EXCLUSIVE: AoC reaches out-of-court settlement with DfE over sixth form judicial review

The Association of Colleges has agreed to a settlement before the first judicial review against the government in more than a decade – meaning a small sixth form will now not go ahead.

The AoC joined with Havering Sixth Form College to launch a high court challenge against the Department for Education’s decision to fund a new sixth form at Abbs Cross Academy and Arts College, in Hornchurch, Essex.

The AoC claims that Tim Coulson, regional schools commissioner for the East of England and North East London, failed to follow the government’s own rules after approving the request from the Loxford School Trust, which took over the school in February.

The rules state, for example, that sixth forms should only be created in schools which expect to enrol 200 students or more.

However the court hearing, scheduled for today at the Royal Courts for Justice, was cancelled at the last minute.

A court clerk told FE Week that a settlement had been agreed between the parties.

The application for the new school sixth form has now been withdrawn by the Loxford School Trust and as a result, the Government has also withdrawn its decision to approve the new sixth form.   

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “The Loxford Trust asked the department to reverse its decision to allow the establishment of a sixth form at Abbs Cross Academy and Arts College.

“The Trust recognised its consultation with the local authority was not adequately conducted.”

Responding to the news, David Hughes (pictured right), chief executive at the AoC, told FE Week: “I’m really pleased because we set out to achieve two things.

David Hughes
David Hughes

“Firstly, to challenge permission for new sixth form which didn’t meet criteria nor in interest of young people who want a good quality and breath of offer.

“Secondly, we wanted a proper open review of the guidance, including how the criteria is used, how the evidence is scrutinised and more generally the decision making procedure. And we achieve both of those. Ultimately, we were seeking much more transparency.

“We are looking forward to working with the DfE on the review, and to engage colleges in that process. We want to get the detail so that future decisions are properly substantiated and understood locally.”

Abbs Cross fell from a ‘good’ Ofsted rating to ‘inadequate’ in its last full inspection in June 2015.

Since then, it has been subject to three section eight special measures monitoring inspections, the latest of which was published last month.

The report said leaders and managers are taking effective action towards the removal of special measures.

It advised that the academy should not seek to appoint any further newly qualified teachers.

The AoC had suggested that the outcome of the judicial review could have a bearing on the way the government approves new selective schools, and could even establish the status of guidance to the regional schools commissioners.

 

Correction: FE Week had originally reported the findings of the school’s second monitoring inspection report as being its latest inspection. We were informed this was incorrect, on November 2, and have amended the article to state a third inspection had since been published.

Minister accused of ‘hoodwinking the house’ over apprenticeship cuts

Apprenticeships minister Robert Halfon (pictured above) has been accused of “trying to hoodwink the house” over apprenticeship funding cuts during a heated clash in parliament this morning.

The accusation was made by David Lammy, MP for Tottenham, at the end of a Westminster Hall debate – over planned apprenticeships funding cuts for younger and disadvantaged learners exposed by FE Week.

He said that Mr Halfon had not responded to key questions on the issue of framework funding, and had instead focused on new standards – despite their low take-up.

“Over 99 per cent [of starts] are on the frameworks, which is the matter of the debate, and the minister has not addressed it at all,” Mr Lammy said.

“He’s trying to hoodwink the house.”

Mr Halfon did not respond to the cuts during his comments today, despite them being raised by a number of speakers including Mr Lammy and Gordon Marsden, shadow skills minister.

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

Mr Lammy’s frustration at Mr Halfon’s lack of response was evident, and he had to be called to order in his closing remarks, during which he said: “It is disappointing that the minister has said nothing about funding rate cuts in this country.

“He’s been reliant on the £2.5bn extra he’s said is coming in. He’s robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

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.

As revealed by FE Week, these new rates would see funding slashed for 16 to 18-year-olds in the most deprived areas by up to 50 per cent for some of the most popular frameworks.

Following a successful #SaveOurApprenticeships campaign by FE Week, the government has now announced a partial u-turn on the worst of the cuts.

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 aren’t set to be quite as high as before, most frameworks will still feel cuts of 20 per cent or more.

Bring standards and EPA development under control

Funding isn’t the only big topic for debate in the apprenticeship reforms. 

MPs on two Commons select committees have recently focused on the reform implications for the quality of the programme and at one of the evidence sessions, senior DfE officials were challenged by the National Audit Office on their presiding over a ‘blizzard’ of new apprenticeship standards. 

As the NAO implied, the whole standards and end point assessment (EPA) process is in danger of spiralling out of control and the new Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education has a major task ahead in pulling in the reins.

There is no question that there are too many standards out there, either already approved or in the pipeline, including many which are too specialised. 

My AoC colleague David Hughes likes to mention one for automatic doors as his favourite example while rumour has it that one is being proposed for ejector seats (Oddjob need not apply!). 

Significant rationalisation is required and it can be achieved through the adoption of a ‘core and options’ approach.

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. 

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.

Standards need to provide a balance between an employer’s specific occupational need and the individual’s skills development as well as career opportunity and skills portability.  EPAs need to be valid, reliable and manageable to meet basic assessment quality requirements. 

AELP is not opposed to the concepts of either, but if implementation is mishandled, it will compromise the overall integrity of apprenticeships as a brand.

Some of our concerns relate to the process being followed. 

Any academic qualification developed requires sample assessment materials and detailed curriculum and assessment methodology before being approved by the regulator, let alone delivered. 

There would also be an outcry if there was an expectation of delivery starting without a reasonable period of preparation for those delivering. 

On the face of it, these basic principles seem to be ignored for the development of apprenticeship standards. 

Even worse, standards are being approved and delivered without an approved EPA organisation in place.

In the list of questions which AELP submitted to the MPs, described by the shadow Institute chief executive as a ‘fair set’, we asked what can be done to increase the numbers of organisations accredited to deliver EPAs. 

We also wanted to know what happens to standards for which no EPA organisations can be found, or for which effective EPA monopoly or cartel positions may come into play.  

The likely cost of end testing is a major worry, not least because some of the employers designing them don’t seem to realise that their digital accounts under the new system will bear the cost. 

And the greater the cost means less funding available for new apprentice starts. 

Worse still, providers have to cost in retakes into the same limited funding.  Soon all an apprenticeship will be is a job and an assessment.

Take for an example a STEM sector where typically the cost to the provider of on-going assessment of the apprentice has been around £200. 

There is a proposal for 5 to 6 days of end testing with the EPA organisation charging nearly £600 to cover elements such as the e-log book and functional skills testing even though the provider still does the bulk of the work including the observation. 

Another organisation proposes to charge nearly £3,000 for the same standard’s EPA with the apprentices taken off-site.  Where is the value for money compared to the original £200?  Is it any wonder therefore that many independent training providers are looking into becoming EPA organisations themselves?      

Time is short however and this is why the Institute needs to get a real grip on this whole issue as soon as possible. 

This grip includes for every sector properly funded frameworks left in place until high quality standards, EPAs and EPA organisations are fully in place. 

Yes, we want the right balance of quantity and quality but unchecked costs for standards and assessment could result in the government falling well short of its 3 million target.

Special Westminster debate on apprenticeship cuts tomorrow

A special Westminster Hall debate called by campaigning MP David Lammy into FE Week’s exclusive revelations on apprenticeship funding cuts takes place tomorrow morning.

The debate approved by the House of Commons Backbench Business Committee, which will run from 9.30am until 11am, will see apprenticeship and skills minister Robert Halfon answering tough questions on the controversial reforms.

It comes after FE Week discovered in August that cuts proposed by the Department for Education would cause framework funding rates for 16- to 18-year-olds to tumble by more than half in some of the nation’s most deprived areas.

We subsequently launched the #SaveOurApprenticeships campaign, which successfully called for a government rethink – with DfE announcing 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 (click here to download) found that while the cuts now aren’t set to be quite as high as before, most frameworks will still feel cuts of 20 per cent or more.

Mr Lammy (pictured above) is expected to say during the debate tomorrow that while the government has gone “some way towards mitigating the worst effects, particularly on cuts for 16-18 year olds and funding for disadvantaged areas”, the “devil is in the detail”.

“Despite this u-turn, areas like my constituency of Tottenham still face huge cuts,” he will add.

He will warn: “There is an FE college in every constituency, so these cuts in funding will directly affect thousands of young people in every single constituency.”

Mr Lammy will also recognise that additional funding to support disadvantaged areas “was quietly scrapped completely in the proposals published in August”, and “last week’s statement promised a ‘simplified version of the current system of support’”.

Yet, he will add, “the minister has told FE Week this [£60 million of additional support] is only guaranteed for one year”.

FE Week’s analysis of the impact of the funding u-turn announcements showed, for example, that with popular sectors such as hairdressing and engineering, at levels two and three respectively, there could still be a maximum drop of 49 to 51 per cent.

Mr Halfon, who will also face questions on apprenticeship reforms at a Sub-Committee on Education, Skills and the Economy hearing, on Wednesday (November 2) told FE Week last week: “Since announcing the proposals for apprenticeship funding, we have listened hard to all the feedback we have received to ensure people can gain the skills they need now and for the future.

“In order to help providers adapt to the new system, we are introducing an additional cash payment equal to 20 per cent of the funding band limit when they train a 16-18 year old on apprenticeship frameworks.

“But we’re not stopping there. I am committed to ensuring that, regardless of background or ability, everyone in the UK has the opportunity to benefit from an apprenticeship –whether to take their first step on the career ladder or progress within their career.

“That’s why we’re investing £60 million in supporting the training of apprentices from the poorest areas”.

FE Week will be going along to Westminster Hall tomorrow morning, so look out for our live tweets as the debate rages.

Cost of Digital Apprenticeship Service revealed

The government expects to spend at least £12.5m on delivering its new Digital Apprenticeship Service, FE Week can reveal.

The budget will cover both costs to the Skills Funding Agency and suppliers of services such as web development and user research, according to the Department for Education.

A DfE spokesperson told FE Week: “The cost of building the DAS is split between internal costs to the SFA and a range of external suppliers.

“In line with Cabinet Office best practice, these external costs include services like hosting or skills from SMEs [small and medium-sized enterprises] that are specialists in web development, user research and design.”

The aim of the DAS is to help employers to take control of delivering apprenticeships, and the service will list the new apprenticeships standards that are available.

According to the SFA, employers will be able to set up an account on the service and access funding for apprenticeship training, as well as choosing the type of apprenticeships they want to run, the number of apprentices they take on, and the appropriate training provider.

Keith Smith, head of the levy implementation, gave key details about the DAS at both FE Week’s Festival of Skills in July and Annual Apprenticeship Conference in March.

The information about the service’s full cost was first spotted by FE Week in an SFA Digital blog from October 25.

The blog said: “The cost of delivering the core DAS including build and operating costs will be less than 0.5 per cent of the value of the levy which will be collected and managed over that period. 

“This cost will be met separately by government not from funds raised from the levy.”

FE Week concluded that, with the levy estimated at 2.5bn, this would mean that the expected cost of delivering the DAS was £12.5m.

However, following FE Week’s enquiry to the DfE about the cost of the DAS, the SFA blog was altered to say: “The cost of delivering the core DAS, including build and operating costs, are expected to be less than 0.5 per cent of the value of the levy which will be collected and managed over the parliament.”

It comes after FE Week reported in September last year that the SFA’s ‘FE Choices’ website would be shut down at the end of October after just three-and-a-half years in operation.

The website, which was previously known as the Framework for Excellence, performed one of the DAS’ functions in allowing a comparison of the performance of providers – though this was for the public rather than a service specifically for employers.  

An FE Week exclusive six months after the website launched in January 2012 revealed 6,230 people had viewed it.

The figures, released under the Freedom of Information Act, further showed that the website had been visited by 1,246 ‘unique’ visitors on average each month.

The request, submitted by FE Week, also revealed that the FE Choices website had cost the taxpayer more than £2.3m up to that point.

The website itself had cost £630,000 to build, with the remaining £1.7m spent on the gathering and production of data.

The figures worked out as a cost to the taxpayer of £375 per visitor and the coverage was picked up by Private Eye, which questioned whether FE Choices “may be one of the most expensively pointless government websites yet”.

Colleges warned off overseas ventures following collapse of AoC India after just four years

Colleges should be wary of betting the farm on big overseas ventures and learn the lesson from AoC India, which is to close after just four years, industry experts have warned.

AoC India was established in 2012 as a partnership of 33 FE colleges to provide UK-standard vocational education and training programmes to India.

Each of the colleges invested £20,000 for a two-year membership, but only eight members chose to continue with the project after this initial period.

However, as FE Week reported last week, AoC India and its remaining partners agreed to “wind down the partnership from July 2016”.

A spokesperson for the group blamed the lack of enthusiasm on member colleges’ desire to focus on the area review process back in Britain.

Tom Bewick, the managing director at New Work Training Ltd and a former chief executive of the International Skills Standards Organisation, told FE Week that colleges entering markets like India is “high-risk, by definition”, but claimed that AoC India had “done its job”.

“I do think the AoC was pretty upfront about what it was trying to achieve, in that it was a two-year sort of incubator-style approach to working internationally,” he said. “I think they have come under some unfair criticism.”

Despite the colleges’ significant total investment in the project of £660,000, Mr Bewick insisted that the AoC’s involvement was likely to have offered some protection.

“I would argue that the colleges chipping in some money and doing it via the AoC actually lowered the risk for all of them,” he said.

Mr Bewick also said that government policy was largely responsible for sparking the interest in promoting UK FE overseas.

“In 2012/13 there was a lot of ministerial frenzy around the notion of our colleges getting on planes, getting out to Saudi, getting out to India as well. Governing bodies and college leaders were put under quite a lot of political pressure,” he said.

The fact that it failed is therefore a serious warning to FE to ‘stick to the knitting’

Mr Bewick added that in his own consultancy work abroad he has pulled back from areas such as India or Saudi Arabia to focus solely on North America, because he believes “it’s far better to do proper business and commercial relationships with very like-minded cultures and economies”.

Mr Bewick’s comments were echoed by Mick Fletcher, a founding member of the Policy Consortium, a director of RCU Ltd, and a senior research associate at the Institute of Education.

“From what I see, it [AoC India] was a well organised attempt to develop a substantial overseas business for English FE,” he said. “There have been numerous scandals in the past involving overseas work, but this is not one of them.”

He continued: “The fact that it failed is therefore a serious warning to FE to ‘stick to the knitting’.

“Overseas work would be difficult at any time but with the current prime minister’s almost pathological aversion to foreign students, the opportunity for colleges to diversify their income in this way is shrinking fast.”

FE Week asked the last eight remaining members of AoC India what they felt they had got out of the project.

“The college’s experience with the project was very positive and the leverage provided by AoC India has put it on the right trajectory to set up successful projects and training services for the Indian market,” said City and Islington College.

Dudley College told FE Week that “we hope to continue our work through the support of the UK-India Education and Research Initiative as we have built up considerable expertise which we want to develop further.”

And Exeter College said: “Exeter College is using what it learnt from being involved with the project by focusing on the recruitment of international students and its existing partnership in Shanghai.”

Vision West Nottinghamshire College, Burton and South Derbyshire College, Coleg y Cymoedd, Highbury College and Walsall College all declined to comment.

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “It is up to individual colleges to manage partnerships both in the UK and overseas.”

Aspiring pilot is on the flight path to his dream career

An aspiring pilot and former Nelson and Colne College (NCC) student is on his way to his dream job after six months of intensive training in New Zealand.

Hassan Imtiaz, aged 21, secured a place on a competitive cadet scheme with Qatar Airways last year, and is half way to becoming a fully qualified second officer.

Hassan gained his initial flying licence while studying business, economics and maths at NCC in Lancashire, and has since undergone intensive exams and tests in order to demonstrate his potential to be a pilot.

Hassan praised the college for the support he received during his time there, saying: “The workload I had in my A-levels helped me to prepare for ground school. The teachers at NCC were very supportive and gave me the help I needed in class, and at additional workshops.”

His biggest challenge will come in the next six to 12 months, as he undergoes his final training, which will involve 12 take-offs and landings on an Airbus A320 in Qatar, in order to qualify fully.

Hassan said: “New Zealand is one of the best countries in the world. There are amazing views, and the scenery is spectacular. I have six months of training left, so it is all about keeping focused now.”

 

Featured image: Hassan Imtiaz in training

 

The benefits of alumni networks

Lambeth College is gathering a database of former students to inspire the current crop of learners to further academic and career success.

The London-based college hopes to build up an alumni network made up both of people in established careers and vocations and of recent leavers.

The college has become one of 400 secondary schools and colleges across the UK to get involved with education charity Future First, which assists in building up alumni communities to benefit students.

Fiona Whitewood, the head of marketing and communications at Lambeth College, said: “The scheme will enable us to capture learner destinations and strengthen the ties between past learners, employers and the college.”

The charity encourages alumni to sign up online and get in touch with their old school or college. Applicants can also offer work experience opportunities or elect to mentor a current student.

Christine Gilbert, the executive chair of Future First and a former Ofsted chief inspector, said: “If students see people like them have succeeded, they are more likely to believe they can too. They work harder and have higher expectations of success.”

 

Featured image: Alumni can be an invaluable resource

 

Why isn’t the sector more positive about apprenticeship reforms?

While change is always unsettling, the apprenticeship reforms will do the sector a world of good, says Graham Howe.

Change is unsettling, significant change is scary, and apprenticeships are going through significant change.

It is worrying that the sector is being forced to move to new standards for which the end assessment is unknown, and in many cases there is no body allocated to deliver the assessment – on top of the fact that to date only 15 learners have achieved a new apprenticeship standard.

It is also far from ideal that the funding landscape is not clear: if subcontracting is to eventually end, will providers have sufficient access to direct funding?

There are concerns about the reforms hurting young people on apprenticeships, if employers use the funds to train an existing, more mature workforce.

If subcontracting is to eventually end, will providers have sufficient access to direct funding?

However, this has been the case since Train to Gain replaced the budget for training adults in the workplace, and was itself replaced by apprenticeships in 2009. Providers have used apprenticeship budgets for adult workplace training for several years now, often very successfully, not least improving English and maths for many workers who would previously have avoided these subjects.

So I find it hard to understand why the sector isn’t more positive about the reforms. At last we will be paid properly for the work we do, across all age ranges.

When apprenticeship funding replaced Train to Gain, we had to deliver three extra qualifications for an additional several hundred pounds – unless you could agree a course fee with the employer (where the market rate was often nil, due to employer expectations from Train to Gain and European Social Fund projects). This has without doubt led to unprofitable and poor-quality programmes, so why, when reforms are suggesting higher rates, would we not embrace the change?

We are entering a new landscape where we are paid the same set amount for apprentice learners – irrespective of age – and where larger businesses are often funding this themselves through a levy, which will mean greater employer involvement and buy-in.

I see great opportunity in the reforms, the funding rates, and the new relationships with employers. Though it grabs headlines to question whether apprenticeship funding should be spent on adults, it is an important area of lifelong learning.

As unemployment levels fall, retraining employees for new roles is a perfectly sensible use of employers’ and public funding and it should come as no surprise to see an increase in management apprenticeships.

The announcements this month have allowed prime providers and subcontractors to choose a path that best suits their circumstances, rather than forcing the end of subcontracting. Importantly, it allows market access for those subcontractors wishing to get all (or the majority) of their funding directly, which has previously been too often denied.

The sector responds well to change; my team has been on excellent AELP and ETF workshops to help us prepare.

My only wish would be that awarding bodies were at the forefront, if they are serious about being end-point assessment organisations.

At last we will be paid properly for the work we do

I don’t believe the reforms will see a reduction in 16-18 apprenticeship numbers (though it’s entirely possible it might drop as an overall percentage), as providers will be delivering full workforce-development programmes and will find it difficult to pick and choose learners from any employer.

I have evidence for this; it’s what businesses are telling me, describing their apprenticeship strategy as a mixture of new workforce recruitment and existing employee training.

There are challenges ahead in implementing new delivery models without disadvantaging learners, which are always our priority. However the upside outweighs the downside and I wholeheartedly believe that the future looks bright.

 

Graham Howe is managing director of the College of Apprenticeship Training