SFA in discussions with Ofsted about having a greater focus on large subcontractors

BBC Radio 4 will today broadcast an interview with the Skills Funding Agency during which they confirm they are in discussions with Ofsted about the possibility of having more focus on the large subcontractors.

The interview will feature on the BBC’s consumer affairs programme Face the Facts which has carried out an investigation in to Bright International Training Ltd.

According to the BBC, today’s (Wednesday, 2 July) thirty minute programme will feature its presenter John Waite’s (pictured above) investigation into “a company which claimed to be the UK’s leading training provider [Bright International Training] and held tax-payer funded contracts worth millions of pounds for courses designed to get people back to work.

“But he discovers how some of its learners were given certificates for courses they never completed and others have had qualifications revoked for sub-standard work. Hundreds – possibly thousands – of other learners, many paying their own way in search new careers, have been left without the courses they paid for.”

Face the Facts will also include interviews with “industry insiders”  who will claim that the circumstances surrounding Bright International Training “exposes a loophole in the way the system is regulated.”

The show follows the published results of a four-month investigation into alleged malpractice at Bright International Training by the awarding organisation NCFE, which concluded that there was evidence of malpractice and resulting in at least 225 learners losing their qualifications.  

During the programme the SFA will point out that the education watchdog Ofsted can visit subcontractors like Bright International Training as part of their inspections into larger primary providers. However as a result of ‘what’s happened at Bright’, they will say they’re discussing with Ofsted whether they might increase its monitoring.

The agency will say “Our priority is to ensure learner interests are protected and safeguarding public funds. Ofsted inspect subcontractors, through the lead contractors route and name them in inspection reports.

“In this case we will recover any funds that have been incorrectly claimed directly from the lead providers.

We are in discussion with Ofsted about the possibility of having more focus on the large subcontractors.  We are working with the lead providers to support affected learners. Bright had not received money directly from the Agency, and the contract is quite clear that the responsibility rests with the lead provider. They are responsible for assuring themselves that any subcontractors have sufficient capacity, capability, quality and business standing to deliver the provision that is being sub-contracted.

The BBC have confirmed that Bright International Training deny the allegations made.

Face the Facts, An Unqualified Failure, will be broadcasted on BBC Radio 4 at 12:30pm on Wednesday, 2 July and will be available on the broadcaster’s catch-up service i-player.

 

 

 

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply to lindsay mccurdy Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

4 Comments

  1. All of this was covered in the Ofsted survey published in October 2012 ‘Ensuring Quality in Apprenticeships’ – which I wrote and led. The learners belonged to the main contractor, not Bright, who were the subcontractor delivering on behalf of the main contractor. The SFA set up this model of delivery because of a belief they would save money by not funding below £500,000. There seem to be a lot of subcontractors with various contracts that add up to the millions. Simple question, why have they therefore not got their own contracts? The main subcontractors such as Bright should have been listed in the front of inspection reports when the main contractors are inspected, which would at least be an indicator that Ofsted had been aware of them when planning inspections.

    Inspection has always ‘followed the funding’ which is right (but will be interesting when small employers get funding directly – another reason that a whole new set of problems will explode), but Ofsted need to be provided with the right information by the SFA when planning and have lead inspectors who understand the subcontracting system. New Ofsted lead inspectors need to be aware of what they should be planning to look for and to evaluate. The root cause of the failure was predicted in meetings with officials prior to the half million barrier being introduced, which has allowed a proliferation of providers (many of whom understood assessment-based delivery for Train To Gain but not the training and functional skills delivery of apprenticeships)who should be holding their own contracts. The SFA needs to take a fresh look at how they play their part in all of this. There are many main contractors (colleges and independent training providers) who do a really good job and have added value to their subcontracted provision (and they understand that it is their learners). What is clear from the ex-learners of Bright who have posted on FE Week is that they had no idea of whose learners they really had been.

  2. lindsay mccurdy

    Apprenticeships 4 England is arranging a meeting with all parties who have been involved with Bright from Awarding Organisations, to Primes, SFA, OFQUAL, etc (all have been invited to attend). to speak to the learners of Bright.

    Even today I have been contacted by a learner a police officer who has found out she is not registered with an Awarding Organisation and is getting passed from 1 organisation to another.

    Two awarding organisation so far today have agreed to attend the meeting today, I am waiting to hear from the other organisations who have been invited to attend.

    What the Bright situation has highlighted is that is due to loopholes in the system which Bright has used, it is very hard for learners to get redress as the company was until the end of the month still inputting learners details on to their own system and was looking for a Training Provider and Awarding Organisation to work with them.

    This has not happened and now the sector needs to be working together to find a solution to the problem and for the learners of Bright International Limited

    Apprenticeships 4 England on behalf of the learners of Bright will be holding a meeting which all parties who have worked with Bright or have an interest in Bright are invited to attend, This will be the start of bringing a conclusion to the Learners of Bright and also for future leaner’s, to be able to have the confidence in the training system, Which apart from the one of two training providers who abuse the system offer outstanding quality training.

    It must be our priority to ensure learners are protected and that safe guarding standards are improved by greater involvement of ofsted with subcontractors and for Primes to look at Due Diligence standards across the sector so that this situation cannot happen again.

  3. Steven Carter

    The Awarding Body for Bright was NCFE and now we have it all over again with another NCFE blunder, Great Heights Training, gone out of business, left learners without any redress and many without money.

  4. As a small training company with an untarnished reputation offering exceptionally high quality training. I am appalled but not in the least bit surprised by the dishonesty and shoddy behaviour of this latest lot of opportunist chancers funded by the tax payer. With the continued focus on saving time and money, allegedly by only using major players in training, shunting the responsibility out of house again and relying on organisations driven only by ‘market forces’ to assure quality, how can anyone be surprised by this sort of outcome. We have had this misfortune to work in the past with some of those given responsibility and huge budgets for Government initiatives, Train 2 Gain included, the only factor which is often considered are bums on seats, which of course equals funding. What happens after this is pretty much a secondary consideration and certainly what happens to the people involved a poor third. So everything needs to be scaled down, more manageable with clear accountability at ALL stages. Until this happens it will be the same sad old story.
    Phil George