

10

0Asian Black Mixed White

Ethnic group

Chinese/other Not known/not provided

%

2004/052005/062006/07

2.0% 2.3% 2.7%

84.8% 85.2% 83.6%

13.2% 12.6%13.7%


Not known

2004/052005/062006/07

45

Gender profileIn general, there were more female staff leaving theworkforce across all years compared to male staffand this was consistent with the overall genderprofile of the workforce. In 2006/07, 62.9 per centof staff leavers were female and 37.1 per cent weremale. Across the years however, the proportion offemale staff leaving the workforce has fallen slightlyand the proportion of male staff has increased. In2004/05, female staff leavers represented 63.4 percent of all staff leavers and in 2006/07 this rate fellslightly to 62.9 per cent. In 2004/05, 36.6 per centof staff leavers were male and in 2006/07, the rateincreased to 37.1 per cent.

Figure 33: Percentage of staff leaving the furthereducation workforce by gender, 2004/05 to 2006/07

63.4% 63.5% 62.9%

36.6% 36.5% 37.1%

FemaleGender

Male

2004/052005/062006/07

46

This section provides an overview of the diversityprofile of governors in the further education sector.The data and findings are based on research carriedout by the Centre for Excellence in Leadership(now called the Learning and Skills ImprovementService) on behalf of Lifelong Learning UK, in orderto establish the current characteristics of governorsin the sector.

Research process All clerks of further education providers in Englandwere invited to participate in the research andreceived a letter from the Chief Executive of theCentre of Excellence and Leadership specifying theresearch purpose and aims. Data was collected viaonline and paper-based questionnaires during Augustand September 2008 and a total of 1,052 responseswere received. Given an estimate of 8,000 - 9,000governors in the sector this constitutes a responserate of between 12.0-13.0 per cent.

The analysis of the data is structured according to thekey characteristics identified below.

• Age

• Disability

• Ethnicity

• Gender / gender identity

• Religion or belief

• Sexual orientation

Background of sampleFigure 34 establishes that the majority of those who participated in the survey started their role asgovernor in the last five years. From the data it hasalso been calculated that governors serve an averageperiod of five years.

Figure 34: Total number of respondents by startdate, as at September 2008

Figure 35 outlines the most common professionalbackgrounds of governors across the further educationsector. These are sectors that governors are eithercurrently working in or have previously worked in. Inthis case, governors were able to select more thanone option so the percentage results are based onthe total number of respondents (n=1,052) andtherefore the sum of the percentages will be equalto more than 100 per cent.

The two most popular sectors were the privatesector (38.6 per cent) and the public sector (35.5per cent). Seven per cent of respondents indicated‘other professional backgrounds’ and specificexamples of these included the higher educationsector and the Royal Navy.

Section 7: Profile of governors


160

120

100

80

60

40

140

20

075 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

No. of governors started during this year

Year

47

Figure 35: Percentage of governors by professionalbackground, September 2008

Note: The sum of all percentage figure does not addup to one hundred percent because respondentswere allowed to select more than one category.

Age profile of governorsThe age profile clearly demonstrates that the mostcommon age group of governors was 56 years orover, with nearly half (46.7 per cent) of respondinggovernors in this age group. Looking further into theage profile of governors, the second largest groupwas 46-55 years (34.2 per cent). The results indicatedthat governors aged 25-35 years and under 25 yearswere under represented (2.7 per cent and 3.0 percent of the sample respectively).

Figure 36: Percentage of governors by age group,September 2008

Disability profile of governorsOverall, the percentage of disabled governorsreported was very low (5.7 per cent) whereas thepercentage of governors that indicated they do nothave a disability was 92.4 per cent. On average, therates of disability across the governor population areslightly higher than that for the further educationworkforce where in 2006/07, just 2.6 per cent of the further education workforce declared they hada disability.

Figure 37: Percentage of governors by declareddisability, September 2008

In addition to asking governors to provide informationon key characteristics such as age, gender, ethnicityand disability, respondents were also asked tocomplete a series of questions on their religion orbelief as well as sexual orientation. The followingsections provide a summary of these results.


70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0Under 25 25-35 36-45

Age group46-55 56+ Prefer not

to say

%

5.7%1.9%

92.4%

YesNoPrefer not to say

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0FE Sector Voluntary/

Third SectorRetired Public

Sector

Professional Background

SelfEmployed

Other PrivateSector

Student

%

Some other professional backgrounds:Higher EducationClerk in Holy OrdersRoyal Navy

Ethnicity profile of governorsFigure 38 shows the ethnicity profile of governors.Two categories were used to identify ethnic groupin this survey: white and black and minority ethnicgroups. In this case, black and minority ethnic groupsrepresent 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 withinblack and minority ethnic figures.

The findings show that the most common ethnicgroup is white, representing 89.4 per cent of allgovernors who responded. Black and minority ethnicgovernors represented 9.3 per cent of the sample,which is a higher percentage than the average rate ofblack and minority ethnic people across the nationalpopulation (7.9 per cent, based on Census data 2001).

It is recommended that the number of black andminority ethnic governors should represent thediversity of a further education provider’s learnerbody 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 regionalvariations, which are explored in Table 13.

Figure 38: Percentage of governors by ethnic group,September 2008

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

• Greater London had the highest proportion ofgovernors from black and minority ethnic groups,with 21.0 per cent of the regional governorpopulation. This, however, remains lower than theregional population of 40.2 per cent black andminority ethnic groups (figures based on Censuspopulation 2001) and is significantly lower than theaverage 56.9 per cent within the overall learnerpopulation (figures based on the IndividualisedLearner Record).

• East Midlands also had a high proportion ofgovernors from black and minority ethnic groups(representing 14.7 per cent of all responses),which is significantly higher than the average 8.7per cent representation of black and minorityethnic groups across the region’s population. Inrelation to the regional learner population, thisproportion is slightly lower as on average 19.2 percent of learners in the region are from black andminority ethnic groups.

• Yorkshire and the Humber shows a similar profileto that described for the East Midlands. 14.8 percent of responses in the region indicated theycome from a black and minority ethnic groupwhich is more than the 8.3 per cent recorded forthe region’s general population but lower than the18.4 per cent across the learner population.

• The South West region had the lowest proportionof governors from black and minority ethnicgroups (1.0 per cent) and this was slightly lowerthan the black and minority ethnic profile of thegeneral regional population (4.6 per cent).

• From responses, the East of England noted 6.6 percent of governors to be from black and minorityethnic groups where as the West Midlands noted10.0 per cent. These rates continued to be lowerthan the black and minority ethnic group rateswithin the populations of each region.

48


100

80

90

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0White Black and

minority ethnicBlack and

minority ethnic(Population Census 2001)

Ethnic category

Prefer notto say

%

49

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

Figure 39: Percentage of governors by genderidentity, September 2008


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

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 99 1.0 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.

White (per cent)

Region Black andminority ethnic(per cent)

Prefer not tosay (per cent)

Black andminority ethniclearner profile(2006/07) (per cent)

Black andminority ethnic(PopulationCensus 2001)(per cent)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0Male Female Trans

Gender identityPrefer not

to say

%

50

Religion or beliefChristianity emerged as the most popular religionthat was followed by governors. 62.4 per cent ofgovernors stated Christianity to be their mainreligion, followed by 22.1 per cent that indicated‘none’ and 6.9 per cent preferred not to say. 2.6 percent of respondents were Muslim and 1.6 per centindicated they were Hindu. All other religions wereselected by less than 1 per cent of respondents .

Figure 40: Percentage of governors by religion,September 2008

Sexual orientationFigure 41 shows a breakdown of the sexualorientation stated by those governors whoresponded. 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 underrepresented within this sample (representing 1.1per cent of the total sample). According to statistics(Stonewall) approximately 6 per cent of thepopulation is lesbian, gay or bisexual. There wasalso a high non-disclosure rate indicated by the highpercentage of respondents preferring not to answerthis question.

As the sector progresses in collecting informationfrom the workforce, it will be important to ensurethat issues of disclosure and sensitivity are addressed.This will help support individuals to feel comfortableabout providing this information and to develop anunderstanding of the significance of submittingaccurate records for future planning, which willpromote equality and diversity across the workforce.

Figure 41: Percentage of governors by sexualorientation, September 2008


100

70

80

60

90

50

40

30

20

10

0Christian Muslim Buddhist Sikh Hindu Jewish

Religion or belief

None OtherPrefer notto say

%

100

70

80

60

90

50

40

30

20

10

0Lesbian/Gay Bisexual Heterosexual

Sexual orientation

Other Prefer notto say

%

51

This report provides an overview of the diversityprofile of the further education workforce and hashighlighted some changes in the staff profile that areindicative of developments in equality and diversityemployment matters. Whilst there have been someminor developments in reducing the gender gapwithin the workforce and there has also been anincrease in the participation of black and minorityethnic groups and those with a disclosed disability,the sector is still far from reaching a desirable level ofimprovement in equality and diversity opportunities.

The report has been based on the Staff IndividualisedRecord data, which has comprehensive informationabout the characteristics of staff across the furthereducation workforce. The Staff Individualised Recordis a powerful tool for all further education institutionsto collate and store staff records and also facilitatesreporting requirements for providers and stakeholdersacross the sector. It is a unique mechanism andhighly advanced in comparison to the systems usedby international counterparts. Nevertheless, thevalue of the Staff Individualised Record is determinedby the number of further education providers thatsubmit their returns and this number has been fallingover recent years.

Conclusion

52

This report highlights the specific characteristics ofthe further education workforce in relation to fourdiversity strands. These are age, disability, ethnicityand gender. Matters of equality and diversity haveadvanced rapidly within employment law in recentyears and as a result there are now seven strands of equality that sector employers need to consider.The additional three are gender identity, religion orbelief and sexual orientation. Information on thesestrands is not currently collected systematically, norare further education providers required to submitthis information on the Staff Individualised Record.In the future, it will be a requirement to collect datarelated to these additional equality strands and theStaff Individualised Record database will be updatedto reflect this in due course.

Submissions to the Staff Individualised Record areaggregated to not only display a national picture, but also to determine regional trends and localconditions. It is apparent that in recent years therehas been a gradual fall in the number of furthereducation providers submitting records and also a fall in the quality of data submitted. For example,in 2006/07 there were a large number of staffreporting ethnicity and disability status as unknown.The high level of unknowns across these areas hasmeant that the findings and trends in this reporthave been highlighted as estimates rather than anactual representation of the workforce.

It is essential that all further education institutionscommit to encouraging staff to disclose information,as well as to submit records. This will ensure that thesector can continue to monitor its progression in linewith legislative and regulative responsibilities, andbegin to set targets to address under representationin all equality strands across the sector and providea world class service to our diverse stakeholders,staff and learners.

Lifelong Learning UK is committed to equality anddiversity and will continue to work with providersto improve the collection of data so that it canprovide a robust and informative profile of thefurther education workforce.

The increasing instances of unknown staff recordsover this reporting period indicates that there ismore work to be done to increase confidence instaff to disclose equality monitoring information.The reasons for this may be varied and it will benecessary for the sector to be creative in the waythat it raises awareness of equality and diversityissues in the workplace, encourages and supports its staff pre and post disclosure across all equalitystrands and develops positive action and otherinitiatives to demonstrate that the information isbeing used constructively to address underrepresentation and inequality.

An increasing volume of activity is taking placearound equality and diversity in the further educationsector and all participants have a responsibility topromote and implement practices which eradicatediscrimination and promote an equitable and openworking environment. Recommendations are listed inthe next section, which aim to address some of theissues mentioned in the main body of this report.This will be useful to principal stakeholders withinthe further education sector and ensure that theyare well equipped and positioned to endorseequality and diversity across all areas.


53

The further education sector and its stakeholders,together with the support of Lifelong Learning UK,have a joint responsibility to ensure that equalityand diversity is embedded in all activity.

To become world class employers and serviceproviders, the further education sector needs tounderstand the barriers and issues affecting peoplefrom diverse backgrounds, identities and abilities.This will mean that the sector needs to continuewith the exemplary work that has already beentaking place around equality and diversity by sharingand learning from good practice.

The sector should be proud of what it has alreadyachieved in relation to equality and diversity.However, it should always be looking for constantimprovement as the needs and profile of our staffand learners constantly changes. The information inthis report, and in subsequent workforce diversityprofiles, will assist in achieving this.

The areas highlighted below are just some of thosethat will require consideration and increased activity inorder to achieve excellence in equality and diversity.These areas of improvement will affect the wholesector in differing degrees of impact.

Management and leadershipEquality and diversity needs to be embedded acrossthe further education sector, with managers providingleadership by example in the way they carry out theirown roles and in the way they develop the prioritiesof their teams. In order to do this, the sectorsmanagers, leaders and stakeholders need to:

• understand why, and in what ways, equality anddiversity is important to the further educationsector;

• contribute to the development of equality anddiversity within their own organisation and sharegood practice;

• encourage their teams to work within the ethosof equality and diversity;

• be committed to embedding equality and diversityinto their own professional development and alsothat of their teams;

• commit to challenging any organisational culturethat may create barriers for people of diversegroups;

• support staff at all levels to bring about positivechange and move towards a more diverse andinclusive sector;

• provide guidance and support across all equalityand diversity strands;

• engage diverse staff and other stakeholder groupsto improve and promote good relations.

Recommendations


54

Disclosure and equality monitoringThe business case for equality monitoring is wellestablished, and it is important that the organisationalbenefits of data collection are understood by staff atall levels. In order to ensure that providers can meetthe needs of their learners, they should aim for theworkplace environment to be as representative as itcan be. In doing so, the sector will not only providepositive role models to local communities, but theworkforce will get the best out of those who interactwith them at all levels. If staff feel confident to bethemselves, the sector can harness the best from itsworkforce, enabling it to deliver an excellent serviceto the public.

The messages provided in the Staff IndividualisedRecord play a significant role in succession planning,target setting and performance management forsector employers. The data can highlight thecharacteristics of those who are being attracted tothe sector, those who the sector is retaining andthose groups that are under represented. It istherefore crucial that continuous effort is made toensure that existing staff are encouraged to disclosetheir equality information and that the reasons forthis are explained to them.

Encouraging staff to disclose can be challenging andmanagers need to be aware that, for a variety ofreasons, staff may choose not to disclose their statusin relation to certain equalities. Individual members ofstaff may be concerned about the consequences ofdisclosure, fearing, for example, that disclosure mayinvite discrimination or have a negative impact ontheir job prospects. They may be concerned at howthe organisation manages confidential informationabout individuals. In order to encourage disclosure, itwill be important for providers to address issues suchas these. It is also worth bearing in mind that peopleare more likely to disclose this information if:

• the benefits of disclosure are made clear;

• an explanation of why the provider is asking forthe information is given;

• a guarantee of confidentiality is given, where theinformation is not collected anonymously;

• there is clarification as to what will happen whena member of staff discloses their information;

• the organisation is open about its reasons forseeking information and showing staff how thedata 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 anddiversity monitoring information from governorswho have a significant position as local communityrole models;

• an extension of the Staff Individualised Record to capture characteristics including types ofdisability, sexual orientation, religion or belief and gender identity;

• advice and guidance to facilitate equalitymonitoring across all equality strands;

• information about using data when completingequality impact assessments.


55

Recruitment and retention of staffProviders should measure the success rates ofapplicants, in terms of recruitment and promotion,to monitor how people from all backgrounds arefaring within the organisation. Reviews should beconducted regularly across recruitment processesto ensure that no barriers have formed, which mayprevent prospective candidates from diversebackgrounds being recruited or developing theircareers within the organisation.

Attention should also be given to the following areas:

• attracting young people into the further educationsector as teaching staff;

• identifying staff who are new to the furthereducation sector and how this compares toindividuals who are moving around the sector;

• developing strategies to attract governors fromdiverse backgrounds;

• marketing and raising the profiles of positive rolemodels across diverse equality strands, from astaff and governor perspective;

• improving the collection of information fromthose leaving the sector in order to ascertaintheir reasons for leaving and identify any trends;

• succession planning to address an ageingworkforce and retirement rates;

• developing staff forums to explore experiencesand inform policy and strategy.

Learning and developmentTraining across all equality strands needs to be botha specific aspect of capacity building (for example,raising awareness around all equality strands) as wellas being embedded within other training whereappropriate (for example, interview training formanagers). Consideration should be given to:

• providing equality and diversity training thatcovers all equality and diversity strands;

• exploring the use of positive action and otherinitiatives to address under representation andskills development;

• continued support to groups, such as theWorkforce Race Advisory Group, DisabilityEquality Implementation Group and The Forumfor Sexual Orientation and Gender IdentityEquality in Post-School Education;

• providing guidance and raising awareness acrossall equality strands.

Equality impact assessmentsEquality impact assessments are a powerful tool toobjectively assess the level of impact that a policy,service or function may have on people from diversebackgrounds, which may include staff and/or learners.

By completing equality impact assessments, theorganisation will consider the workforce profile,learner profile and in some instances localdemographics 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 thisshould be done according to the impact that thepolicy, service or function has on the user. Engagingstaff and learners alike, perhaps through forums oradvisory groups, will ensure that the organisationhas considered the specific needs and barriers facedby specific groups.


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

Lifelong Learning UK

BELFAST2nd Floor, Alfred House, 19-21 Alfred Street, Belfast, BT2 8EDTel: 0870 050 2570 Fax: 02890 247 675

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

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

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

LONDON 5th Floor, St Andrew’s House, 18-20 St Andrew Street, London EC4A 3AYTel: 0870 757 7890 Fax: 0870 757 7889

Email: [email protected] and Advice Service: 020 7936 5798

www.lluk.org

RW05

/09/

3318

Ref: 200809.037

Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07

Documents

Transcript of Annual Workforce Diversity Profile 2006/07