Skip to content
27 April 2026

Latest news from FE Week

Terminated: Government bans major levy provider after FE Week exposé

A major training provider claiming to have £130m of apprenticeship levy business has had its contract with the ESFA terminated, after an FE Week investigation found that one of its employees had been offering banned inducement payments to an employer.

Talent Training, based in South Tyneside, was caught offering cash amounting to as much as 20 per cent of government funding per apprenticeship directly to a firm considering whether to engage their services for training.

The money it claimed from the Education and Skills Funding Agency was meant solely for the purposes of training and assessing apprentices, but it was offering through an intermediary to hand as much as £200 in every £1,000 back the employer in question as a kickback.

The provider, which has now launched an internal investigation into the matter, appeared to try to circumvent strict government rules put in place explicitly to ban the practice.

FE Week was contacted by a whistleblowing employer, and secretly sat in on and recorded a phone call with a Talent employee during which the offer of an inducement was made.

We subsequently sent the information to Keith Smith, the director of funding and programmes at the ESFA.

The ESFA investigated, and a spokesperson told FE Week that “it is unacceptable for any training provider to abuse the system by offering employers cash incentives from the apprenticeship levy”.

He continued: “The ESFA has reviewed the information and taken action to protect the interests of learners and employers, by serving notice to terminate the levy agreement for Talent Training.

The ESFA has reviewed the information and taken action, by serving notice to terminate the levy agreement

“The ESFA is taking immediate steps to contact levy employers that have made a commitment with this provider.”

However, any non-levy apprenticeship contracts with Talent “have not been terminated”, he confirmed, adding: “As we have now served notice to terminate, we are unable to comment further on this specific matter during this time.”

This tough line has been backed by Association of Employment and Learning Providers’ boss Mark Dawe, who said: “The ESFA has been very clear that funding and taxpayers’ money should never be handed back to the employer in any form of unauthorised rebate or kickback, outside of the approved government incentive payments.

“Ultimately, anyone who is found to have broken or manipulated the rules should be held to account and dealt with appropriately by the ESFA.

“This appears to be the case in this instance, and it should send out a strong message to all providers and employers that abusing the system will not be tolerated.”

FE Week launched its investigation into Talent, which has insisted that no inducement payments have actually been paid to any employers, after we were approached by a concerned employer that asked not to be identified.

We were shown an email (below) sent in March from Barry Waller, then national business development manager for Talent Training.

It said: “Just to make you aware, we offer a financial incentive to employers of around 20 per cent of their levy spends, if partnered with Talent Training. Based on your levy bill, this could be a good financial draw down if chose to work with TT?”

Another email was sent to the employer a day later, offering to “go further into the rebates and revenue generation aspects of our models in further detail”.

Intrigued, FE Week arranged to listen in – and secretly record – a telephone conversation between the employer and the Talent employee.

During this conversation, the employer was told that when using levy-funding, it would be paid 15 per cent of the price in cash, and that with some firms, Talent went as high as 20 per cent. When the levy pot was empty, Talent would switch to the co-investment model, and the employer would pay 10 per cent, though it would then be given this back in full.

Our anonymous employer then asked whether a co-investment employer would get both the 15 per cent back on top of the 10-per-cent co-investment refund.

It should send out a strong message that abusing the system will not be tolerated

The Talent executive replied: “Yes, exactly that”.

They continued: “There’s no reason why you can’t have a project which potentially could be worth £1 million, which is your levy.

“But you could have a £4 million apprenticeship campaign or apprenticeship programme, and you would get 15 per cent on the £4 million, but your levy is only £1 million, and you wouldn’t pay your 10 per cent on the additional £3 million, because we would reimburse that.”

The employer later emailed Talent to ask whether revised ESFA funding rules – published after the telephone conversation – would alter the arrangement.

The same Talent employee replied, with a senior employee copied in, that this was “nothing that would change our model or process”.

The ESFA revised its funding rules in March, specifically to ban inducements like this, which were increasingly rife across the sector.

“We have been made aware of some emerging delivery models that are contrary to the policy intent,” it said on March 1. “For example, some providers are offering incentives for employers by paying or refunding them for certain aspects.”

Two weeks later, the agency made the following announcement: “We have strengthened the rules to prohibit the payment of incentives, inducements by providers or refunds of co-investment of any kind.”

Then on March 20, provider funding rules were updated.

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

Talent initially denied that it had done anything wrong, but after being presented with FE Week’s findings, a spokesperson conceded it had been “greatly concerned by these claims and conducted urgent enquiries”.

It indicated that any rule-breaking appeared to have been done by a single “rogue, junior employee”– who had now been suspended.

FE Week pointed out that a senior employee of the firm had been copied into relevant emails that outlined inducements. Talent’s spokesperson insisted that said this person “did not necessarily take note” of these emails.

The spokesperson added: “No contracts have been entered into with any employer based on the employee’s alleged activities and no inducement payments have been, nor will be, paid by Talent to any employer as claimed.”

David Harper, chairman of Talent Training, which has over 200 staff, then admitted he was “shocked to hear that alleged offers may have been made in order to win business”.

Mr Waller said this when speaking to the potential customer:

“The xxxxxxxxxx project is four times the amount of their levy, because the money that they’re going to generate is, you know, very substantial.

“There’s no reason why you can’t have a project which potentially could be worth £1m, which is your levy, but you could have a £4m apprenticeship campaign or apprenticeship programme, and you would get 15% on the £4m, but your levy is only £1m, and you wouldn’t pay your 10% on the additional £3m because we would reimburse that.

“We’ve got a lot of recruitment companies where… and we’re doing stuff to really help them… I mean, they’re not going to be in our main portfolio of clients… but in terms of local support, you’ve got a lot of recruitment companies who potentially have got a relatively small levy, but they’re kind of going full hog in terms of the development, in terms of upskilling their staff in whether it be recruitment or sales or customer service, or customer experience qualifications, because they’re not paying for them. They are generating a commercial return on each of the qualifications on a monthly basis. It’s great cash flow!”

The statement: Talent Training in its own words

After being presented with FE Week’s investigation findings, David Harper, chairman of Talent Training, said: “I was shocked to hear that alleged offers may have been made in order to win business.

“We are investigating but can confirm these incentives would be against all our business principles and would not make it through our governance processes.

David Harper LinkedIN page

“We are taking all steps necessary to safeguard the interests of our clients, the good name of the levy funded apprentice programme, the regulatory authorities and our third party delivery partners.”

He added: “We are confident that no inducement payments have been paid to any employers.

“We are also sure our new levy -funded apprentice business model, Talent’s first class reputation, and most importantly the integrity of our team, will be vindicated when our enquiry is completed.

“Talent also wishes to thank our many clients who have urgently contacted us to express their continued support.”

Barry Waller emails

Nick Linford editorial: This will send a strong message

The ESFA should be applauded for taking swift and tough action against Talent Training.

I expect this story and the associated concerns will be a hot topic at the upcoming AELP conference, but to be clear there can be no grey areas over how levy money should be spent.

It must all be used for training and assessment of the apprentice it’s linked to, and any attempts to hive off cash through employer inducements has to be cracked down on.

The National Audit Office has already warned it is worried the reformed apprenticeship system is wide open to abuse.

Our investigation, which I’m extremely proud of, exposed one such attempt at foul play – involving a major independent provider that previously had a good relationship with the government.

Let’s hope that lessons are learned through the internal investigation Talent is now carrying out.

The government and the sector as a whole must be on our guard. The new apprenticeships system, which has benefitted from a huge amount of welcome publicity and support from ministers, will be fatally undermined if the NAO finds widespread malpractice in the coming months.

Movers and Shakers: Edition 213

Your weekly guide to who’s new and who’s leaving

The leader of Trafford Council, Sean Anstee, has been appointed as Greater Manchester’s lead for skills, employment and apprenticeships.

He will oversee plans to secure apprenticeships with better pay and career progression opportunities, and implement a university style application system.

He will also be responsible for upskilling local people and supporting the creation of jobs in the local area.

Mr Anstee has been leader of Trafford council for the past nine years, previously holding roles as the vice-president of the Bank of New York Mellon and relationships manager at the Royal Bank of Scotland.

“We need to give our young people a clear path to an apprenticeship and provide opportunities for them to set up a business or enter higher education,” he said. “Everyone must have the chance to gain new skills so they can get on in life. 

“I’ll work with colleges, employers and people in every part of Greater Manchester to make sure our people have the right skills to get a good job and succeed.”

Andy Burnham, Manchester’s mayor, added: “If we are to ensure everyone in Greater Manchester has the chance to get on in life then skills, employment and apprenticeships need to be at the heart of our plans.”

________________________________________________________

Ashley Rose has been appointed the new centre manager at North Shropshire College’s Shipley campus in the West Midlands.

The campus, in Wolverhampton, offers a range of courses, from part-time floristry to its most popular full-time course, animal management, and houses over 50 different species of animals.

Mr Rose joins the campus as it looks to extend the qualifications it offers, including basic IT courses at times that suit people with family commitments.

He will be working closely with business development manager Jo White to build existing relationships with local businesses, as well as cultivating new ones.

“The Shipley campus is a fantastic venue with great facilities which is small and friendly and offers students of all ages a perfect learning environment, which is different to that of a bigger college,” he said. 

“We want to offer new courses in terms of qualifications and leisure courses and we want the local community to support us in achieving this.”

________________________________________________________

The former principal of Salford City College, Martin Sim, has been appointed interim principal at Gateway Sixth Form College.

His appointment at the Leicester college follows the retirement of current principal Suzanne Overton-Edwards, after almost seven years at the helm.

Mr Sim, who led Salford City College to an Ofsted rating of ‘good’ during his tenure, will take up the role at Gateway College for an initial period of 12 months.

“Having started my career in a sixth-form college over 35 years ago, the invitation to return to the sixth-form sector and lead Gateway College was a fantastic opportunity,” he said.

“I cannot speak too highly of the staff, learners and governors here at Gateway and their determination to provide quality provision for the young people of Leicester.”   

John Kirk, chair of the board of governors at the college, explained: “Martin impressed us with his passion for realising the potential in our staff and students and a desire to restore our ‘good’ rating at the earliest opportunity.”

 

If you want to let us know of any new faces at the top of your college, training provider or awarding organisation please let us know by emailing news@feweek.co.uk

Avid knitter attempts a Guinness world record with giant needles

An art student unveiled a pair of giant knitting needles as her submission to Wiltshire College’s end-of-year exhibition and used them to attempt Guinness world record, reports Samantha King

Betsy Bond, a level three art and design student brought out two giant knitting needles – 4.4m long and 9cm wide – at her college’s creative exhibition, which showcased work from courses such as creative media production, games development and music.

The 30-year-old student made the needles herself from drainage pipe filled with expanding foam, and transported them from her home to the college’s Chippenham campus on a trailer. 

The point of the needle and stopper were then made at the college, using a 3D printer.

With the needles, she hopes to break the world record for the world’s largest working knitting needles, which currently stands at 3.98m long with a diameter of 8.25cm, and was set by Jim Bolin from the US in May 2013.

“I decided to go for the record as when I found out what it was, I believed I could beat it. I wanted to achieve rather than just aspire,” she said.

“Bringing all the components together, finding materials, methods and getting aesthetics right, took a lot of talking to the right people, research and imagination.”

As part of the record attempt, Betsy did a demonstration of large-scale knitting to the crowd, producing 85 stitches with 16kg of Stockinette – a stretchy fabric often used for bandages.

The mayor of Chippenham, councillor Mary Norton, was on hand to act as a witness to the record attempt.

She said: “I was thrilled to be invited but really couldn’t picture in my head what giant knitting would be or look like. 

I was even more shocked when I saw just how big the needles were, and have nothing but admiration for Betsy and all her hard work. She is an exceptionally talented young lady.”

It was in 2010 that Betsy first came across giant knitting, having been initially taught regular knitting by her mum Gillian when she was a child. 

“I found out about giant knitting and how projects grew very quickly, which appealed to my impatient nature,” she said.

Betsy, centre, with Mayor of Chippenham, right

“I started to knit in public places and it always struck up lots of conversation with strangers – some just curious and others wanting to have a go – which I love. Knitting has connected humans for centuries through practical applications and recreation. 

“Through creating what I hope are the world’s largest knitting needles I can communicate more, create conversation, share and pass on traditional skills.”

Until she decided to break the record, the largest knitting needles Betsy had used were 60cm long with a 4cm diameter.

Betsy – who returned to college to pursue art having previously worked in hospitality – has now submitted evidence of her attempt to the Guinness Book of Records, and is awaiting the official verdict.

What’s the best way to measure board effectiveness?

Dr Sue, director of policy and external relations at Holex, answers your questions, backed by her experience as principal of Canterbury College and in senior civil service posts in education and skills.

Question One: Are we an effective board?

We are about to evaluate our effectiveness as a board. I am aware of the proformas available, but are there key questions we can ask, to help cut through what can otherwise feel like a bureaucratic exercise?

Answer: I know what you mean about board performance exercises; they can get very mechanistic. The Code of Good Governance for Colleges was about governance values as much as rules, but sometimes that is lost. Demonstrating good governance is coterminous with college performance, so here are my key questions for determining whether a governing body is effective:

  1. Was the agreed vision and plan implemented, and did the college meet your key targets of student recruitment, retention and achievement? How do you know?
  2. Did you meet your financial forecast?
  3. Were there surprises? Were divergences from the plan brought to your attention and mitigation agreed?
  4. Do board meetings have a balance of support and challenge? When challenged do you get constructive, informative answers or is the behaviour defensive?
  5. Can governors give five examples of where the board had impact?
  6. Do board members leave a meeting feeling they have contributed to the discussion; are their views sought by the chair and does the executive react in a positive manner?
  7. Does the board seek the views of students and staff and does the board act on them?
  8. Do you correlate what you hear in meetings first-hand with visits and meetings with staff, stakeholders and students?
  9. What does Ofsted say about the board?
  10. What does the community you work in say about the governors and the college?

 

Question Two: Monitoring our HE provision

We a have a lot of HE students, some funded direct from loans and others in partnership with two universities. The universities monitor student experience and course performance but should we take an active interest?

Answer: Yes, is the simple answer. For those that are directly funded, you should have challenge and scrutiny processes and a robust system for reviewing the student experience. Your college may have taken part in the new HEFCE run Teaching Excellence Framework pilot, and if so would have just been told whether it was awarded with a bronze, silver or gold. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education sets out the quality code, and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator how they deal with student complaints.

Induction weaknesses often result in early drop-out

For students enrolled as part of a partnership agreement, you should revisit your agreement with the universities and review your responsibilities. Some universities expect you to conform to their quality policies and processes; others may be satisfied for you to continue with your own. However, either way, the university is ultimately responsible for the quality of the partnership students.

You should also be briefed on the role of Office for Students. This new public body will be the market regulator in place of the HEFC and the Office for Fair Access.

The areas you should consider are enrolment and retention: induction weaknesses often result in early drop-out. You should regularly review the HE student experience survey and see what it tells you about each course. Is there correlation between drop-out and how they rate their experience?

When thinking of the type of questions you should be asking, you should look at the Committee of University Chairs’ material plus the guidance on the HE Leadership Foundation website.

Digital designers bring primary school drawings to life with modelling software

Interactive media students have brought primary school pupils’ monster drawings to life using animation and modelling software.

A group of 25 schoolchildren from King Edward Primary School in Mansfield were asked to draw what they thought a monster looked like, with the designs then handed over to a team of student designers at West Nottinghamshire College.

Wai, left, and Isabella with the monster design

The students, who are on BTEC level three and HND courses in interactive media, spent turned original drawings into digital 3D creations and revealed them to the pupils.

Year 3 pupil Isabella Rhodes designed the Love-heart Monster, which was adopted by 26-year-old Wai Hung Tsang, who spent 15 hours bringing it to life.

Wai said: “When I first saw Isabella’s creation, I thought ‘what is that exactly?’ – I hadn’t seen anything like it before. But I began to analyse it and tried to visualise what it was going to look like in 3D form.

“I decided to turn the curly hair into a mane, and give it a sort of lion’s head and a teddy bear’s body, with love-heart wands in its hands. I’m pleased with how it has turned out, and even happier that Isabella has given it the seal of approval.”

College team win gold award at BBC Gardeners’ World Live

A team of students and staff from Oaklands College have won gold for their garden design at BBC Gardeners’ World Live.

The team from Hertfordshire took one of just three golds available in the ‘Beautiful Borders’ category, which recognises new and emerging talent within the industry.

Their design, called Garden Eden, included species of plants that were sown, grown and nurtured at the college’s St Albans Campus, and woven around a willow frame centrepiece.

Nellie the dog

Judges also praised the garden for its nod to presenter Monty Don, with wooden versions of his dogs hidden in the foliage.

The group, made up of tutors and students from the level three landscape construction and garden design course, also received an award for the best interpretation of the theme, which was this year based around the show’s 50th anniversary.

It was the first time the college has entered the annual event, with plans to enter more frequently following their success.

Tee Robertson, the college’s landscape construction and garden design coordinator, said: “To be at the show alongside other budding horticulture enthusiasts, colleges and fresh industry talent and be able to sing about our successes is fantastic. 

“It’s been an incredible first foray in to Gardeners World Live.”

Main photo: Tee Robertson (centre) and the team with the award 

College uses student’s art project as a learner recruitment tool

A book created by an art student documenting her experience at Bradford College is being used to recruit future learners.

Inspired by an alumnus of the college, Ladybird illustrator Ernest Aris, BTEC art and design student Kristy Barrett created her own Ladybird book, called ‘Kristy Goes to Bradford School of Art’.

The book, which she submitted as coursework, tells the story of her educational journey from a high school pupil to an art student at the college.

Copies of the book will be produced by the college and distributed to homes across the region, particularly to people who have shown an interest in starting an art course in September.

“We were asked to design something about Bradford College and inspired by a past student,” said Kristy. “I researched our famous alumni and discovered that Ladybird book illustrator Ernest Aris studied here in 1900.

“I feel really proud that potential new students will be receiving my book. I hope they like it.”

Nikki Sheen, a course tutor for level three art and design, said: “When I was assessing Kristy’s work I nearly cried as it made me so happy. 

“She has written it herself and done all the illustrations. It’s a beautiful piece of work.”

 

Main photo: Kristy and her book

National Achievement Rate Tables are not a reliable quality indicator

Government should expect quality from the skills programmes it funds, but the National Achievement Rate Tables are not the only measure, argues Nichola Hay

This week’s FE Week contains a full analysis of the government’s newest National Achievement Rate Tables 2015-16 for apprenticeships and education and training.

Our own company shows a 19 per cent decline in its achievement rate from the previous year, but I would argue taking that figure in isolation as an indicator of quality is dangerous, and I believe there may be other providers identified in the analysis who have good reason to feel the same.

In February of this year, as part of an overall grade two judgment, inspectors from Ofsted found that Outsource Training and Development was “ensuring good assessment practice which promotes a consistently high standard of apprentices’ skills. The quality of teaching and learning remains good.”

They also said that “your data indicates successfully reversing a short-term decline in apprentices’ achievement”.

This shows that while data will always be an important starting point that might prompt a need for further investigation, it is Ofsted inspections and ESFA risk reviews which should be the ultimate arbiters of a provider’s quality. Our NART numbers took a short-term hit because under the QAR data, learner transfers count negatively as leavers.

Headline data on its own cannot tell the whole story

In 2015-16 Outsource had two cohorts of learners who were transferred for reasons that were taken in learners’ interests – even though they negatively affected our provider data.

In the first case, both the ESFA and an employer asked us to take on a group of engineering apprentices even though we don’t operate in the sector.

We engaged a third party to carry out the technical delivery and an engineering assessor to do the assessment. When the third party was ready, the apprentices were transferred to that provider, but in the process, we were penalised in our QAR data.

The second case involved a contract that the employer put out to competitive tender. We were not prepared to deliver without a realistic employer contribution so withdrew from the contract. We worked closely with the incoming provider to transfer existing learners, ensuring that the learners were not disadvantaged and there was a seamless transition.

Ofsted looked at both cases and talked to the employers and learners involved. It agreed with us that when the transfer data was ‘removed’, Outsource’s QAR was above the national average. It accepted that the right action had been taken for learners – and for the right reasons, not just ESFA box-ticking.

This clearly shows that headline data on its own cannot tell the whole story – there is context for every cohort. There are also frameworks that always have high national success rates irrespective of provider, due to the nature of the sector and learner.

We want every apprentice from varying backgrounds of prior attainment to succeed across different sectors and levels. An individual provider’s QAR can be made up by a mix of apprenticeships, which is why AELP is asking Ofsted to consider national benchmarks for each standard and framework.

Rule changes this year for the data, particularly in respect of breaks in learning, have muddied the picture. It’s true that in some cases, BIL can disguise a poor success rate and it is right those providers should be challenged. However in many cases, there are valid reasons for a decrease in the rate, and we are seeing Ofsted’s risk-review approach identify providers where inspectors have subsequently gained a clear understanding of why the data has shifted.

NART must not deter providers and employers from delivering challenging standards or recruiting disadvantaged learners, e.g. without English and maths, or from difficult backgrounds. Otherwise we will end up with a narrow range of on-paper high-quality apprenticeships that fail to fulfil what UK industry needs, and a higher set of barriers for those individuals who will need training most in a post-Brexit Britain.

The country should expect a lot from government-funded skills programmes, but we should have the right measures with the right understanding. NART can only ever offer a starting point.

 

Nichola Hay is director of Outsource Training and Development

Gold standard for 14 colleges with HE teaching

Fourteen FE colleges have achieved gold status for higher education teaching in the first ever Teaching Excellence Framework ratings.

The feat was doubly impressive for the sector’s high achievers, as more than half of Russell Group universities – traditionally considered to be the best in the country – missed out on the best mark.

A total of 295 higher education providers are included in the TEF, which was conducted by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Of the 106 colleges that took part, 14 were awarded gold (listed above), the best grade, while 46 achieved silver and 31 were rated bronze.

The other 15 received a “provisional” rating.

The TEF assesses higher education institutions on the quality of teaching and the outcomes they achieve, taking into account factors such as teaching quality, student satisfaction and graduate employability.

This is a trial year for the ratings, but they might in future affect the levels of fees universities are able to charge, and could be a measure on which students base their university choice.

David Hughes, the chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said he was “delighted” that the TEF “confirmed what we already knew – that colleges up and down the country are delivering high quality higher education which matches the best”.

He continued: “This is the first set of full results for the TEF and I am sure that colleges and HEFCE will have learned a lot from the experience.

“We will work closely with the TEF team to ensure that the metrics and the assessment work well for colleges which tend to have more part-time and older students who are working whilst learning.”

But other voices in the sector have opposed the new performance indicator.

Sorana Vieru, vice-president for higher education at the National Union of Students, said the publication of the TEF is “another meaningless university ranking system no one asked for, which the government is introducing purportedly in the name of students”.

“The government has ignored the concerns of students, academics and experts across the country who have warned against the introduction of the TEF, arguing that its measurements fail to capture anything about teaching quality.”

She added that until the measurements are addressed, “this ranking system is nothing but a Trojan horse to justify raised tuition fees and treat the higher education sector like any other market, to be ineptly measured and damagingly sold”.

Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union, also came out against the TEF.

“The TEF is opposed by both staff and student organisations and these results will have little credibility within higher education itself,” she said.
“The fear is that students, beyond the UK in particular, will use these results as the basis for deciding which UK university to attend, which could damage some institutions.”

A gold award in the TEF is given to providers who show the highest quality, silver is awarded for consistently exceeding national quality requirements in higher education, while bronze is reserved for those who meet the national requirements.

Madeleine Atkins, chief executive of HEFCE, said that the TEF measures things that “students themselves say they care about: high-quality, engaged teaching and a supportive, stimulating learning environment which equips them with the knowledge and skills they need to achieve their potential, and then to progress to a good job or further study”.