FE Week asks: FE Commissioner on ‘big success’ area reviews

Richard Atkins has had a very busy four months since he was confirmed as the new FE Commissioner. FE Week’s Jude Burke caught up with him this week, for an exclusive interview on his progress in the demanding role, at the AoC’s Governors Summit

With the area review process and college interventions occupying so much of his time, it’s perhaps unsurprising that the FE commissioner’s speech at the AoC summit was just his second public address to the sector since taking on the role.

Richard Atkins told the audience of college governors that he expected there to be “50-ish” mergers as a result of the area reviews – a substantially lower figure than the 80 predicted by his predecessor Sir David Collins last summer.

But when I caught up with the former Exeter College principal after the event, he insisted that the reviews – which are due to finish at the end of March – had still been a “big success”.

“I think area reviews have changed the landscape,” he told me.

“Before this, local authorities, colleges and local enterprise partnerships were not sitting round the same table and now nearly every area has agreed to a strategic group to do that,” he said.

I think area reviews have changed the landscape

The “deeper understanding” that local authorities and LEPs now have of “the scale of the college sector and the contribution it makes to their communities” is another key benefit to have emerged from the process, he said.

Colleges have also learnt a “huge amount” about what their neighbours are doing, he said, and are now more willing to collaborate with each other.

“Before the area review what other colleges in your area were doing was all rumour and speculation, and sometimes malicious rumour,” he said.
“This has put real numbers on the table, confidentially, and they’ve all shared them.”

Nonetheless, it’s hard to ignore the fact that a process that was intended to create “fewer, often larger, more resilient” providers has resulted in a smaller-than-predicted number of mergers.

But he insisted he wasn’t disappointed about this lack of change; from his own experience of being a principal, he said appreciated “autonomy”.

He did sound a note of caution about those colleges that have opted to remain standalone on the basis of “over-optimistic forecasts”, particularly around student numbers.

Some colleges were “too optimistic on 16-to18, some apprenticeships, some HE numbers,” he said.

“I don’t believe those colleges will achieve those targets, and in some cases I was clear in the steering group and told them that I did not think everybody in the room would achieve those targets,” Mr Atkins told me.

Those that don’t “will find their finances sorely stressed”, he warned.

I want to be held accountable

Consequently there were likely to be further mergers announced in the future “for some years to come”, although at a slower pace than currently.

On the subject of his intervention work with failing colleges, and the lack of published reports, Mr Atkins told delegates that there had been 60 interventions so far, with 28 providers currently in intervention and 32 having come out the other side of the process.

He told me that since he took over the job, there had been “four or five – maybe half a dozen” new interventions.

For all of those, “there will be a report published”, he told me.

He also acknowledged that there had been “a gap” in publishing reports for a while, which he suggested had been due to “the change in government department”.

The same governmental processes were also responsible for the delay in publishing the 2015/16 FE commissioner’s annual report, and also a letter Mr Atkins had written to all colleges in January – neither of which have so far seen the light of day, he said.

“But I think we’ve put four intervention reports out in the past two weeks, and I think there are two or three more at least in the pipeline quite soon, and we will keep a regular supply,” he said, adding: “I want to be held accountable.”

Banned subcontracting hidden through widespread ‘associate partnerships’

Colleges and training providers are hiding banned subcontracting through the use of so-called ‘associate partnerships’, FE Week can reveal – potentially allowing millions of pounds-worth of public funds to change hands without proper scrutiny.

A recent Ofsted report has for the first time listed “training provided by an associate partner” as an arrangement not “sanctioned by the Skills Funding Agency”.

Now, an FE Week investigation exposes that this practice is in widespread use across the sector.

Under it, a college or training provider with an SFA contract can invoice a partner for the use of their training staff as ‘associates’, as if they were from a recruitment agency.

Learners, however, are still recruited by this partner as usual, and taught on its premises, just as a subcontractor would do, but it’s all done in such a way as to evade government oversight.

These hidden deals are increasingly being used as a way to avoid SFA rules that explicitly ban loans. They can also circumvent strict rules on second-level subcontracting for apprenticeship, adult education budget and ESF funding.

Simply by giving the same old arrangements a new label, they are freed from the government’s checks, according to Rob George, a funding consultant and broker in SFA contracts.

He told FE Week that he was aware of several organisations which still effectively subcontracted their advance learner loan delivery, even though the SFA clearly banned the practice by August, just by “calling it an associate’s agreement” which, he said, is clearly “breaking the rules”.

He admitted that in his job, he “helps people manage their SFA contracts” and that he sees the SFA’s rules as “an opportunity document rather than an audit document”.

He said: “I help people find business strategies to remain compliant within the rules”.

Associate contracts are used by various colleges and providers, which “pay the training provider as a recruitment agency”, which “in theory” means “they are paying the trainers as associates”.

However, he said, “the only way you can properly, legally, within the rules do that is if [providers] have a separate arrangement with each individual trainer”.

In either case, FE Week understands that staff at prime providers generally never either recruit or meet with learners.

FE Week approached three colleges which we learned had been running associate partnerships, but all three declined to comment.

Tyne and Wear-based Expedient Training received an ‘inadequate’ rating in an Ofsted report published in January, and was subsequently put on the SFA’s list for early contract termination.

Expedient Training Ofsted report

Inspectors took the unheard-of step of stating in their report that the “vast majority” of the provider’s remaining apprenticeships and advanced learner loans personal training was “provided by an associate partner”.

FE Week checked with Ofsted and was told that the associate partner in question was Hampshire-based Personal Track Safety Limited.

PTSL claimed that Expedient Training retained between 20 and 28 per cent in management fees for apprenticeships in health and social care and engineering, and advanced learner loan-funded personal training courses it ran on the lead provider’s behalf between September 2014 and October last year.

It also said it was new to the training industry, so did not realise that the associate partnership arrangement for contracts worth over £100,000 was anything out of the ordinary.

Ofsted’s report said the arrangement between Personal Track Safety Limited and Expedient Training had not been sanctioned by the SFA.

Expedient’s managing director Malcolm Atkinson said it would be “inappropriate” for his organisation to make any comment whilst it was “working with the SFA on this matter”.

In another case, Edudo Ltd, a Hampshire-based provider, went into voluntary liquidation in January leaving around 100 learners with hefty student loans debt but no qualifications to show for it.

The company was allocated £500,500 in advanced learner loans by the SFA as of September, but it passed the delivery of at least some of its training onto at least three other providers – NVQ Nail & Beauty Specialists Academy, JB Training Academy and ABC Training London.

The three providers claimed they were originally asked to be subcontractors by Edudo, which denies any wrongdoing, to deliver level three qualifications in nail services, barbering and hairdressing, as well as childcare and health and social care.

When it came to signing the agreements, each of the providers alleged that associate contracts were used instead. These were it was claimed for an “uncapped amount” and based on performance and achievement.

Vimmi Virk, the director of ABC Taining London, said: “I was sent an initial contract for uncapped amount. The contract was performance, achievement-based over and above the 66 starts payable at a fixed rate of 70 per cent of the funding drawn down by Edudo.”

The SFA, which has put an official halt on subcontracting arrangements for advance learner loans from August last year, told FE Week that Edudo was a loans-only provider and as such was not allowed to subcontract any of its provision.

The agency added that as part of the contract termination process of Edudo, it would look carefully at any irregularities.

Following our discovery, Edudo’s director Ronan Smith defended the practice of associate partnerships for this type of work, claiming it was common in FE and that “hundreds” of providers were already doing it.

When FE Week presented our findings to the Department for Education, a spokesperson clearly condemned the practice.

“Any agreement terms of an ‘associate partnership’ would fall under the same strict regulation that is currently in place for subcontractors,” they said.

“We are strengthening the regulation of subcontractors and will not hesitate to take firm action in any case where we find our rules are not being complied with.”

What Edudo said in full:

The following statement was released to FE Week on behalf of the former board of directors of Edudo.

They said: “Edudo Limited, as per many providers in the industry, regularly and continually entered into associate delivery agreements for the provision of teaching and learning services to be delivered and managed under the Edudo centre and its quality and compliance processes alone, in line with well-established practise within the sector for the commissioning of freelance delivery services.

“Edudo limited was, over the years, itself approached by many primes directly and brokers offering various associate contract opportunities for work.
“Sectoral experience shows that a very significant proportion of provision across the sector relies entirely upon subcontract whether it is within apprenticeships, AEB and other provision forms.

“In just the same way, associate working, where relevant, makes equally as valuable a contribution to the sector’s need for timely learner and employer responsiveness, specialist competencies and targeted outcomes.”

 

Shocking associate partnerships need to be tackled – Nick Linford editorial

What’s on during National Apprenticeship Week 2017: Climbing the ladder of opportunity

The tenth National Apprenticeship Week will be celebrated across the country this year with an adventurous round of activities.

The celebration, of all the wonderful things that apprenticeships have to offer, kicks off on Monday, March 6.

This year’s theme is the skills minster Robert Halfon’s [pictured above] concept of the “ladder of opportunity”, and will focus on the many positive outcomes of taking up an apprenticeship.

Providers, employers and learners alike have been busy putting together innovative ways to celebrate apprenticeships across all industries and levels, to show just how life-changing the experience can be.

The events scheduled for 2017 include everything from job swapping, to learn about different roles and challenge stereotypes, to awards ceremonies which mark big achievements over the past year.

Some of the plans are branching into truly exciting new territory too.

A Guinness World Record attempt will take place on Tuesday, aiming to create the largest ever online apprenticeship and careers event.

And a live TV show about apprenticeships in the digital sector will be broadcast from the Digital Leaders YouTube channel on Friday.

The events described on this pages should give a taste of just some of the gems to look forward to during the week – click on the image below to view full-size..

FE Week will be dedicating a special supplement to National Apprenticeship Week 2017. So please email Alix.Robertson@feweek.co.uk all your photos and write-ups of events as they happen so we can report on them.

Early years educator apprenticeship requirement u-turn confirmed

The government has finally confirmed that it is u-turning on the requirements for early years educator apprenticeships.

Currently early years learners must achieve at least a grade C in English and maths GCSE to pass the level three course, but from April this will be broadened to include functional skills.

The announcement was reported to have been made by Caroline Dinenage (pictured above), the early years minister, at the Childcare Expo in London this morning, and was later confirmed in the Early Years Workforce Strategy published by the Department for Education.

“We will broaden the current English and mathematics requirement for level 3 early years educators (EYE), including for apprenticeships, to level 2 qualifications, including functional skills,” it said.

The change, which will take effect from April 3, will “impact anyone who already holds an EYE qualification, began studying an EYE since September 2016 or takes up an EYE in the future”, it said.

The news comes almost three weeks after FE Week reported that a u-turn was expected, but that the final decision was understood to have been delayed by the Prime Minister’s office.

Campaigners have been pressing the government to change its GCSE requirement for the EYE qualification since it was first introduced in 2014.

They argued that the stringent requirement – which was unique among apprenticeships – was hitting recruitment in the childcare sector.

More than 4,000 people responded to a government consultation into the literacy and numeracy qualification requirements for level three early years educators, which ran in November

According to the strategy published today, there had been a 40 per cent decline in the number of people starting a level three childcare apprenticeship since the introduction of the GCSE requirement.

The consultation responses “indicated that the GCSE requirement is impacting negatively on the size and shape of the workforce”, with “applicants’ lack of the required GCSEs” being an issue for more than 2,300 people who responded.

Crucially, it said: “The literacy and numeracy skills identified by respondents as being most necessary for a level three practitioner can be covered by level two functional skills qualifications, along with requirements already included in the EYE qualifications criteria.”

Today’s news was greeted with enthusiasm by early years organisations.

Julie Hyde, associate director of CACHE and leader of the Save Our Early Years campaign, said she was “absolutely delighted” that the “government has done the right thing”.

“This decision will enable early years settings to again hire the excellent practitioners they need, and to allow staff to progress and remain in the workforce,” she said.

Fifteenth studio school set to close out of 36 nationwide

Another studio school is reported to be shutting its doors, making it the 15th of its kind to close and leaving just 35 open.

Future Tech Studio School in Warrington, sponsored by Warrington Collegiate, will close at the end of the academic year, according to reports in the Warrington Guardian.

The decision to close is said to be due to low student numbers, and comes after the 14 to 19 school was reportedly forced to end its year 12 provision in September after failing to attract enough students.

The Warrington Guardian article quotes a spokesperson for Warrington Borough Council, who said: “Future Tech is directly funded by the Government and is not the responsibility of the council. 

“Unfortunately it would seem it has been unable to maintain sufficient students and is therefore going to close at the end of the academic year.”

There is no statement about the closure on the school’s website, although its Facebook and Twitter accounts appear to have been deactivated.

Studio schools are an alternative to mainstream education for 14 to 19-year-olds, with institutes taking on cohorts of up to 300 pupils. They provide a work-related curriculum with pupils receiving vocational and academic qualifications, as well as work experience.

The news of Future Tech’s closure comes a year after the Shared Learning Trust in Luton, formerly known as the Barnfield Academy Trust, announced that it would be closing its studio school.

As reported by our sister paper FE Week, the Studio School, Luton, opened in 2010 but only had just 66 pupils and 12 staff, with no new students signed up to start in September 2016.

That announcement came a day after two Da Vinci studio schools in Hertfordshire said they too were closing due to the “real challenges” they have faced.

It marks a string of closures for the programme which has struggled with recruitment since its conception in 2010. To date 14 have closed, with three still due to open.

David Nicoll, the Studio Schools Trust’s chief executive, told FE Week that the schools have had difficulties recruiting because the model is not seen as “traditional”.

It comes after the key ministerial architect of the government’s policy on university technical colleges – which also recruit at age 14 – admitted the experiment has failed.

Michael Gove, former education secretary, wrote in his column in the Times newspaper on February 10 that “the evidence has accumulated and the verdict is clear” on the 14-to-19 institutions.

He said: “Twice as many UTCs are inadequate as outstanding, according to Ofsted. UTC pupils have lower GCSE scores, make less progress academically and acquire fewer qualifications than their contemporaries in comprehensives.”

Photo credit: Warrington Guardian

Apprenticeships: what are Ofsted inspectors looking for?

Apprenticeships are not vehicles to validate employees’ existing skills – our inspectors want to see that apprentices are learning something new, says Christopher Jones

A sign outside a shop in my local market town reads: ‘the only constant in life is change’. I usually ignore such nuggets of wisdom, but this one stuck with me.

As we approach a significant milestone in the funding of apprenticeships, reflect on the new roles for employers, review the list of approved apprenticeship training providers, appraise the detail of apprenticeship standards, and await the official launch of the Institute for Apprenticeships (and Technical Education), it is clear that change is all around us.

In Ofsted’s 2016 annual report, her majesty’s chief inspector highlighted the increased proportion of apprenticeship programmes found to be ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’, but acknowledged that 37 per cent of those inspected were less than good.

Apprenticeships work best when training providers and employers ensure that the structure and delivery of the programme helps apprentices meet exacting standards and contribute to the growth of the business. The best employers provide their apprentices with consistent support and effective training, both on the job and away from work, to ensure their success.

READ MORE: How we challenged an Ofsted report… and WON

Here at Ofsted, we currently have 32 apprentices. Some are working at level two and others at level three. We offered our apprentices a permanent role from the first day of their programme, making a genuine commitment to their development and future career. As an organisation we are committed to social mobility, so during the recruitment and selection process we focused on the apprentices’ skills and potential, rather than their previous academic achievements.

All of our apprentices are proving to be dedicated and valuable members of the team.

We know from our inspection findings that too often employers do not know enough about the requirements of the apprenticeship programme or the quality of the training. And, in some cases, they are concerned that the off-the-job training provided does not enable apprentices to develop the skills they need. We need to ensure that apprenticeship provision is of the highest quality so apprentices can thrive and businesses can benefit.

Changes to the funding of apprenticeships may encourage more businesses to consider developing their existing employees through an apprenticeship. But remember, apprenticeships are not vehicles to validate employees’ existing skills.

It’s vital that employers and training providers ensure these apprentices learn new skills and gain the knowledge that will help them to earn a promotion, take on more responsibility, contribute to increased productivity, or get a payrise.

We know apprenticeships are switching from frameworks to standards, and while recruitment to standards-based apprenticeships has increased significantly, they still account for just three per cent of apprentices who began their training after September 2016.

Too often employers do not know enough about the requirements of the apprenticeship programme

Currently, around 95 per cent of apprenticeships are at level two and level three, but over a third of the standards that have been developed are at level four and above. The slow development and approval of standards for the majority of apprentice job roles means that providers may have some apprentices on frameworks and some on standards for the foreseeable future.

So what does this mean for inspection? Rather than change, it is business as usual for Ofsted. Regardless of the format of an apprenticeship programme, our inspectors want to see that apprentices know something new, can do something better, are able to work on their own, and can make independent decisions as a result of their training and learning.

We want to see that employers and providers have structured their training programmes to ensure that apprentices can achieve the very best of their potential. So while we might well see change all around us every day, when it comes to inspection, we will simply keep calm and carry on.

 

Christopher Jones is HMI specialist advisor on apprenticeships at Ofsted

College governors brand SFA’s new apprenticeship contracts ‘ludicrous’

College governors have branded the SFA’s new apprenticeship contractual arrangements “ludicrous” during a heated discussion at the AoC’s Governance Summit.

There is due to be a shift from contracts between the SFA and colleges to legal agreements between colleges and employers – which will amount to “a commercial relationship” with employers – according to Keith Smith, the SFA’s director of funding and programmes.

“You are entering into a commercial relationship with an employer because they are choosing to use you and buy services from you,” he told attendees.

Stunned governors were urged “make sure you know what you are selling” and to “understand you have the right terms and conditions to protect yourself” if an employer decides to end the relationship.

The discussion soon became heated, as governors expressed their shock at the new arrangements – which will also see employers drawing up their own separate contracts with the SFA.

One unnamed governor blasted the system as “ludicrous” and a “nightmare”.

“I can see people walking away from contracts and there is no incentive to enforce it,” he warned. “The legal fees for doing so could swamp the potential gain.”

Mr Smith admitted in response that commercial relationships between colleges and employers did risk becoming “tricky, rocky and volatile”.

He continued: “That’s why I say to you when you enter into these relationships, what indemnity and safeguards have you put in place?”

But he insisted that employers “can’t walk away from paying the levy and can’t walk away taking money out of the account and do something else with it”.

From his point of view, he said, these contracts mean that the SFA would get the levy cash one way or another, and that his department would “make sure it’s spent for the benefit of apprenticeships”.

Earlier in the session, he warned governors that the SFA would not step in if colleges have any contract disputes with employers, saying: “I can’t get involved in any contractual dispute or commercial disputes when the employer has instructed me to stop paying you.”

Nor can the SFA get involved in contract negotiations between employers and providers – “that’s for you now,” said Mr Smith.

Governors were therefore urged to ensure that management teams were aware of the upcoming changes.

The “safety nets” created by the involvement of the SFA were due to “change significantly”, he said, “and you just need to be aware of the risks of these things”.

“As a governing body you need to make sure you are quizzing and questioning your management teams on how on the ball they are,” he went on.

“If they say ‘don’t worry, this is all normal, we do this all the time’, then I would probably worry.”

Julian Gravatt, AoC’s assistant chief executive, said his organisation had been working with colleges to prepare for the reforms “for several years”.

“Getting the relationship between employer, apprentice and college right will be vital to make this work,” he said.

“Employers will clearly now have the ability to change their mind if colleges get things wrong.

“But it is inevitable that the government will need to intervene in some cases to protect the apprentice and to ensure that training continues in the right areas.”

Mark Dawe, chief executive of AELP, said: “Independent training providers welcome this brave new world. They are used to dealing with employers in negotiating agreements.”

SFA already finding ineligible employer incentives and will ‘strengthen’ funding rules

The apprenticeship funding rules will be beefed up to stop inappropriate employer incentives, just two months ahead of the launch of levy-funded apprenticeships.

The Skills Funding Agency said in their weekly update that they were aware of providers offering incentives, such as payments to employers to refund fees, which was ‘contrary to the policy intent’.

“Following the publication of the Apprenticeship funding and performance management rules 2017 to 2018, we have been made aware of some 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.

“We will continue to review these practices and will shortly be strengthening the funding rules to prevent this.”

Struggling college bailed out by SFA after bank refusal

A Warwickshire college in financial dire straits has been bailed out by the Skills Funding Agency, and is now seeking a merger partner following the departure of its principal.

Stratford-Upon-Avon College was rated ‘good’ by Ofsted in March 2015, but ran into money problems this year after planned projects which were expected to bring in new funds came to a halt.

Chair of the corporation at Stratford-Upon-Avon College and former Confederation of British Industry boss, Lord Digby Jones (pictured above), spoke to FE Week about the fast-developing situation on Tuesday.

He said Lloyds Bank refused to provide temporary financial support to the struggling college, meaning it was forced to turn to the SFA for assistance.

The agency agreed to a bail out but insisted that as part of the arrangement the principal, Nicola Mannock, must leave her post, he added.

Former Warwickshire College deputy principal, Andrew Cropley (pictured left), has now taken up the role of interim principal and chief executive at the college, and Lord Jones confirmed that his appointment had been approved by the SFA.

“I have found the SFA amazingly helpful,” he said.

“They did say they wished Nicola Mannock to resign and she has done so. She left our employment yesterday (February 27).”

He confirmed that this had been “a condition” of working with the SFA, but added that Ms Mannock had done “an awful lot for the college” in her time there.

In October 2015, the college marked the end of a 17-month long intervention by then FE Commissioner, Sir David Collins, which had been triggered when the SFA rated its finances as inadequate.

Sir David’s recommendations to the college following his first visit in May 2014 suggested Ms Mannock would “benefit from being mentored by an experience principal”.

Her appointment, without a competitive recruitment process, had led a number of governors to resign in protest, and was described at the time by the commissioner as “questionable”.

Looking forward, Lord Jones said: “The only project on the horizon now is to put out a request for tenders for merger.”

He admitted that while he plans to see the college through to recovery, he also intends to “step off the ship” once it reaches a “safe port”.

He said that a merger would be implemented “as quickly as we can”, ideally allowing the college to begin the 2017/18 academic year, “as a merged college with another entity”.

Lord Jones added that the unions and the SFA would both be involved in the process, and an agreement had been made with the agency that “as a condition of any merger proposal, the college in Stratford will not be harmed in any way”.

FE Week approached two local colleges about the situation at Stratford-upon-Avon College and both showed interest in future collaboration.

Stuart Laverick, principal at Heart of Worcestershire College said he was “sorry to hear” about the college’s troubles.

“We’re already working closely with Stratford-upon-Avon College and have collaborated in a number of areas.

“We will continue to support our partners and should there be an opportunity for closer working in the future of HoW College would look forward to exploring this further.”

A spokesperson at Warwickshire College Group highlighted that it had proposed a merger with Stratford-Upon-Avon College during the Coventry and Warwickshire area review, but it had been dismissed at the time.

He said: “WCG has been merging with individual colleges across Warwickshire and Worcestershire since 1996, so we have an established model to embrace other colleges into the group structure.

“WCG would be pleased to work more closely with Stratford College to secure the long term future of FE in the area and to ensure.”

The SFA was unable to comment on the record, other than to confirm what Lord Jones told FE Week.