Past learners with a Warwickshire-based provider could have their qualifications taken away from them following a probe into allegations of malpractice.

Leading awarding organisation NCFE (formerly the Northern Council for Further Education) announced last month it had stopped certificating Bright Assessing course following its investigation.

The suspension will remain in place until the outcome of Bright’s appeal against NCFE’s decision to withdraw its center approval status, when HABC will consider its position further.”

The findings have not been made public, but a Bright spokesperson said it “vigorously disputes both the findings and the sanction” and that it would appeal.

And now NCFE has confirmed doubts over the validity of qualifications it.

has awarded for Bright’s level three certificate in assessing vocational achievement.

An NCFE spokesperson said: “Based on the findings of the investigation, there is the potential that we may contact learners regarding the validity of their certificates and we will be looking at this as part of our review of our duty of care.

“We are currently working through learners on a case by case basis and will be in touch directly with anyone that we’re concerned about.”

She could not say how many past learners might be affected.

It is thought the only awarding organisation currently certificating Bright is OCR, where a spokesperson said: “We are aware of the ongoing NCFE investigation and we are now in the process of carrying out our own checks.”

He added that OCR would continue certificating six Bright courses, including level three and four certificates in teaching in the lifelong learning sector, while checks continued.

The Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance (HABC) was also listed on Bright’s website as a certificating body until the end of February, but its name has now been removed.

A spokesperson for HABC said: “In order to protect the interests of learners and in accordance with our internal policies and procedures, I confirm that Bright were immediately suspended from running any courses through HABC upon receipt of the notification of the investigation being carried out by NCFE.

“The suspension will remain in place until the outcome of Bright’s appeal against NCFE’s decision to withdraw its centre approval status, when HABC will consider its position further.”

Bright was listed on the Skills Funding Agency’s website on January 28 this year as a subcontractor for Avant Partnership, through a contract worth £171,999, and The Derbyshire Network, through a £50,000 contract.

A spokesperson for Avant Partnership said: “I can confirm that we did hold a contract with Bright. This contract reached its natural timely conclusion in February. At this point there were only six learners remaining, all of which had completed and are due to be externally verified by their awarding body (OCR).

“As this contract has concluded and there are not any further learners going forward, we do not consider that there are any actions we are required to take at this time.”

The Derbyshire Network declined to comment.

The SFA said it would not be intervening, despite new guidance saying it could stop prime contractors from working with subcontractors if there were “significant irregularities” in the awarding of qualifications.

Bright declined to comment on whether its past learners could lose their qualifications.

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply to Janet Cancel reply

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

5 Comments

  1. Peter Smith

    Will you be commenting on the several other training companies that have now complained about the NCFE and their support to training providers?

  2. Dianne Alderwood

    I wonder if it just the back to work learners who will be affected or also the private ones?
    I paid about £800 at the end of 2011 with Bright as a private learner and since gaining my Assessor certificate, have been working as an assessor for more than two years. I can’t even begin to think about the implications that losing my certificate could have for me. I do feel I was misled by Bright into thinking I would be provided with two local candidates, when it turned out they were via skype. But I did have to carry out assessments and observations independently. I was never given any answers and my work was referred when it did not meet the standards and I had to improve it before being signed off. So I don’t feel that I suffered any malpractice unless the use of skype was unacceptable, but surely NCFE must have been aware of them using this and later it was made clear on their website that learners were via Skype and so this was transparent to learners and the awarding body.

    Clearly Bright have been offering courses of a poor standard but you have to question why (as previously quoted on the Bright website) an EV visited Bright and graded them as ‘outstanding’ on 14 consecutive visits. The awarding body have a duty to learners, to ensure the integrity of the qualification and that the organisation are delivering it correctly. I think NCFE have to seriously be held up to investigation themselves here. I am also aware that several complaints to the NCFE were disregarded and it wasn’t until there was a newspaper article, that they seemed to take their obligations seriously.

  3. Kyle lafferty

    Dianne
    I have spoken to Bright as I am in the same position as you and understand it is a limited number of learners and only those on the funded back to work course.
    I agree it is strange that an awarding body have graded them as outstanding so many times and then as bad news appears they pull the plug. I feel NCFE are as guilty if not more so than Bright.
    I disagree that the course is of a poor standard, I have a feeling that the IVs at Bright may not have been doing their job properly but thats not the company as a wholes fault, again EV(NCFE) should have picked up on this!!
    I’m sure there are many employers and assessors that are happy with Bright, they just aren’t as vocal.

  4. Steven Harknett

    The Bright course was a shambles. There CEO is a disgrace and the NCFE if they would like to contact me I will tell them of my experience. Kyle the reason many didn’t complain is they got something for nothing and a qualification they were hardly going to rock the boat were they. Some of us however, were already experience teachers and assessors and were just looking to update.

  5. The learner’s argument was somewhat spoilt because of an individual having their own agenda. The lady concerned would have done better to have distanced herself from him right from the start, rather than allowing him to orchestrate a campaign against the organisation.

    I believe the group would have been respected more if the complainants had not allowed themselves to be manipulated by an individual claiming to be the leader of the group; but in reality was not even a learner, and therefore had no right to be involved.