NHS defends apprenticeship brokerage fees

The NHS has defended controversial new plans to charge a brokerage fee to training providers that win levy-funded apprenticeship contracts.

FE Week has seen two examples of the health service preparing to charge providers around one per cent of the value of their contracts, raising concerns that it might be included in the levy price, a practice the Skills Funding Agency has banned.

Our understanding of funding rules is that these charges will be allowable if they aren’t included in the negotiated levy price, but brokerage fees are nevertheless a controversial topic.

The NHS apprenticeship levy pot is estimated to be worth around £200 million per year nationally, and £27 million in London alone, which means its brokerage charges could reach up to £2 million if they’re spread across the country.

John Hyde, executive chairman of the specialist training and apprenticeship provider Hit Training, said the SFA must investigate “a clear example here of a breach of their rules”, adding: “they need to step in straight away, otherwise it opens the door for all sorts of other people.”

“If the NHS can get away with it, then why can’t other multi-national companies get away with it?” he asked.

The NHS London Procurement Partnership is planning to enforce a one per cent “management charge”, based on the value of work it wins on behalf of providers looking to deliver apprenticeships. 

A spokesperson told FE Week that management charges are “a common way of covering the costs of running a framework or DPS once it has been established”. 

“These charges are well-established methods of supporting the public sector to manage contracts.”

From April 3, the LPP will manage apprenticeships in the capital through its electronic dynamic purchasing system’, which it will use to buy services through an “open market” of potential suppliers.

The membership body, founded and funded by NHS organisations, hosted events in London for suppliers wishing to apply to join its DPS on March 8, 13 and 14 this year.

On a slide shown at one of the conferences and seen by FE Week, it explained details of a “management charge” that “must be incorporated into the overall commercial bid response to any invitation to tender”.

This slide confirmed the charge would amount to “one per cent of all charges” based on the “value of work won under the DPS”, and would cover “management and further administration by LPP of the overall DPS and associated documentation with surplus being fed back to members”.

It will be the supplier’s responsibility “to decide to what extent this cost is passed onto the contracting authority”.

The LPP has explained its system to FE Week in detail – you can read their full response in our experts section.

In a separate case, NHS Shared Business Services, a national joint venture between the Department of Health and the information technology consultancy Sopra Steria, plans to charge providers 0.95 per cent on a quarterly basis for all business it secures through what is being described as “a new framework” for the provision of apprenticeship training services.

This will be its primary contracting vehicle for levy-paying public sector employers to purchase apprenticeship training services.

It will run from May for four years, and is inviting providers registered on the Skills Funding Agency’s register of apprenticeship training providers to apply.

A spokesperson told FE Week that the system had been developed to “provide NHS – and other public sector – organisations with the means to procure high-quality and compliant services quickly and easily, while at the same time offering suppliers access to a significant market and thousands of potential customers”.

The spokesperson insisted that the charge to providers is “to cover the up-front investment of establishing an Official Journal of the European Union-compliant framework, and the costs associated with the ongoing management of the contract”.

He continued: “It means that, for example, if a supplier wins a place on the framework, they would pay £95 for every £10,000 they receive in orders.”

In February, the SFA officially ruled that public funds could not be used to pay brokers’ fees through its final rules for apprenticeship funding.

Its decision represented a win for FE Week after our investigation in April 2016 exposed brokers who were charging up to five per cent of every deal just to match subcontractors with government-funded providers.

Asked whether the SFA had approved the management fee for apprenticeship procurement in London, the partnership’s spokesperson said the agency had been “invited to take part” in the development of the digital procurement service, but had declined to do so.

An SFA spokesperson said: “Under current SFA rules, main providers are not allowed to use government money to pay brokers’ fees. We will take action against any provider we find has broken these rules.

“SFA is strengthening the rules so that from May 1, 2017 no government money can be used to pay brokers’ fees.”

Broker fees are back again – read Paul Offord’s editorial here.

EXCLUSIVE: England alone with end-point assessment-only apprenticeships

Research by leading FE academics has shown England is the only one, out of eight countries reported on because of their strong vocational education systems, that will have end-point assessment-only apprenticeships.

The report shared with FE Week, called The role of qualifications and end-point assessment in apprenticeships: an international comparison, looked at how apprenticeships are delivered across England, Germany, Switzerland, France, Denmark, Austria, Alberta Canada, and the Netherlands.

The document commissioned by Semta, a charity that represents around 150,000 engineering employers and owns the awarding organisation EAL, claimed EPA is not sufficient in itself to measure an apprentice’s worth and call for a “hybrid” approach.

It pointed out that “all the countries discussed in this report, apart from the Netherlands, require apprentices (to a greater or lesser degree) to pass written examinations as well as tests of their practical competence at the end of their training.

“However, none of the countries [apart from England] relies totally on EPA, and EPA comes in many shapes and sizes. Evidence for making assessment judgements is derived from both the workplace and the off-the-job setting and usually carries equal weight.”

Graham Hasting-Evans, managing director of awarding organisation NOCN, raised concern about this.

He said: “While recognising that an EPA is an important way of testing the apprentices, we have always believed the on-programme and gateway assessments are also important.

“We live in a global skills market and we want our apprenticeship standards to be recognised as world class. Therefore, it is concerning that we now look out of step with other major economies.”

Led by Lorna Unwin, a professor emerita for vocational education with the UCL Institute of Education, the academics cast doubt on the government’s decision to rely totally on one EPA to formally recognise an apprentice’s competence.

This major change, from the old method of continuous assessment, was recommended in 2012 through entrepreneur Doug Richard’s review of apprenticeships.

The new report said the government’s decision to ditch a requirement for apprenticeships to include a recognised qualification rightly draws public criticism.

In all the countries expect England in Semta’s report, researchers found nationally recognised and validated forms of accreditation were “regarded as important and apprentices receive some form of certificate or diploma”.

The report also found England to be the only country where the content of an apprenticeship was set only by employers.

Professor Unwin told FE Week the reliance on EPA was particularly concerning, with regard to the impact on apprentices in terms of their “labour market mobility and future access to further and higher education”.

She added: “It is clear from this research that if an apprenticeship is to have credibility and worth for both individuals and employers, it must end up with a recognised qualification.”

In August, the Institute for Public Policy Research said taking away the requirement for apprenticeships to include a recognised qualification could “harm young people who will need transferable qualifications in an increasingly flexible jobs market”.

The think-tank called on the government to consider reintroducing a nationally recognised qualification as a part of all apprenticeships.

Ann Watson, chief executive for Semta, said: “The government talks of apprenticeships as a ladder of opportunity – but by focusing solely on one end-point assessment as the measure of an apprentice’s worth, we risk kicking the ladder away.”

The Department for Education could not comment at the time of going to press.

Unsuccessful applicants can reapply for apprenticeships register… but deadline is tight

Providers that feel aggrieved because they did not make it onto the new Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers will be able to reapply from tomorrow – with a quick turnaround needed to get them all in by 5pm on April 7. 

Apprenticeships and skills minister Robert Halfon (pictured above) made the announcement during education questions in the House of Commons this afternoon.

Responding to a question from Jack Dromey, MP for Birmingham Erdington, Mr Halfon said: “What is important to note is that from tomorrow, those who did get on the register can reapply. So it may be that they’re not on the register now but they can reapply.”

The Apprenticeship Procurement Team also announced today that: “The RoATP Register of opens for applications tomorrow (March 21, 2017) and closes at 5pm on the 7th April.

“The RoATP is open to all organisations, including those organisations that have not previously been successful. The RoATP results will be notified and published in May.
“If you have already been successful in your application to the RoATP, you do not need to re-apply as this opening is not a refresh.”

That means the new window is less than three week, which is shorter than that for the first round of applications that opened on October 24 and closed on November 25.

The SFA warned on November 25 just hours before the register deadline that some providers were failing to follow instructions and were applying via more than one route.

As then reported by FE Week, the Skills Funding Agency published the new Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers last Tuesday (March 14).

Only those providers on the list will be able to deliver apprenticeships from May.

The absence of a number of major providers of apprenticeships, including at least 21 colleges with a combined current allocation of £44 million, caused shock and disbelief across the sector.

None of the four FE colleges in Birmingham made it onto the register – prompting angry questions to the minister from both Mr Dromey, and Gisela Stuart, MP for Birmingham Edgbaston.

Mr Dromey, who has a Birmingham Metropolitan College campus in his constituency, read from the college’s recent Ofsted report – which gave it a grade two for apprenticeships – before adding: “Yet it’s one of four colleges in Birmingham – 13 in the West Midlands – that have been denied access to the apprenticeship levy and will have to cease providing apprenticeships.

“Does the minister begin to understand the outrage over this inexplicable decision, and will he agree to meet with Birmingham’s MPs so that we can make further representations to him?” Mr Dromey asked.

Mr Halfon said he would be “very happy” to meet with the MPs, and defended the process behind the register.

“The crucial thing behind this decision is we are trying to make sure we improve quality.

“This is a competitive procurement process to get on the register – everybody had to fulfil the same criteria,” he said.

Ms Stuart had earlier described the absence of the Birmingham colleges from the register as potentially “destroying technical education for 16-year-olds in the West Midlands”.

In response, Mr Halfon said that “75.7 per cent” of applications to the register were successful, and that 170 colleges had their applications accepted.

He continued: “She mentions Birmingham – there are 178 providers of apprenticeship training in Birmingham that have got onto the register. All existing apprenticeship will not be affected in the colleges.”

FE Week has sought clarification from the Department for Education as to whether those providers that didn’t get on the register at the first attempt have missed have their chance to get an SFA funding allocation for the smaller, non-levied employers.

We have also asked from what date will providers be able to start apprenticeships if they are successful in the RoATP application process that the minister said is now reopening?

Minister wrongly claims there are no grade four providers on new apprenticeships register

The written response from apprenticeships minister Robert Halfon to an open letter, complaining about the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers’ selection process, wrongly claimed that there are no ‘inadequate’-Ofsted rated providers on it. 

Team leader and assessor at Acacia Training, Anne-Marie Morris, wrote the open letter expressing her sense of injustice – as published in FE Week on March 16 – after her company failed to get a place on the RoATP despite its Ofsted ‘good’ rating.

Mr Halfon’s letter in response, which has now been shared with us (click here to download), mistakenly said: “I can confirm that there are no Ofsted grade four organisations listed on the new register.”

Exclusive FE Week analysis has infact found there are five colleges and one council on the new register – Amersham & Wycombe College, Ealing, Hammersmith & West London College, Essex County Council, Huntingdonshire Regional College, Mid-Cheshire College, and North Shropshire College (see more details in table below).

He added: “Where an organisation has a grade four overall, or a grade four for apprenticeships, they will not be allowed to enter the register.

“If an organisation listed on the register attains a grade four in the future, then they will be removed from the register immediately.”

The minster stressed that all providers were given a clear set of criteria they had to meet, through the RoATP application process.

Key elements under consideration were, he said “due diligence; financial health; capacity/ capability, and quality”.

He warned that “if a provider does not meet these criteria they cannot be on the register.

“Your organisation would have been provided with feedback as to why it did not make it onto the Register, to help you with any future applications.”

He added the SFA plans to re-open the register “very quickly, around 20 March”, to give further opportunities for providers to submit an application, “including brand new providers as well as those that were not successful in the first round”.

He subsequently confirmed to MPs in the House of Commons this afternoon that providers who feel aggrieved because they did not make it onto the new RoATP will be able to reapply from tomorrow.

Mr Halfon concluded by stressing that the new register “will not affect provision for any apprenticeship starts before May 1”.

“Existing arrangements will continue to apply for these learners, and providers will still be able to deliver training through their existing contracts,” he added.

The open letter from Ms Morris, which included complaint over the lack of a clear appeals process, was to Sue Husband, director of the National Apprenticeship Service, Skills Funding Agency.

“As you can imagine, everyone in the company is devastated as all the hard work and commitment we make towards supporting learners to achieve their apprenticeships to such a high standard appears to not have been considered at all,” she said.

“I personally would really like to understand how this can happen and why we as a company cannot appeal the decision.

“I, along with my colleagues, will surely lose the jobs we have been so proud of and the future of such a professional, caring company is now in doubt. We are only a small training provider with 70 staff members but this will have a devastating impact on all of our lives.”

A Department for Education spokesperson told FE Week it was a simple mistake in the letter. “We are clear that where an organisation has a Grade 4 for overall effectiveness they will not be eligible to apply for the register unless they have a 3 or above for apprenticeship provision. This is set out in the guidance. There are no providers on the register who have a grade 4 for apprenticeship provision.

“We will be contacting the recipient of the letter in question to clarify the Department’s position.”

 

Making sense of the 20% off-the-job apprenticeship funding rule

One of the most important apprenticeship funding rules from May is the requirement that every apprentice “spends at least 20 per cent of their time on off-the-job training”.

This simple sentence actually raises a series of questions, such as how to define “their time” and “off-the-job training”.

We understand the SFA will shortly publish dedicated guidance about the off-the-job training rule, but in the meantime we asked for a definition of “their time”. 

The SFA today told FE Week that “their time” refers to contracted employment hours and said:

  • “Off-the-job training must amount to 20 per cent of the apprentice’s contracted employment hours across the whole apprenticeship.
  • “We do not stipulate how this should be spread out.
  • “It cannot include time spent on English and maths, or on training to acquire skills, knowledge and behaviours that are not required in the standard or framework.”

Thus, if an employee is on a two year apprenticeship and has an employment contract of 7 hours x 5 days x 46 weeks x 2 years that is a total of 3,220 contracted hours. Hence, at 20 per cent the minimum off-the-job training would be 644 hours (equivalent to one day per working week).

And for current completeness, here’s what version two of the ‘Apprenticeship funding and performance-management rules for training providers’ says:

The 20 per cent minimum off-the-job rule

“To use funds in an employer’s digital account or from government-employer co-investment for an apprenticeship, you must have evidence that the apprentice spends at least 20 per cent of their time on off-the-job training, recognising that apprentices may need more than 20 per cent off-the-job training, for example if they need English and maths. It is up to you and the employer to decide how the off-the-job training is delivered. This may include regular day release, block release and special training days/workshops.”

Definition of off-the-job training

“Off-the-job training is defined as learning which is undertaken outside of the normal day-today working environment and leads towards the achievement of an apprenticeship. This can include training that is delivered at the apprentice’s normal place of work, but must not be delivered as part of their normal working duties.”

The off-the-job training must be directly relevant to the apprenticeship framework or standard and could include:

  • “The teaching of theory (for example, lectures, role playing, simulation exercises, online learning, manufacturer training).
  • “Practical training; shadowing; mentoring; industry visits and attendance at competitions.
  • Learning support and time spent writing assessments/assignments.”

Off-the-job training does not include:

  • “English and maths (up to level two) which is funded separately
  • “progress reviews or on-programme assessment required for an apprenticeship framework or standard
  • “training which takes place outside the apprentice’s paid working hours”

Evidencing the off-the-job

“The evidence pack must, among other things listed in the funding rules, contain:

  • “evidence to support the funding claimed and must be available to us if we need it. This must include details of how the 20 per cent ‘off-the-job’ training, excluding English and maths, will be quantified and delivered.
  • “details of employment including: the name of the employer and the agreed contracted hours of employment, including paid training and 20 per cent ‘off-the-job’ time, the total planned length of the apprenticeship.”

SFA apprenticeship funding rules strengthened to deter employer kick-backs

The apprenticeship funding rules, which come into force from May, have now been updated by the SFA to deter employer kick-backs.

In early March the SFA expressed concern over “emerging delivery models that are contrary to the policy intent.

“For example, some providers are offering incentives for employers by paying or re-funding them for certain aspects. These include:

  • inflating training costs to refund the employer’s co-investment
  • funding ineligible costs to employers as subcontractors
  • claiming higher prices to fund non-English apprentices free of charge to the employer

“Providers must not make payments of this kind to employers.”

Now, an additional paragraph has been added to version 2 of the rules, published 17 March, which for providers reads:

“P85. You must not pay incentives or inducements or any other payment not authorised by us to the employer in relation to any part of the apprenticeship programme.”

And a later section adds: “P172. You must not return, in total or in part, the employer’s contribution once the co-investment has been collected.”

But is there a risk a separate rule (P151) provides for a loop-hole?

However, payments to employers have not been completely ruled out, which risks being exploited as a loop-hole.

In a section titled: “special conditions for subcontracting to organisations not on the register of apprenticeship training providers” a new rule has been added which tells the provider: “P151. Where the employer is the delivery subcontractor they must report the actual costs of delivery” and tells the employer: “where you are the delivery subcontractor you must only report actual costs of delivery to the provider.”

The SFA has said that this is a “clarification that where the employer is the delivery subcontractor they must charge for actual costs in the same way as employer-providers.”

There is also a new rule for providers stating they “P160. We will only pay for commitments made with an employer on the apprenticeship service where the employer is expecting to pay the apprenticeship levy in that financial year.”

The SFA add in their change document that providers “should not enter into commitments on the apprenticeship service with employers who have no prospect of paying the levy.”

The latest version of the funding rules also removes the requirement for Early Years Education apprentices to study GCSE maths and English, a government u-turn that was reported in FE Week.

And there appears to be a change of heart on the maximum cost of the end-point assessment, following reporting of the issue in FE Week. The wording has been changed from “20% of the total agreed price” to “20% of the funding band maximum.” The SFA has said the rule was amended “to allow greater flexibility, where appropriate, in the end point assessment cost.”

————————————————————————————————————-

Other changes in version 2 of the provider funding rules. Bold added to highlight change.

Version 1: P32.4.3  “Off-the-job training does not include training which takes place outside the apprentice’s normal working hours (this cannot count towards the 20% off-the-job training)

Version 2: P32.4.3 “Off-the-job training does not include training which takes place outside the apprentice’s paid working hours.”

Version 1: P39 “The minimum duration of an apprenticeship is one year unless the framework or standard specification or assessment plan requires it to be longer.”

Version 2: P39 “The minimum duration for apprenticeship training is one year unless the framework or standard specification or assessment plan requires it to be longer.”

Version 1: P54.3 “To use funds in the employer’s digital account or government-employer co-investment, the individual must not be enrolled on another apprenticeship at the same time as any new apprenticeship they start.”

Version 2: P54.3 “To use funds in the employer’s digital account or government-employer co-investment, the individual must not be enrolled on another apprenticeship, or another DfE funded FE/HE programme, at the same time as any new apprenticeship they start.”

Version 1: P79.1 “Funds from an employer’s digital account or government-employer co-investment must only be used for activity directly related to the apprenticeship. These funds must only be used to pay for training and assessment, including end-point assessment, to attain an apprenticeship that is eligible for funding up to the limit of the funding band. This includes Off-the-job training, including the costs associated with mandatory qualifications, through an externally-contracted provider or evidenced costs for employer-provider delivery.”

Version 1: P79.1 & P79.2 “Funds from an employer’s digital account, government-employer co-investment or the additional transitional funds paid for 16 to 18 year olds on frameworks must only be used for activity directly related to the apprenticeship. These funds must only be used to pay for training and assessment, including end-point assessment, to attain an apprenticeship that is eligible for funding up to the limit of the funding band. This includes off-the-job training through an externally-contracted provider or evidenced costs for employer-provider delivery. This could include some or all of the training aspects of a licence to practise or non-mandatory qualification. In both cases there must be a clear overlap between this training and the knowledge, skills and behaviors needed for the apprenticeship standard. [it also includes] Registration and examination (including certification) costs associated with mandatory qualifications excluding any licence to practise (see paragraph P82.7).”

Version 1: P82.6 “Funds in an employer’s digital account or government-employer co-investment must not be used for any training, optional modules, educational trips or trips to professional events in excess of those required need to achieve the apprenticeship framework or meet the knowledge, skills and behaviours of the apprenticeship standard.”

Version 2: P82.6 “Funds in an employer’s digital account or government-employer co-investment must not be used for any training, optional modules, educational trips or trips to professional events in excess of those required to achieve the apprenticeship framework or meet the knowledge, skills and behaviours of the apprenticeship standard. This includes training solely and specifically required for a licence to practise.“

Version 1: P82.7 “Funds in an employer’s digital account or government-employer co-investment must not be used for any training, assessment, exams or tests in any skills and knowledge solely and specifically required to acquire licences to practise, or the certification of any licence to practise, where it is a legal (or statutory) requirement for all practitioners to obtain a licence which confirms the licence-holder meets prescribed standards of competence, including situations in which it is unlawful to carry out a specified range of activities for pay without first having obtained a licence. This applies even where such a licence is required in the apprenticeship standard and the assessment plan.”

Version 2: P82.7 (reference to training removed) “Funds in an employer’s digital account or government-employer co-investment must not be used for any registration and examination (including certification) costs associated with a licence to practise. This applies even where a licence is specified in the apprenticeship standard and assessment plan.”

Version 1: P82.17 “Funds in an employer’s digital account or government-employer co-investment must not be used for any specific services not related to the delivery and administration of the apprenticeship. This includes the recruitment and continuing professional development of staff involved in apprenticeships, company inductions, managing agents and those providing a brokerage service to an employer.”

Version 2: P82.17 “Funds in an employer’s digital account or government-employer co-investment must not be used for any specific services not related to the delivery and administration of the apprenticeship. This includes the recruitment and continuing professional development of staff involved in apprenticeships, company inductions, managing agents and those providing a brokerage service to an employer or provider.“

Version 1: P114 “You must contract with the apprentice assessment organisation that has been selected by the employer. You must have a written agreement in place with this assessment organisation and make payment to them for conducting the end-point assessment. The written agreement must set out the arrangements for end-point assessment, including arrangements for any re-takes and payments.”

Version 2: P115 “You must contract with the apprentice assessment organisation that has been selected by the employer and have a written agreement in place. This allows you, on behalf of the employer, to make payment to them for conducting the end-point assessment. The written agreement must set out the arrangements for sharing relevant information about the apprentice so end-point assessment and certification can take place, including arrangements for any re-takes and payments.”

Version 1: P116 “Costs of end-point assessment will vary but we expect that it should not usually be more than 20% of the total agreed price for delivering the apprenticeship training and assessment.”

 Version 2: P117 “We expect that the cost of end-point assessment should not usually exceed 20% of the funding band maximum. This does not mean that end-point assessment must cost 20%; the cost that individual employers will pay for assessment varies between standards and we expect we expect employers to negotiate with assessment organisations to secure value for money. Where total costs are higher than the funding band maximum the difference must be paid by the employer.”

New rule: P186. Providers must “offer the employer the option of using the recruit an apprentice service for all new recruits.” and “where you advertise on behalf of the employer you must make it clear in the advert how many hours will be expected and this must meet the minimum duration requirements”

Version 1: P196.3 “Where apprentices are made redundant, you must record apprentices more than six months from their planned end-date as having left learning if a new employer is not found within 12 weeks.”

Version 2: P200.3 “Where apprentices are made redundant, you must record apprentices more than six months from their planned end-date as having left learning if a new employer is not found within 12 weeks of their contract end date.“

Damning Ofsted report that caused downfall of huge provider published

The damning Ofsted report that caused the downfall of huge apprenticeship training provider First4Skills has now been published.

The Liverpool-based provider went bust earlier this month, affecting around 200 staff and around 6,500 learners, after the Skills Funding Agency pulled its contract.

That action was prompted by a grade four rating from the education watchdog, following an inspection carried out from February 7 to 10 – the findings of which have now been made public.

As typically happens with private training providers that receive an inadequate-overall Ofsted verdict, this prompted the Skills Funding Agency to terminate its contract.

The Ofsted report slams First4Skills, which was 60 per cent owned by troubled City of Liverpool College, as inadequate across the board with no strengths.

Inspectors blasted leaders at the provider for failing to “tackle the significant weaknesses identified at the previous inspection”, with the result that “outcomes for learners and the quality of teaching, learning and assessment have declined further and are now inadequate”.

“Strategic priorities focus disproportionately on maximising the company’s income at the expense of providing high standards of education and training for learners,” it said.

Trainers’ targets “focus on recruiting more learners and increasing their caseload, and not on the aspects of training and assessment that they need to improve,” it continued.

Managers were also criticised for not ensuring “that the principles and requirements of an apprenticeship” were met, and for “failing to implement appropriate arrangements to monitor accurately the progress that learners make”.

First4Skills’ monitoring of its 14 subcontractors was found to be “poor”, and focused on “the processes that they have in place rather than the quality of training”.

Safeguarding at the provider was deemed “not effective”, with managers slammed for taking “insufficient action to support learners about whom they have serious safety concerns”.

The quality of teaching, learning and assessment at both First4Skills and its subcontractors was found to be “poor”.

The report said: “Trainers place too much focus on assessing skills that learners already possess as opposed to developing new ones.”

“Inadequate teaching, learning and assessment” meant that “too many learners” failed to make the “expected progress” on their qualifications, inspectors found.

Furthermore, feedback given by trainers was found to be “overly positive and inaccurate” with the result that “too many learners” felt they were making good progress when they weren’t.

As previously reported by FE Week, staff at First4Skills were told on March 3 that the company had gone into administration.

It held an annual £15 million apprenticeship allocation, according to the most recent SFA figures.

First4Skills was jointly owned by City of Liverpool College and the Sysco Group.

When asked at the time whether the Skills Funding Agency were aware of the situation, a DfE spokesperson said: “We have exercised our right to terminate First4Skills Limited’s contract.

“We are working to ensure learners’ programmes are not disrupted and that where required alternative training provision is identified and transfer arrangements made.

“We will work with employers through the National Apprenticeship Service to ensure they are fully involved in the transfer process.”

Unison came forward a week later to say that the company might have acted unlawfully by hiding the degree of problems it was experiencing from its staff.

“The closure of First4Skills will cause uncertainty for staff and apprentices as jobs are lost and learners are moved to new training providers,” said Jon Richards, the union’s head of education.

“It’s now clear there will be redundancies. Unison believes redundancy laws may have been breached because the company failed to share the extent of the company’s woes with the workforce.”

The college was placed into administered status by the apprenticeships and skills minister, Robert Halfon, in October after it became the first college to be re-referred to the FE commissioner due to “severe financial problems”.

FE Week asked the college to comment on First4Skills’ Ofsted report, but it was unable to do  so ahead of publication.

Major provider chaired by ex-SFA boss calls in administrators

A major training provider whose chair was the first chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency has gone into administration after failing to make it onto the new Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers.

Derbyshire-based Positive Outcomes Ltd has a current Skills Funding Agency contract worth more than £11 million, but failed to make it onto the list published by the agency on Tuesday.

According to its most recent Ofsted inspection report, published in June, it had around 4,700 learners, the majority of whom were apprentices.

Its chair was Geoff Russell, who was SFA’s first chief executive and ran the agency from its inception in April 2010 until July 2012.

But this afternoon FE Week was told by a former member of staff that the provider had closed and that all staff had lost their jobs.

Kelly Ball, joint managing director at Positive Outcomes, then released a statement to FE Week from the provider’s board confirming the news.

‘’Unfortunately, after 20 years of trading, it is with deep regret that Positive Outcomes has had to file for administration with immediate effect.

“The board of directors have worked tirelessly to avoid this outcome. Our intention was to find a suitable buyer for the business. However, this unfortunately was not possible, resulting in the board having no alternative but to cease trading.

“Our priorities during this time are the learners and employers. We continue to work closely with the Skills Funding Agency to ensure a smooth transition to other providers with minimal disruption to them.

“We would like to take this opportunity to thank our dedicated staff who have been the company’s biggest asset over many successful years. We wish them well’’.

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “We are working to ensure learners’ programmes are not disrupted following our termination of Positive Outcomes’ contract. We will work with employers through the  National Apprenticeship Service to ensure a smooth transfer process.”

The provider, which had offices in London, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol and Nottingham as well as South Normanton, Derbyshire, offered apprenticeships and work-based learning.

Today’s news comes after Positive Outcomes was issued with a notice of serious breach from the SFA for financial control, dated November 17. 

However, the provider would not be drawn on the reasons behind the notice.

Former chief executive Chris Longmate stepped down in January, after eight years in the role.

Kelly Ball and Ryan Longmate were both promoted to joint managing director in 2011.

Exclusive: New Ofsted chief ‘worried’ about apprenticeship register

The new chief inspector at Ofsted, Amanda Spielman, has spoken to FE Week of her concern following publication of the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers.

In a wide ranging interview on March 17, Ms Spielman was asked about the impact RoATP would have on Ofsted’s resource, given it represents a near doubling of the number of providers that might need to be inspected.

“We have very limited information but it’s clear there are a lot of would be new entrants, a lot of people with very limited experience and potentially quite a lot of fragmentation,” said Ms Spielman.

“What that will actually translate into in terms of who gets contracts and actual starts providing apprenticeships, isn’t entirely clear. I suspect that a lot of those registrations will be optimistic things that may never translate into actual learners on the ground.”

There are current 793 apprenticeship providers in scope for inspection as they have an allocation with the Skills Funding Agency for starts until May.

Whereas, RoATP is already nearly double the size, with 1473 organisations given the green light from May (1303 training providers and 170 employer providers).

This is likely to quickly rise to over 2000 providers, given the SFA RoATP application process will take place four times per year, starting for a second time next week.

So when pressed on this prediction of over 2000 apprenticeship providers, against a backdrop of ongoing budget reductions at Ofsted, Ms Spielman said she and Paul Joyce, Ofsted’s deputy director for FE and skills, were “worried”.

“It is a huge challenge and we are only at the start of the conversations [with the government] because there is nothing yet to inspect. So this is about setting up for the future.”

“This is not about something we are having to deal with this week, this month or even later this year – it’s further away. But yes, we have that statutory obligation to inspect. What that translates into and the resource requirement, that’s the essence of the conversations that Paul Joyce has with DfE.”

Mr Joyce added: “I am worried about the number of providers that we may have to inspect. I’ve had conversations with the DfE about our resource. They are aware of the potential increase in providers and therefore the additional resource or the different ways of working that we will need to do. So those conversations are ongoing.”

More from the interview, including answers to questions about new grading structures and plans for individual college campus inspections, will be published in the next edition of FE Week.