New minimum standards categories have been unveiled by the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) for 2014/15 — but the sector has been left asking why they were not ready earlier.

Guidance for post-19 training, issued on Tuesday (October 28), revealed how qualification success rates (QSRs) will change. Previously, providers’ QSRs were divided into three categories — long, for courses of 24 weeks or more, short, for courses lasting two to 24 weeks, and very short, for less than two weeks.

However, these have been recategorised and further divided into 13 qualification types, including apprenticeship frameworks (which continue to have a 55 per cent success rate threshold), A-level (which continues at 75 per cent), AS-level (which continues at 63 per cent), awards, certificates and diplomas.

Association of Colleges senior policy manager Joy Mercer said: “It is disappointing these new methods and standards are implemented retrospectively — a pilot year would have been a better option.”

Association of Employment and Learning Providers chief executive Stewart Segal said: “Providers need to manage their provision in line with the minimum standards guidelines and these should be published well before the end of the year to which they are applied.”

Providers face the SFA intervention process if they fail to hit the QSR thresholds.

 

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

One comment

  1. Country Bumpkin

    Surely there are two possibly underlying theories:
    1. A certain number of providers should fall below minimum standards (say, bottom 5% of providers) and the threat of sanction drives up success rates.
    2. Minimum success rates are calculated based on historic data and set at a fixed rate, which may rise year on year, with the threat of sanction if you dip below for a substantial amount of provision.

    The delay in issuing the guidance to shortly after the final ILRs kind of suggests that SFA wanted a view of how many providers would fall below (perhaps from SFA workload and sector reputation reasons)

    Additionally – functional skills are in category B, when they should probably be in category A (as arguably they align more with a QCF certificate). But national averages are appalling and it would not do to drop the minimum standard percentage of 63% or it may appear a weak minimum, so putting it in cat B allows it to be ‘propped up’ by awards, non reg, QCF units. Just another facet of functional skills being poorly funded (providers offering the least possible GLH and that being reflected in national rates).