Lord Baker scored a victory for FE

Lord Baker deserves a big pat on the back for his victory in the House of Lords this week.

The Baker Clause, as it will inevitably come to be known, will force the hand of many in schools that are clearly biased against post-16 skills training.

They haven’t done enough to steer students more suited to vocational study away from A-levels.

Now colleges and independent training providers will hopefully be given a fair chance to sell the valuable alternative they offer to young people who will benefit.

I will certainly be interested to see what impact this has on post-14 UTC learner recruitment, which has failed to take off so far.

It’s also worth noting that the resident minister in the House, Lord Nash, backed the amendment.

It hopefully shows that the government has finally accepted the era of obsessing over academic routes is over. FE’s time has come!

Apprenticeship outcomes: how do we know what they are?

Reporting on outcomes will not be mandatory, which risks undermining the status and quality of apprenticeships, says Shane Chowen

Back in November, when I first wrote about the Technical and Further Education Bill, it had only just begun its journey through the Houses of Parliament. By the time this goes to press, the bill will have moved one step closer to becoming law after completing its committee stage in the House of Lords. This is the point at which peers have the opportunity to table amendments to the bill. 

One such amendment of particular interest to me and the Learning and Work Institute, the first one to be discussed in fact, would have required the new Institute for Apprenticeships to report annually on a number of apprenticeship outcomes: job outcomes, earnings growth, progression to further learning and satisfaction rates of employers and apprentices. 

What exactly is the Institute’s role?

Rarely do amendments tabled by members of the opposition to government legislation go anywhere either in the Commons or the Lords, which makes it relatively unsurprising that on this occasion the amendment was withdrawn, following some assurances from the minister.

I want to explain why, even though reporting on apprenticeship outcomes won’t be a statutory requirement through this bill, it is still something the minister must take seriously in his mission to improve the status and quality of apprenticeships. 

For apprenticeships to sit in their rightful place as an attractive, mainstream pathway, we need to improve the information available about what apprenticeships give people. Furthermore, while everyone agrees that a start is not an outcome, we are less clear about what is, and how we know if an apprenticeship is actually working. 

What assurances will be offered to taxpayers and employers that apprenticeships are delivering the outcomes they are supposed to? After all, reporting on outcomes is becoming an increasingly important feature elsewhere in education and across most other public services. 

These problems have at least been acknowledged in part by DfE ministers. Speaking in the Lords on reporting outcomes, Lord Nash said “it is of course critical that reporting measures are in place to enable us to assess how well the programme is achieving quality outcomes”.

The minister went on to quote the Institute’s proposed operational plan, which is to “make more use of learner, employer and wider economy outcome data when reviewing the success of standards.”

Decisions need to be made within the DfE about the extent to which outcomes inform definitions of apprenticeship quality

However, he later said that the type of outcome information outlined in the amendment was “well beyond what is in scope of [the IfA’s] remit”. It sounds to me like some decisions need to be made within the DfE about the extent to which outcomes inform definitions of apprenticeship quality, as a matter of policy, rather than process. If an apprenticeship isn’t delivering positive outcomes for learners, but the development of the standard and assessment plan ticked all the right boxes, then what exactly is the Institute’s role?

This was just the first of three committee stage sessions in the Lords; the other two are still to take place. In this session, amendments concerning redefining technical qualifications, autonomy of tech-ed providers, and producing a careers strategy were also tabled and withdrawn. 

Impressively, Lord Baker did marshal cross-party support for one amendment which was accepted. This new addition would require all schools to allow a range of education and training providers access to their pupils, and require schools to issue a policy statement detailing how such providers could access the school to provide information. The government is to be congratulated for recognising that tough new legislation is sadly necessary here. 

Peers have another 54 amendments to debate over two days this week. The bill then goes back to the whole House of Lords before passing back to the House of Commons before it receives royal assent.  

Now that a conversation about apprenticeship outcomes has started, the sector needs to lead a challenge back to government that broadens what we mean by high-quality apprenticeships beyond ‘lasting 12 months’ and ‘look, employers designed the standard’. 

 

Shane Chowen is head of policy and public affairs at the Learning and Work Institute

Ofsted could re-inspect after QAR loophole crackdown

Ofsted could re-inspect providers for questionable achievement rates that have come to light following a recent Skills Funding Agency crackdown.

Last week the Department for Education admitted to a loophole in the SFA’s qualification achievement rates calculation, which it said “artificially” boosted the scores for around a tenth of all providers, with some benefiting by more than 20 percentage points.

In the updated January Statistical First Release published on February 16, the DfE outlined three loopholes it has now closed.

One of these was described as an “inappropriate use of the planned break exclusion rule”, which allowed providers to report most learner withdrawals as planned breaks, and therefore gave those that exploited it “a significantly higher QAR”.

As a result, the SFA has recalculated all QAR data from 2014/15 onwards; before this date, QARs were calculated using different methodologies for each of the different strands of FE provision.

Mark Dawe, chief executive of the AELP, tackled the developments in a newsletter to members this week, telling them that Ofsted had confirmed that “where providers have been recently inspected and data makes inspection judgments questionable, they won’t be re-inspecting”.

But FE Week checked this with Ofsted, and received a contradictory answer.

A spokesperson said the watchdog was “aware of issues about the latest QAR data” and would take this into account during FE inspections, but “for those providers whom we have recently inspected, we will consider each case on its merits”.

FE Week approached 14 large providers, each of which has over 500 apprentices, an ‘outstanding’ rating from Ofsted, and QAR data for 2014/15 of over 80 per cent, to ask their views on the changes and how their rates had been affected.

Despite repeated enquires, three of these 14 said they did not wish to comment and seven were unable to respond by the time of going to print.

Rachel Randall, chief executive and managing director of HTP Apprenticeship College said: “We are looking at our own data, but ours hasn’t dropped significantly.

“We may have had a few that have been over-stayers, but other than that we are not going to challenge it.”

A spokesperson for Skills Group Limited, meanwhile admitted that the new methodology had caused a minor fall in its data for 2014/15, while data for 2015/16 remained unchanged.

“In our case, the 2014/15 reduction is the result of breaks in learning for three learners out of 1,150. All three re-engaged in 2015/16, with two of them going on to achieve. It would appear that we’ve been penalised unfairly for two of the three learners,” she said.

“While this does point to unfair treatment of positive outcomes after re-engagement, we will not be disputing with the SFA. We will, however, be changing how we deal with breaks in learning going forward.”

A spokesperson for Uxbridge College said: “The changes have had no effect on the college’s QAR.

“The College is pleased to find that the SFA has now updated the methodology.”

An RAF spokesperson said the changes would not affect its QAR.

According to last week’s DfE report, the SFA’s analysis found that approximately 10 per cent of apprenticeship providers had received “an artificially high QAR rate for apprenticeships” due to “three loopholes in the methodology”. Some gained “a significant advantage of more than 20 per cent in their overall QAR”, while other providers “were able to avoid falling below the minimum standard threshold which was 55 per cent at the time”.

 

Mr Halfon, please protect learners from FE loan scandal

As FE Week launches #saveourapprenticeships, our editor Nick Linford explains why he passionately believes loans should be written-off for undeserving victims where training providers go bust

FE loans are a relatively new way to fund courses, but through no fault of their own adults are already being left with large government debts for cancelled courses.

The short-term solution, to write the debt off, is both simple and obvious. But it is important to also learn from why and how the loans were introduced.

Before August 2013, people aged 24 or over who started a vocational course at level three or above would have typically shared the cost with the government.

For example, someone looking to change career and get qualified as a personal fitness instructor might pay £1,500, and the Skills Funding Agency on behalf of the government would pay the other £1,500.

An advanced learning loan, as these were named, isn’t classed as government expenditure

The college or training provider would then have £3,000 to deliver a level three qualification in personal fitness instruction.

This co-investment funding model as it’s known, where the costs are shared between the learner and the government, had been working well for many years.

However, the government obsession with cutting departmental budgets by up to 40 percent changed all that, when they converted both the £1,500 learner and £1,500 government contribution into a loan.

An advanced learning loan, as these were named, isn’t classed as government expenditure, so as far as the Treasury is concerned a budget cut had been achieved.

In the example above, the full £3,000 is paid to the college or training provider by the Student Loans Company.

The learner pays nothing until after the course finishes. And, like a loan to study at university, they only have to start repaying once they are earning over £21,000, with a relatively low interest rate.

So assuming the learner is still willing to take out a £3,000 income contingent loan, the provider still receives their funding and the provision continues.

Robert Halfon should now ensure learners let down by a negligent SFA should also have their loan written off

So far so sensible, but now comes the insanity.

The SFA gave people running companies, with no history of receiving public funding, access to millions in loans cash from the Student Loans Company.

These people would fill out online forms with the SLC to receive the funding, and often pay other companies to deliver the training via subcontractors.

The sadly predictable outcome of giving a few individuals access to millions in public funding is a growing list of liquidated companies, and thousands of learners with debts for courses they are unable to finish, as increasingly reported in the pages of FE Week.

The SFA has slowly begun to address the problem, by tightening up the way it sets and increases access to loan funding, as well as gradually banning the use of subcontracting.

But it also needs to acknowledge the early failings, by changing policy towards learners left with debts for courses they cannot complete.

Cancelling the loans for these learners would not only end an injustice, it should also be a simple policy to implement, given this is already what happens for others.

Learners using loans for level three Access to Higher Education qualifications don’t have to pay them back, if they go on to pass a degree. This is a policy the then skills minister, John Hayes, implemented.

The current skills minister, Robert Halfon, should now ensure learners let down by a negligent SFA should also have their loan written off.

It really should be an easy policy change to end an obvious injustice.

Over to you Mr Halfon.

 

Article first published on the NCFE blog.

Why not give Ofqual more power over apprenticeship standards?

The assessment community is calling for Ofqual’s role in apprenticeships to be extended – which shows something is badly wrong, says Gemma Gathercole

When I first started working for OCR way back in 2005, there was a single body responsible for both the content of qualifications and their regulation: the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. 

It is a difficult task, designing the rules governing content, and then writing the rules that regulate it in the form of qualifications and regulating the organisations that offer them. And because it is a difficult task, it led inevitably to questions about conflicts of interest. For those with long memories in this sector, and I don’t yet count myself as one, there are probably many more examples of this sort of conflict. 

However, we are on the verge of recreating exactly that sort of conflict in a new organisation: the Institute for Apprenticeships, but the picture is now even more complex.

Now is the time to act

For apprenticeship standards, there is no single approach to external quality-assurance. Depending on the version of documentation you read, there are three, four or five. The official government guidance says there are three options: an employer-designed solution within specified parameters set by the guidance, professional bodies taking on the role, or Ofqual regulation. 

The fourth, isn’t described as an option as it’s a route of default rather than choice: the Quality Assurance Agency, which retains its remit for regulating degrees, and therefore degree apprenticeships. 

And in FAQs or presentations given before the IfA launched, there has also been a fifth option: to ask the IfA itself to take on the role. 

It’s this final option that provides the same conflicts of interest that afflicted QCA. And what happened to QCA? Well, it was disbanded and from it two organisations were created: the now-defunct Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency and Ofqual, as an independent regulator. The legislation that established Ofqual gave it five objectives: qualifications standards, assessments standards, public confidence, awareness and efficiency. It’s hard to understand what might put this at odds with apprenticeships.

At the heart of these reforms is a drive to put those with the right experience at the centre of the design

And yet, in this round of apprenticeship reform, while we are not replacing Ofqual (at least not directly), we are adding further complexity into a system that almost everyone already thinks is too confusing. 

It would be difficult to imagine a similar approach to qualifications like GCSEs and A-Levels, where, say, an academy trust or local authority could set the bar for school-leaving qualifications. So why is it acceptable for apprenticeships?

At the heart of these reforms is a drive to put those with the right experience at the centre of the design. It’s an obvious, important step, but while it’s easy to understand, it is baffling that the same message – about putting those with experience in the driving seat – does not extend to quality assurance and regulation. In an era where budgets are getting tighter, and government expenditure does not reach as far as it once did, spending money on duplicating the functions of an existing non-ministerial department seems frivolous.

Regulators are often disliked – it’s the nature of their role – but the function they fulfil is an important check to ensure quality. At some point, probably in the not-too-distant future, questions are likely to be raised about disparate approaches to quality assurance within apprenticeships. And to where should those concerns be directed?

Indeed, the fact that the assessment community is actually calling for Ofqual’s role in apprenticeships to be extended should indicate that something is wrong. 

It is not common for the regulated to be calling for their regulator to have more power. Correcting this misstep would mean some changes to standards that have already been approved for delivery, but that is much easier to do right now, while the numbers of starts is low. It would certainly be easier to do before the Institute begins to develop a regulatory function, and given it doesn’t yet formally exist, now is the time to act.

 

Gemma Gathercole is head of funding and assessment at Lsect

Government tight-lipped over second allocation window for register of apprenticeship training providers

The government is remaining tight-lipped over whether results of a surprise second allocation window for the register of apprenticeship training providers will be unveiled before the key reforms go live.

The first round of applications for the new register, which providers have to be on if they want to deliver apprenticeship starts from the start of May, closed for applications on November 25.

The Skills Funding Agency then announced on February 8 that it “will reopen the register for new applicants and/or those who were unsuccessful in their initial application.

“The re-opening will be soon after the first planned publication, probably in March,” a spokesperson added.

She said that exact timetables will be communicated through the “usual media channels” and the application process would follow the same format as the first opening.

FE Week asked the department that evening if this was a panic measure to bring in more providers, and if the results of this second window would now be published before the May 1 date when the new apprenticeship levy and associated reforms will go live.

A spokesperson finally responded in-part today, insisting that this isn’t a sign of panic.

But the question over when the results of the second process will be published remains unanswered.

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

It also reminded providers that ITTs should be submitted as well as a main route application – but despite this, FE Week understands not all providers knew they needed to submit the separate ITT.

Providers could apply to be on the register via three routes.

The main one was for all colleges and independent training providers who wanted to deliver training to levy-paying employers, either directly or as a sub-contractor.

The supporting route was an “entry route to the apprenticeship market for organisations that offer a specialism, and providers who only want to deliver as a subcontractor”, according to the SFA’s guidance.

The employer-provider route was for companies that wish to deliver apprenticeship training to their own staff.

In addition, providers that wanted to deliver apprenticeship training to non-levy paying employers could also submit an invitation to tender alongside a main route application.

FE Week reported last November that a quarter of apprenticeship providers had opted against the latter route.

A total of 1,753 providers applied to the register to be able to deliver training directly or as a sub-contractor to large, levy-paying employers.

Of these, just 1,310 – or 75 per cent – also applied to deliver training to smaller, non-levy paying employers.

This meant that 25 per cent of providers turned down the opportunity to receive an allocation to deliver apprenticeships to companies that won’t be subject to the levy – despite them making up the overwhelming majority of businesses in England.

 

Changes to justice system will affect those working in FE colleges

Recent policy changes to keep more young offenders out of custody will affect those working at FE colleges, says Sally Alexander

The prisons and courts bill published today promises to “enshrine into law that a key purpose of prison is to reform and rehabilitate offenders, as well as punish them for the crimes they have committed”. 

Having worked in offender learning for 25 years, and currently at an FE college that supports some of the most challenged young learners in Milton Keynes, it has been interesting to observe a similar trend in recent times across the system at large, including youth justice. For example, the numbers of young people in custody have shrunk from 3,000 in 2008 to 900 in 2015, reflecting a change in policy to remove police targets for bringing minor offences to justice.

This drive to keep young offenders out of custody is likely to affect all those working in further education, so it is important for colleges to understand the context.

One of the recent reports that may prove influential is Charlie Taylor’s ‘Review of the Youth Justice System’, which was published in December 2016.

We can have an impact on changing their lives around

In line with recent policy changes, the review recommends that children need to be offered support in the community for all but the most serious crimes, as contact with the formal youth justice system is likely to reinforce offending behaviour.

Mr Taylor’s review expresses a real determination to use the skills that colleges and schools can bring to the table to help keep young offenders out of the custodial system. He suggests that power be devolved to local authorities, bringing together all relevant parties – parents, health, social care, housing and of course, education – to create a comprehensive plan to meet the child’s individual need.

As an FE college, we experience the value of cross-partner working to achieve solutions for our most challenging young learners. This has not always been smooth, and we have not always been involved in the process. Interestingly, however, since the publication of this review, our local authority is starting to involve our college formally as a part of these young learners’ plans.

At the same time, these learners are presenting far more challenging behaviours, suggesting there is a push to keep these young people out of custody wherever possible. This poses issues for a college, but we manage and assess the risks with the partners involved in the plan. If we genuinely work together, we can have an impact on keeping these children out of custody and changing their lives around.

If we keep them out of custody they are far less likely to reoffend

However, there will still be around 900 children who must enter custody and who, as a consequence, will be the most challenging to rehabilitate.

The report’s recommendation that we create secure schools for those placed in custody is one I fully support. As Mr Taylor says, “education needs to be central to our response to youth offending”.  

Under this plan, these children would be placed in establishments where education is the main driver. Instead of trying to squeeze education into a strict and often unforgiving prison regime, we would create secure schools of 60-70 children, where all of the staff, be they education, health or support workers, would be trained to manage and deal with challenging behaviours. All children would have individualised learning programmes with a focus on quality educational provision including maths, English, and programmes leading to real employment or further learning opportunities pre- and on release.  

And here is the interesting parallel with the new prisons and courts bill, which highlights a need to address prisoners’ maths and English skills and to help secure them employment on release. Whether for children or adults, the effective approach to supporting prisoner rehabilitation is placing education and learning at the heart of what we do.

However, to return to the young offenders, it is essential to remember they are children, often as young as 12 or 13. If we keep them out of custody they are far less likely to reoffend, and more likely to have a positive result through joined-up locally-led interventions, in particular involving local colleges and schools. This will both keep the public safe and give these children a chance in life.

Sally Alexander is executive director of offender learning at Milton Keynes college

Consultation questions future of construction industry training boards after apprenticeship levy launch

The government has launched a consultation questioning the future role of construction industry training boards and their own employer charges, after the apprenticeship levy launches in April.

It was launched by the Department for Education today, with responses required by March 21.

Respondents are asked for views on the effectiveness of the two organisations, and their role after the apprenticeship levy starts in two months’ time.

The Construction Industry Training Board is part-funded by a levy on employers in that sector.

It allows the CITB to develop qualifications and standards and give out around £150 million a year in grants, paid for through the levy, to employers to help pay for training — which could, for example, be spent on apprentices’ wages or to pay for a mentor.

The separate Engineering Construction Industry Training Board also charges a levy, which supports a variety of training for employees and contractors involved with the build, repair and maintenance of the UK’s energy and process industries.

But grave doubts have been raised in the build-up to April launch, of the apprenticeship levy, about the sense of maintaining the CITB and ECITB charges alongside this.

When asked about the new consultation, Steve Radley (pictured above), director of policy at CITB, told FE Week: “We have been working closely with the government on how industry training boards can best meet the changing needs of their industries.

“We are reforming CITB to focus on a few, vital activities and do them well.

“While the apprenticeship levy changes the landscape, employers tell us that there is still a real need for CITB to help industry get the skills it needs to grow.”

The CITB announced a week ago that it was carrying out its own consultation, with “all in-scope employers” asked to give their views on the organisation’s proposals for its own levy for 2018.

The proposal is to reduce its levy rate from 0.5 per cent to 0.35 per cent of turnover.

An ECITB spokesperson also told FE Week its employers had shown “resounding support” for continuing with its own levy when it consulted them last summer.

Reflecting on the wider new DfE consultation, ECITB chief executive, Chris Claydon, said: “ECITB has a leading role to play in initially training, upskilling and reskilling the workforce and in anticipating and responding to emerging skills needs.

Chris Claydon

“This call for evidence presents an opportunity to help shape the future of the engineering construction industry and workforce, which are crucial to securing the UK’s critical infrastructure and its future economic success.”

Neil Carberry, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) director for people and skills, warned back in 2015 that employers, who already paid the ECITB and CITB charges, should not be “hit by a double whammy” of levy payments from April this year.

Explaining why the new consultation has been launched, a DfE spokesperson said: “CITB and ECITB are non-departmental public bodies funded by the industries they serve.

“The review is seeking evidence on the effectiveness of these bodies, and any role post introduction of the apprenticeship levy in 2017.”

The government’s apprenticeship levy will be set at 0.5 per cent of an employer’s paybill.

All employers are set to receive a £15,000 allowance to offset against the levy, so only businesses with a paybill of more than £3 million will pay.

It means a huge number of smaller businesses involved with the construction industry won’t be paying.

Money raised from those paying the new charge will be ring-fenced, so it can only be spent on training apprentices, and all levy-paying companies will receive a 10 per cent top up on monthly levy contributions.

Halfon launches new Apprenticeship Diversity Champions Network

A new Apprenticeship Diversity Champions Network was launched by skills minister Robert Halfon this morning.

The organisation, chaired by Nus Ghani MP (pictured right), will be geared at promoting diversity among employers and encouraging more people from underrepresented groups, including those with disabilities, women, and members of the black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, onto apprenticeships.

The network, launched by Mr Halfon (pictured above at the event) this morning at an event in Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, London, is comprised of 23 employers Rolls Royce, BBC, BAE Systems.

It will work towards achieving the government’s commitment to increase the proportion of apprenticeship starts by people from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds by 20 per cent by 2020.

According to government data, only around 17 per cent of starts are not classed as white British at present.

Mr Halfon said he was “extremely pleased” that Ms Ghani was being unveiled as the chair.

“With her knowledge, commitment and expertise, I am sure she will do a brilliant job in making sure apprenticeships can work for as many people as possible,” he added.

“I am passionate about ensuring that everyone, no matter their background or age, can use apprenticeships to get on the ladder of opportunity to a successful career.

“It is vital that so many diverse employers have come together to pledge to do more to ensure apprenticeships are truly open to everyone.”

A Department for Education spokesperson said Ms Ghani will as chair be responsible for “setting and shaping the network’s objectives as well as working alongside the National Apprenticeship Service (NAS), who played a key role in recruiting the 23 employers to the network”.

She said she was honoured to have been appointed to the role by the Prime Minister.

“I will be scrupulous in ensuring that the Diversity Champions Network opens up career options and delivers much needed skills for our traditional and emerging industries,” she said.

“I am determined that anyone from anywhere, whatever their background and whatever their story, is able to access the life-changing opportunities that apprenticeships can offer.

“The benefits of earning whilst you are learning, coupled with professional certification, will help enable apprentices to achieve a competitive edge in the labour market.

“Our whole society benefits when aspiration and opportunity is extended to all, and those benefits encompass the economy, community cohesiveness and national pride.

“I will be ambitious for apprentices and challenge all industries, public and private, to deliver quality apprenticeships across the country. As the economy goes from strength to strength we need to ensure that opportunities are available to all.

It comes after FE Week reported last July that the government had agreed to implement all 14 recommendations from a taskforce commissioned to explore how access to apprenticeships can be improved for people with learning difficulties or disabilities.

Chaired by Paul Maynard MP, the group included disability organisations, learning providers, employers, and senior officials from both the former Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions.

BIS and DWP confirmed at the time that the first point to be implemented would be updating the Access to Work eligibility letter, which disabled people should take to their employer or a job interview if they think they can get help from the government’s Access to Work scheme.

Other recommendations to receive attention included using the existing Disability Confident campaign “to encourage employers to drive demand and increase supply”, and consider “the use of technology to support user-led strategies for apprentices with LDD”.

The government departments, it was said, would be expected to “lead by example” with their own apprenticeship programmes, and “encourage wider civil service and public sector commitment to [these] apprenticeships”.

They will also “investigate and raise awareness around non-traditional recruitment practices”, the report said, such as working interviews, where an applicant demonstrates their job skills, or electronic portfolios to display their achievements.