Latest news from FE Week | FE Week

Area Reviews: rebuild for resilience

Right time to reflect on sweeping changes

It’s been just over a year since the reviews launched, aiming to move towards “fewer, often larger, more resilient and efficient providers”.

Since that time, I’ve been following the process with great interest – from the first reports of lengthy delays during wave one, to the FE commissioner Sir David Collins’ promise to MPs this month that all reviews were on track to finish on time by next March.

Now that many of the earlier reviews have reached the implementation phase – and the government has at last published its long-awaited implementation guidance – this is a good moment to focus on the work ahead for colleges.

Pages four and five give you an essential overview of the key points of the new guidance – which includes the due diligence framework, as well as key facts about the restructuring facility, and sixth form college academisation guidance.

Many colleges will emerge from the review process wanting to merge with one another, so on page six, lawyer and FE expert Glynne Stanfield outlines the different options for closer working.

On page seven we hear from Theresa Grant, who chaired the Greater Manchester review on behalf of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority.

She writes about how the combined authority’s analysis of the area’s future employment trends helped shape the outcomes of that review.

Sir David Collins has chaired 14 of the reviews, which have seen him travel the length and breadth of the country – so he’ll probably be looking forward to a break when he retires later this month.

We meet his successor, Richard Atkins CBE, and his supporting team on pages 10 and 11.

And turn to pages 12 and 13 for a college governor’s views of the reviews, as Beej Kaczmarczyk writes about his experience as a governor at a college involved in the first wave of the reviews.

Joining with another college is obviously a potentially traumatic experience, and on page 14 the former Bath College principal Matt Atkinson, now FEA’s managing director, writes about how to successfully navigate the experience.

And on page 15 merger expert Chris Mantel looks at how to plan a successful merger.

Small school scandal deepens as academy trust found running sixth form with fewer than 20 pupils

A multi-academy trust might be running a new sixth form with fewer than 20 students, FE Week has learned, just days after the DfE reversed a decision to let it open another one over fears it wouldn’t be able to make up numbers.

Loxford Trust has refused to reveal exactly how many students attend the sixth form attached to Tabor Academy in Braintree in Essex, after two separate sources claimed it was running far under either its capacity or the 200-pupil minimum specified in the Department for Education’s own guidelines.

The Trust also sponsors Abbs Cross academy and arts college in Hornchurch, Essex, and had been due to open a new sixth form there until the government was forced to climb down under the threat of a judicial review led by the Association of Colleges on Tuesday.

The DfE backed out on the morning of the hearing, reversing its decision and admitting that the trust had not “adequately conducted” a consultation with the local authority.

Significantly, the judicial review alleged that Tim Coulson (pictured), the regional schools commissioner for East England and North East London, had flouted government rules when approving the request from Loxford.

Regional schools commissioners work with the national schools commissioner Sir David Carter to take action in underperforming schools, and to decide on applications which can make significant changes to academies and free schools – such as opening new sixth forms.

The decision to approve the sixth forms at both Abbs Cross and Tabor was made by Mr Coulson at a meeting of the East England and North East London headteacher board on May 12.

In addition to the 200-pupil minimum, the DfE’s rules also state that applications for new sixth forms should normally come from academies rated ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted.

Abbs Cross had been rated ‘inadequate’ following its last full inspection in June 2015, losing its previous ‘good’ rating, while Tabor Academy also received an ‘inadequate’ rating at its most recent full inspection, published in January 2015.

A jubilant David Hughes, AoC’s chief executive, now wants full details of all new sixth form proposals to be put “on the public record”.

“Lots of our members think it is very unfair when a school sixth form gets set up on their doorstep,” he told FE Week, “and where the business case isn’t clear or the consultation is not perhaps as thorough as it might be, the transparency of the decision making isn’t clear.”

The DfE has also agreed to pay a “substantial contribution to a figure in excess of £50,000” to the AoC towards legal costs incurred for the review, he added.

A DfE spokesperson would not comment on the costs and said further information about the review would be published in due course, while Mr Hughes told FE Week that he had written to Sir David to set out what AoC believes the review should look at.

It’s unclear exactly how many pupils attend Tabor’s sixth form, which opened in September, while neither it nor Loxford Trust responded to repeated requests asking for clarification on the sources’ claims, that fewer than 20 students attend.

A DfE spokesperson told FE Week that the decision to approve Tabor Academy’s sixth form “was taken following advice from the Education Funding Agency and the headteacher board, taking into account a consultation in which 81 per cent of respondents were in favour of the proposal.

“It is expected that the sixth form will have 200 pupils from 2017-18,” they added, a figure which seems hard to achieve if the 20-student rumours are true.

A spokesperson for Colchester Institute, which also has a campus in Braintree, told FE Week that it had responded to the consultation on Tabor’s new sixth form a few years ago, “expressing serious concerns about the need and viability of further post-16 provision in the area”.

“Colchester Institute’s concerns were noted but the decision was made,” the spokesperson said.

******************************************************************************************

What the AoC chief executive David Hughes told FE Week

On the cost of the legal action: The DfE has agreed to pay a “substantial contribution to a figure in excess of £50,000.”

On fairness between way schools and colleges are treated: “We have just been through area reviews and colleges are having to put down three and five year financial plans that are properly rigorous and robust, why wouldn’t you expect that of a new school sixth form proposal?

“Why wouldn’t you allow that to be published? It should be on the public record so we have asked for that.”

“Lots of our members think it is very unfair when a school sixth form gets set up on their doorstep, and where the business case isn’t clear or the consultation is not perhaps as thorough as it might be, that the transparency of the decision making isn’t clear.”

On the Regional Schools Commissioners: “They need some clear rules and guidance to work to and we don’t think the current guidance offers that.

“The guidance is not written in a way that helps set out clearly what is expected. It is not about individuals. It is about the system.”

On the risk that forcing the DfE to review the policy might result in them weakening it, such as by taking out the 200 minimum student requirement: “That is an interesting question and I hadn’t thought of that.

“I don’t think so. I think there is a realisation that small school sixth forms are difficult financially.

“We have asked the DfE to analyse the evidence that shows small school sixth forms have poorer quality generally and I think they know that.

“I think the way the case has gone and their actions and discussions we have had suggest that is low risk, but it is a political process.

“I’ve just been with Justine Greening and the sort of education system she wants is high quality. Small school sixth forms find high quality very difficult and I think they know that.”

On the Tabor school sixth form: “We are aware of that [issue].

“I don’t want to comment on an individual position because there are probably many other cases like this.”

On what next: “I’m writing to Sir David Carter today, a letter that sets out in a bit more detail of what we think the review needs to look at and what the issues are.

“We have asked for and will ask the DfE to engage us, which they have promised to do, but also engage some of our members in that process.

“Ideally they will do it in an open and transparent way, that is what I think they should do and that is what we will be pushing for, including a timetable and publication.”

Editor Asks part two: Apprenticeships minister Robert Halfon on employer ownership, assessment organisations and subcontracting

Last week, I spoke to apprenticeships minister Robert Halfon about the government’s so-called funding U-turn and the apprenticeship levy. Part two of the interview takes in employer ownership, assessment organisations and subcontracting.

So, I asked, is employer ownership compatible with social justice? “Absolutely,” he told me. “If you don’t incentivise the employer you then don’t get the quality apprenticeships that you need.

“We’re doing everything possible to incentivise the employer. That includes levy payers, because if they fulfil their levy they get some money back and an immediate £15,000.”

However, he insisted that the shift to employer control wouldn’t affect those in the 16- to 18-year-old bracket, who make up 25 per cent of all apprentices.

“Not everyone is 16 to 18,” he said. “This is not about one particular group of people, and don’t forget many 16- to 18- year olds will choose to carry on in education, or do technical education, or whatever it may be.”

So even though roughly 150,000 people will be out of a ring-fenced budget from May 1, he believes employers will take the incentives keep taking young people on.
“If we want the apprentices we have to create an employer-led system,” he said.

Next question: Will the minister prevent apprentices from stating standards before they have an assessment organisation? His answer: “No.”

“We’re not going to slow it down because we’ve got roughly 400 standards with something like 3,800 apprentice starts,” he added. “We’re going to work incredibly hard to get this assessment situation sorted out.”

He did however acknowledge the situation as “a difficulty”, and promised “more clarity” and “more support”, adding: “there’ll be plenty of time to sort it out”.

On subcontracting, and the government’s change of heart, he admitted that it had been down to the responses to the consultations.

“We’ve actually listened,” he said. “We still want to do something on the subcontracting issue… and our decision is that to take stock and look at this issue in the round.”

And finally, he was bullish on the CBI’s concerns on the apprenticeship levy, and on its call to delay implementation, pointing to the TUC, the EEF and the various colleges which have spoken in support of the measure.

He said: “Of course [the CBI] is going to raise these issues – all businesses are going to ask – but we’re working incredibly hard to make sure it is ready, and it will be ready.

But if you go back to what the CBI originally said about our levy, you should recognise that while they have questions on the final implementation, they have welcomed the vast substance of what we’ve done.”

Minister ‘pretty sure’ assessments will be in place by the time apprentices finish

The apprenticeships and skills minister is “pretty sure” that no apprentices will get to the end of their course without an end-point assessment organisation in place.

Robert Halfon was grilled on the topic in speaking at a sub-committee on education, skills and the economy evidence session on apprenticeships today (November 2) in the Palace of Westminster, by co-chairs Neil Carmichael and Iain Wright, and Ian Mearns, MP for Gateshead.

While the government claims 60 per cent of standards have assessment organisations, many of these standards have no learners.

As previously reported in FE Week, of those standards with learners, 59% (33) have no assessment org and 42% (1,790) of apprentices are on the 33 standards with no assessment organisation.

Speaking to the sub-committee, Mr Halfon said: “Even where there isn’t an assessment organisation yet, we’re pretty sure that by the time they’ve finished their apprenticeship, which could be on year, two years, they will have the assessment organisation in place.

“Huge amounts of resources are being put in in terms of working with the providers; a lot of work is going on with the employers to make sure of that.”

He added: “I don’t think the picture is quite as bleak as it’s been painted in some areas.”

Mr Halfon’s words followed similar comments made yesterday by Peter Lauener, interim chief executive of the new Institute for Apprenticeships, and chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency and Education Funding Agency.

Mr Lauener told a packed audience at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers Autumn conference in Manchester that having no approved awarding organisations for over 40 per cent of learner starts on new standards is “not ideal” but the situation was “manageable”.

He added that he did not think “there’s a consensus” view that the situation was a serious problem or that apprentices should not start their courses without an end-point assessor in place.

However, when AELP chief executive Mark Dawe took a poll of the audience, not a single hand went up to say it was acceptable for an apprentice to be studying on a course that had no end-point assessment organisation assigned to it.

In today’s debate Mr Halfon told the sub-committee that “60 per cent of standards have an assessment organisation in place” and “that figure goes up from 60 per cent to 94 per cent if you include assessment organisations either about to be registered or within 12 months of the gateway of the end of the apprenticeship”.

David Hill, director of apprenticeships at the Department for Education (pictured right), who accompanied Mr Halfon at the evidence hearing, added: “Looking specifically at apprentices expected to be ready for their end-point assessment in the next 12 months, our analysis is that of those 1737 (86 per cent) already have at least one end-point assessment organisation ready for selection.

“That leaves another 278 apprentices and we’ve gone through exactly the status of those apprentices on different standards”.

He highlighted that for three apprenticeship standards, covering 40 apprentices, “we have organisations very, very close to being approved and we’re working with those organisations to get them on the register”.

Mr Hill concluded: “We’ve looked hard at this we are confident that we have a plan in place to make sure that there will be full coverage.”

In an FE Week article on October 14, Dr Sue Pember, who stood down as the civil service head of further education and skills investment in February 2013, said it is “diabolical to let an apprentice start a programme, without explaining not only what the end test will contain, but where it will be, what shape it will take and who will be the organisation to oversee and manage the process”.

Mr Dawe, also commented on the topic in an FE Week expert piece, when he wrote: “Having appropriate standards and robust EPAs are vital to the success of the apprenticeship programme and the development of skills in the UK.

“However feedback from AELP members suggests that while there are some excellent ones, this isn’t true for every standard developed and the damage that could be done to apprenticeships is far worse than the concerns around funding changes which we have had over the past weeks.”

Fruity reception expected for Halfon’s apples and pears

Members of the Sub-Committee on Education, Skills and the Economy could be forgiven for getting fruity with Robert Halfon – just over 24 hours after his apples and pears analogy for apprenticeships left MPs fuming.

The FE minister is set to face his second set of tough questions on apprenticeship reforms this week, during a House of Commons sub-committee hearing starting at 9.30am tomorrow.

Whether or not he will answer them directly, or try to “hoodwink” MPs with what Labour MP David Lammy claimed this morning was misleading rhetoric, is another matter.

The Westminster Hall debate, called after FE Week exposed funding cuts for younger apprentices in deprived areas, saw Mr Lammy claim Mr Halfon had ignored his questions on existing framework funding, and instead focused during his speech on largely untested new standards.

It came after the minister said: “The point that I’m very keen to make is that actually we are moving to a new world.

“Businesses will choose different kind of apprenticeships because of the move to standards, and would-be apprentices will choose a different kind of apprenticeship.

“So the way the discussion has gone from some of people on the benches opposite, it is as if we are comparing apples with apples. The world is changing. It is now apples with pears.”

He added: “To use some frameworks as a way to say the government is not helping the poorest is entirely wrong.”

The world is changing. It is now apples with pears

Mr Lammy was dismissive of these comments, pointing out the vast majority of apprenticeships remain on old frameworks.

He said: “The minister has relied on these new standards – standards that only just over 3,000 apprentices have taken up.

“Over 99 per cent are on the current frameworks, which is the matter of the debate, and the minister has not addressed it at all. He’s trying to hoodwink the house.”

Analysis of DfE Statistical First Release figures published this month (click here)

This morning’s debate was called by Mr Lammy in response to FE Week’s analysis of apprenticeship funding rates proposed by the Department for Education in August.

This showed these new rates would lead to funding being slashed for 16 to 18-year-olds in some of nation’s most deprived areas by up to 50 per cent.

It sparked FE Week’s successful #SaveOurApprenticeships campaign, which caused the government to announce a partial u-turn on the worst of the cuts last week.

The DfE announced on Tuesday it would now pay an extra 20 per cent on the funding band limit for 16-18 year-olds, and £60 million “additional support in areas of disadvantage”.

However, further FE Week analysis into the impact of this u-turn found that while the cuts now won’t be quite as high, most frameworks will still see reductions of 20 per cent or more.

David Hill, director of apprenticeships at the Department for Education, will also give evidence during tomorrow’s sub-committee hearing.

Proceedings can be viewed live at Parliamentlive.tv and FE Week will be live tweeting.

Police called to college following suspected stabbing

Police were called to Rotherham College of Arts and Technology today following reports that a teenager had been stabbed.

South Yorkshire Police confirmed that the incident happened at around 12.50pm, after it was tweeted that the victim may have received puncture wounds to the chest.

A spokesperson declined to go into detail about the precise nature of the injuries.

But he said: “A 16-year-old boy had been assaulted. At this time, his injuries, believed to have been caused by a knife, are thought to be minor.

“Officers remain in the area and an investigation is now underway to determine the exact circumstances surrounding the incident,” he added.

A college spokesperson told FE Week: “There hasn’t been an incident on the college campus. There’s been an incident on a road next to the campus.

“The college has remained open as normal with access to all the buildings. No disruption at all.”

When asked if anyone involved in the incident was from the college, he declined to comment because the police had asked the college not to discuss the incident further.

It comes after BBC Radio Sheffield tweeted earlier: “A college student’s been stabbed in Eastwood Lane in Rotherham – he’s suffered puncture wounds to the chest.”

Student focus for Sir Vince Cable’s FE comeback

An FE comeback for Sir Vince Cable will see him lead a new research project for the National Union of Students into how major reforms coming for the sector should be tailored for learners.

The former business secretary, who told Liberal Democrats’ conference delegates two years ago that he was responsible for blocking moves in 2010 to enforce drastic funding cuts for “post-school” training, is taking charge of the new project with NUS vice-president for FE Shakira Martin.

It will be called Students Shaping FE, and their findings will be published in a report by autumn 2017.

Shakira Martin with Sir Vince Cable at the launch event today

Sir Vince told FE Week today: “I am a firm exponent of FE and did my best to defend it in government. “It is embedded in me, as I saw first-hand how colleges transformed lives in my family – my father was a lecturer at York Tech College and my mother was in many ways saved after a period of personal trauma by adult education classes. I now want to do my best to help future students.”

He added: “There is a natural tendency in government to look at it as a debate just between principals and civil servant and ministers, , but I want to get a handle on how all these reforms are affecting students and what policies are needed to help them.

“It’s a good time to do this, now the new skills and education minsters have bedded in and we have seen a lot of detail of reform plans, for apprenticeships for example.”

When asked to expand on areas he sees as priorities for students at present, Sir Vince mentioned collective representation.

“I know the NUS is already trying to organise apprentices better,” he said, for example. “That’s needed because a lot of them are very poorly paid and having bad experiences.”

Sir Vince, who was profiled by FE Week last September, said the plan is for him and Ms Martin to visit as many FE providers across Britain as possible.

“In the old days, I would turn up in the ministerial car and just speak to senior staff who told me what they thought I wanted to hear, now the key thing will be talking to students.

“That won’t just be with traditional FE student colleges either, as I know a lot of apprentices are trained by private providers.”

He admitted to not being fully versed with plans for 15 new post-16 ‘professional and technical’ routes, announced through the Skills White Paper in May.

However, Dr Cable raised concern about associated plans to channel students into either technical or academic education.

“I’m against the artificial divide between the two routes – and even though I’m a grammar school boy fear that plans for more selection will set back education greatly.

“I’m also really interested in learning more about the role FE plays in rehabilitating offenders, and giving people across a broad spectrum a second chance.”

Ms Martin spoke about her excitement at working with the former minister.

She said: “We both came at FE from different areas, but are both totally committed to it, and I hope working in partnership will reflect the diverse approach we want to take with this.

“Going to college transformed my life, and I know it did the same for Vince’s family members.”

She saw a key issue facing students being the lack of consultation over apprenticeship reforms.

“The fact that there is not going to be, as it stands, a student voice on the apprenticeship policing body, the Institute for Apprenticeships is a disgrace. That’s the sort of thing we need to address.

“It will be a pleasure working on this ambitious project together.”

Peter Lauener at odds with sector over lack of end-point assessors

The new apprenticeships reform policing body’s boss insisted a shortage of approved end-point assessors is not a serious problem – despite a roomful of Association of Employment and Learning Providers Autumn conference delegates disagreeing.

Peter Lauener, who is interim chief executive of the new Institute for Apprenticeships, as well as chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency and Education Funding Agency, told a packed audience that having no approved awarding organisations for over 40 per cent of learner starts on new standards is “not ideal” but the situation was “manageable”.

He added that he did not think “there’s a consensus” view that the situation was a serious problem or that apprentices should not start their courses without an end-point assessor in place.

The moment when no hands go up as audience asked if apprentices should be allowed to start a standard before an end point assessment organisation has been approved

Mr Lauener responded by commenting: “Well, I did say I didn’t think it wasn’t ideal.”

He added: “There are 4,200 starts on standards, and there are 800,000 apprentices, so come on, let’s get this in proportion.”

Mr Lauener disputed the comments of Dr Sue Pember, who stood down as the civil service head of further education and skills investment in February 2013, in a previous FE Week article on October 14, in which she said it is “diabolical to let an apprentice start a programme, without explaining not only what the end test will contain, but where it will be, what shape it will take and who will be the organisation to oversee and manage the process”.

He said: “We don’t expect any of the apprentices that are in training at the moment to reach their end-point assessment without having an end-point assessor provider rightly in place.”

“That’s what I would regard as a disgrace, if we were to get anywhere near that – we’re not in position, we don’t think we will get to that position as of the changes we’re making.”

Mr Lauener concluded by saying that it would be “an even bigger mistake” t0 “sacrifice quality in end-point assessment for speed.”

Mr Dawe responded by saying that AELP was willing to work with Mr Lauener in addressing the problem, highlighting that his organisation is involved in a new programme targeted at tackling the shortage of end-point assessors in apprenticeships, but added that “there is a concern I think still during this interim period about the gap”.

Update: Reaction to Peter Lauener comments from Dr Sue Pember, former top civil servant responsible for apprenticeships

Dr Pember told FE Week: “Whether it is 4,000 or 100,000 it needs to be sorted. The young people involved will never be able to recapture these years again and they need to have a secure transparent route to success. I agree with Peter the end test must ensure good quality. However, there are certain management actions that could be taken now that would resolve the matter:

Stop registering apprentices onto new apprenticeship standards where there is no apprenticeship assessment organisation (AAO) appointed.
Urgently work with employers and other organisations to appoint AAOs to the current approved standards that do not have an AAO.
Ensure potential AAOs are engaged early on in the process for developing new standards, before agreeing to the standard being developed.
Reintroduce parity of esteem and protect apprentices’ interests by ensuring they all end up with a vocational sector qualification as part of the programme and not just those on a level 4
Rethink the implementation process bearing in mind that there could eventually be some 2,000 apprenticeship standards. At the current rate of progress it could be around 100 years before the changes are implemented. This is unsustainable, a radically rethink of the implementation processes is needed whilst retaining policy intent the Government is rightly trying to achieve.”

Making apprenticeships work for young people will take more than fixing the funding formula

At their best, apprenticeships can offer young people the opportunity to earn and to learn; to blend on-the-job training with off-the-job learning in a way that can help them build a successful and sustainable career.

As well as being good for the learner, apprenticeships can be great for employers too; helping them develop skilled, motivated and loyal employees. For the country, an effective apprenticeship system can help address the skills gap, boost our stalled levels of productivity, and act as an engine of social mobility.

The government’s ambitious target of three million apprenticeships this parliament is to be welcomed, and it has already taken action by introducing the apprenticeship levy on large employers.

The partial reversal of spending cuts for apprenticeships, announced last week, is also welcome.

The cuts would have hit young learners and deprived areas of the country particularly hard. Credit for convincing the government to re-think its plans should go to FE Week for their Save our Apprenticeships campaign, and to David Lammy MP and Gordon Marsden MP too.

But while the debate about government funding for apprenticeships is important, it is of course just part of the picture.

However, this is only a partial u-turn. In a debate in Parliament this morning recent number-crunching from FE Week was highlighted, showing that nine out of ten of the most popular apprenticeship frameworks will still face funding cuts of between 14 and 51 per cent.

It seems the cuts have merely been downgraded from the realm of the eye-watering to the swingeing.

But while the debate about government funding for apprenticeships is important, it is of course just part of the picture.

While the partial u-turn is welcome, and while it needs to go further, there remains significant and systemic challenges with our apprenticeship system, particularly for young learners. It is failing to meet the needs either of young people, of employers or of our economy.

There is an ongoing problem with employer demand for young apprentices.

The number of apprenticeship starts has increased substantially, doubling in the last five years. This will likely be further boosted with the introduction of the apprenticeship levy, as employers seek to get value from their contributions.

However, the growth has been driven by older apprentices, many of whom were already working with the employer. The number of young apprentices remains disappointingly static; fewer 16-18 year olds started an apprenticeship last year compared to four years previously, when the economy was just emerging from recession.

Beyond quantity, there are very real concerns about progression and quality. Too often, apprenticeships seem not to offer young people the opportunity to progress and develop sustainable and successful careers.

Upcoming IPPR research as part of the New Skills at Work Programme shows that far too many 16-18 year olds studying level 2 apprenticeships do not progress to the higher levels of vocational education that can really help them get on into work.

We know that people who do not progress beyond level 2 are far more likely to face low pay and unemployment.

Compared to counties with more established and effective vocational systems like Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark, young apprentices in England tend to spend far less time on off-the-job learning; normally just one day a week. This training is often very job-specific, rather than embracing the wider vocation, and there is a lesser focus on general education such as English, maths and digital skills.

The current model of level 2 apprenticeships contrasts not just with these countries, but also with the recommendations of the excellent Sainsbury review of technical education.

Sainsbury recommended that young people take a two-year course featuring a common core of knowledge that results in a certificate linked to an occupational pathway.

We need to learn the lessons both of our continental neighbours, and of the Sainsbury review.

The apprenticeship levy could make a real difference to numbers, and the partial U-turn on funding cuts is to be welcomed. But there is more to be done.

If the government wants to build on its reforms, and to develop a high quality apprenticeship system that works both for our economy, for employers and for young people too, we need to do more than just fix the funding formula.