The chaos of apprenticeship reform

Apprenticeships might be at the heart of the Government’s industrial strategy, but delays in the register of approved providers raise questions about its vision for the future, says Stephen Evans

Having worked in government, I know that the announcement of a policy can seem like the end of the process. An announcement follows a long period of analysis, getting buy-in from ministers and approval from relevant committees and others.

In practice,  the announcement is only the start of the process – any policy is only as good as its implementation. That’s what we’re discovering with current apprenticeship reforms.

No-one doubts the government’s ambition: it will be stretching to deliver three million by 2020 and the minister is clearly committed to changing the culture. Yet that ambition will founder if implementation is not well thought through or delivered.

The register of apprenticeship training providers really has become the hokey-cokey of procurement processes – delays and condensed timescales have been compounded by worries over whether new entrants can deliver quality training. Now added to that are new processes that seem designed mainly to allow those that have missed out to have another go, because of the controversy the results have stirred up.

None of this fills me with confidence that we’re all systems go for what will be the biggest change to apprenticeships perhaps for a generation.

So here are four things that need to happen now to make this right.

None of this fills me with confidence that we’re all systems go

Have a clear vision. It’s difficult from the outside to discern what the government’s overall vision for the provider landscape is.

For example, does it think that all colleges should be apprenticeship providers? Does it want lots of new entrants, or does it think the current provider base is likely to match employer need? Does it want a smaller number of larger providers or a greater diversity of provision? This is about a shift from procurement to commissioning. And it links to other areas, like advanced learner loans, devolution in some areas, and area reviews. Too often these changes are fragmented and risk becoming less than the sum of their parts.

Set realistic timelines and stick to them. My experience is that commissioning processes always take longer than you think they will. The process is already delayed – we now need a clear timeline of next steps. That’s much easier with a clear vision of what the system should look like. We cannot get this close to reforms and still not be clear about who can deliver what – it takes time to build and maintain relationships.

Encourage new providers who can add value. It’s important that new providers are able to establish themselves and start delivering apprenticeships.

But on the face of it, it is difficult to see how some of the new providers on the register have got there. FE Week has highlighted a number of cases where new providers don’t seem to have a website or a track record in this or any other field. This looks like a massive risk. It should be clear what new (and existing) providers are going to bring to the party.

Be clear about potential exit of providers from the market. Just because a provider has had an allocation in the past, it does not necessarily mean they should have one in the future. Providers should be approved if they can deliver the training that employers and individuals want and that meets the ambitions of the apprenticeship programmes. But the absence of a clear vision and processes risks leading to pressure to create new opportunities for these displaced providers, which is exactly what seems to have happened. There should be a level playing field for all types of providers.

The process at the moment feels simultaneously rushed, delayed and chaotic. It is not a sign of success that, immediately after some surprising results, a second bite of the cherry has been offered. And that, at this stage in the year, we are still waiting for the non-levy allocation results.

I’m still excited and optimistic about apprenticeships. I still think we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make a real change.

To grasp it, the Department for Education needs to get a grip and set out a compelling vision and a well thought through process with a clear and realistic timetable.

 

Stephen Evans is CEO of the Learning and Work Institute

Ofqual boss: lack of end point assessment organisations is ‘not irresponsible’

Ofqual’s chief regulator has said it’s “not irresponsible” for apprenticeships to be launched without an organisation in place to deliver the final exam.

Speaking at FE Week’s Annual Apprenticeship Conference this morning (March 24), Sally Collier (pictured above) also said she “didn’t know” if having just half of approved standards with end point assessment organisation in place was enough.

“No, I don’t think the DfE is irresponsible,” the exams watchdog boss said in response to a question from host Kirsty Wark.

“I think in an ideal world you’d have all the pieces in place before you launch the thing,” she conceded.

But she insisted that the lack of an assessor in place to carry out the final apprenticeship exams wasn’t an issue.

“The employer groups absolutely know what they want – the plans are out there, the specifications are out there,” she said.

When questioned about there being assessors in place for just 50 per cent of approved standards, Ms Collier said: “I don’t know if that’s enough or not.”

“All I know is that the ones that we’re looking at are coming through the system thick and fast now, and they will be regulated by us and they will be good quality,” she said.

Ms Collier compared the lack of an end point assessment organisation to a learner starting GCSEs without knowing which exam board would be assessing them.

“They need to know that at the end of that, that someone is going to be saying, is the Pearson standard the same as the OCR standard the same as the AQA standard,” she said.

She continued: “We haven’t got teachers saying, well I don’t know how to teach maths, because they do know how to teach maths, what they don’t know is the specifics of that particular board.”

Ms Collier, who was appointed chief regulator in April 2016, also said that apprenticeships did “not necessarily” need to include qualifications.

“What is important is what employers want,” she said.

“The Institute for Apprenticeships will have a role to say, are the apprentices getting what they want?” she continued.

“It’s my job to say, if there is a qualification, we can regulate it.”

By the end of January just over half – 81 out of 159 – standards approved for delivery had at least one assessment organisation in place.

But the proportion of learners on standards without an approved assessment organisation has been dropping rapidly, from 42 per cent in July to 18 per cent in October.

Former top civil servant Sue Pember said in October that it was “diabolical” to allow apprentices to start on a standard without details of the final exam in place.

Let’s be more positive about ITPs

The vast majority of independent training providers deliver great results for apprentices, writes Bob Watmore

The front page lead of last week’s FE Week was understandably sensational about some aspects of the recent register of apprenticeship training providers announcements – namely those experienced providers which didn’t make the list and the inexperienced ones that did.

While mistakes and anomalies should certainly be highlighted, focusing on these alone prevents balance. We should also be celebrating the experienced providers that have rightly achieved RoATP status and which will be critical to the three million apprenticeship starts targeted to be achieved by 2020.

There are many good providers across the country with long histories of delivering employers’ needs to a high standard. This is particularly true of the engineering and manufacturing sector in which I work. Although the sector faces a significant ongoing skill shortage, exacerbated by an ageing workforce and a reliance on the skills of EU nationals that may be under threat from Brexit, it provides a myriad of modern opportunities for technical STEM-based apprenticeships at advanced, higher and degree level. It also results in well paid jobs, whose visible contribution to the UK’s GDP is easily measured in manufactured and exported goods.

Focusing on mistakes alone prevents balance

But according to FE Week’s own statistics, the vast majority of colleges subcontract their apprenticeship delivery, often to independent training providers, and they have therefore been caught out by not taking their RoATP submissions seriously in their own right.

In the recent round of apprenticeship delivery procurement, colleges didn’t have to submit a financial status as part of the invitation to tender. As ITPs with charitable status we have to provide such financial information as surety to government procurement officers. Our ability to pass this financial test should give buyers confidence in our ability to successfully deliver high apprenticeship achievement rates.

Sadly I too regularly hear complaints from employers about some colleges’ poor apprenticeship delivery. Complaints include regular deference to full-time student courses, such that part-time apprentices suffer unreasonably large class sizes, doubling up on engineering equipment during skills training, unsuitably qualified training staff working outside their own vocational areas, and implications of qualifications achieved without the barest employer engagement on rigour, depth of skill and knowledge.

Of course, I know there is some outstanding college-based apprenticeship delivery, and these often tend to be those with very close ties to original equipment manufacturers. But the three million challenge requires massive penetration into the SME and micro-business supply chain market, as most OEMs are already doing all they can.

I concede that poor ITP provision, such as the cases FE Week has found, don’t do the sector any favours

Independent training providers in the GTA England network are at the forefront of this penetration and need (and deserve) the level of recognition that will assure employers of quality provision. This is the sentiment Robert Halfon was alluding to, when he spoke of employers being able to have confidence in quality providers, on unveiling the RoATP.

My experience in the sector is broad and varied: as a senior project manager at Jaguar Land Rover for over 20 years, I had some responsibility for young engineers’ development, and having worked at a large college in Leicester, and now at an ITP, I am a firm believer in the benefits of the ITP sector, especially related to achieving this growth in apprenticeships now.

Nevertheless, I concede that poor ITP provision, such as the cases FE Week has found, don’t do the sector any favours and I support the important work the paper does to shine a  light on these.

However, as an avid reader who regularly circulates its articles to my staff, I am keen that they – and the many other employees countrywide at successful sector skills groups, as well as employers, providers and learning institutions – should feel part of a major success story, not part of the problem.

Let’s all work together to keep our eyes on the most important focus: every apprentice’s journey is critical, as it will be the only one they will take.

 

Bob Watmore is training and assessment manager at Derwent Training Association

Breaking: College on ‘lock down’ due to security threat

A college has been closed for the day and all students sent home because of a security threat.

Bury College is understood to have been put on ‘lock down’, with teachers being told earlier not to move from their classrooms.

The emergency measures were introduced after a threat was made against the college, and Greater Manchester Police are in attendance.

The college has just put out an updated statement.

“Following a potential threat to our security earlier today, the college instigated its security procedures as a precaution,” a spokesperson said.

“Working closely with the police, we are in the process of safely evacuating the college. 

“All students are being advised to return home.  Those with additional needs are being supported in this respect.  

The college will be closed for the rest of today.”

A Greater Manchester Police spokesperson also just told FE Week: “At 10.50am, on Friday, March 24, police were made aware of a threat made in relation to Bury College, Market Street, Bury.

“Officers are in attendance to establish the full circumstances.

“As a precaution the college have chosen to evacuate students.”

A college spokesperson added that working closely “with exceptional support from the police, the college quickly instigated its well-rehearsed lockdown procedures”, and a safe evacuation of the college was taken as a “precautionary measure”. 

Principal Charlie Deane said: “I would like to thank the staff for their professionalism and the students and other visitors for their patience and understanding. I apologise for any inconvenience that may have occurred, however, the safety of our students and staff is paramount.

“I would also like to thank the police for their speedy response, sound advice and expert help in ensuring the safe evacuation of our students”.

London council unhappy with plans for local college to merge with group 300 miles away

A London borough council is unhappy over a planned merger between a local college and a group whose headquarters is 300 miles away from the capital.

Lewisham Southwark College and Newcastle-based NCG have opened a consultation on a proposed merger, 18 months after a potential partnership was first mooted.

The link-up was the college’s preferred option, and it rejected a possible merger with a much closer college after the Central London area review.

But a spokesperson for the London borough of Lewisham told FE Week it was “disappointed” with the outcome.

The council “would have preferred to see Lewisham Southwark College find a more local London partner”, it said.

“Our interest is ensuring that Lewisham young people and adults get education and training to equip them for the highly competitive London labour market,” she added.

The council would have preferred to see Lewisham Southwark College find a more local London partner

Lewisham Southwark College, which was given a grade three rating in its most recent Ofsted inspection, and NCG insisted that a merger would “strengthen and further develop” provision to “better meet the needs of local communities in central south London”.

NCG’s group structure is organised so that each college has “significant autonomy”, a spokesperson for both said.

“The LSC college board will retain local accountability for key areas of operation, including the overall quality of provision, student experience, curriculum development and engagement with local stakeholders, while NCG provides the expertise and balance sheet strength to allow the local principalship to focus wholly on improving quality of education for their local communities,” she said.

News of the planned merger between the London college, which is led by former Newcastle College principal Carole Kitching, and NCG first emerged in March 2016 – although talks began in autumn 2015.

The current consultation runs until April 21, with the merger expected to go ahead in August.

According to the consultation document, the proposal would be “extremely beneficial to both organisations”.

Lewisham Southwark College would be able to “fulfil the next stage of its strategic objectives, while retaining its successful local identity” through the merger, it said.

Meanwhile, NCG would be able to “use LSC’s London-specific expertise and specialisms to benefit the wider group”.

The report from the central London area review, published in February, showed that Lewisham Southwark College had also mooted a merger with nearby Lambeth College – although the NCG proposal was LSC’s “preferred option”.

According the report, the NCG merger would allow LSC “to accelerate their plans to grow their delivery of apprenticeships for London employers, by leveraging the expertise and resources across the group”.

But a partnership with Lambeth “would maintain the college’s current specialisms”, which included “a focus to meet the needs of adults with low basic skills or an ESOL need”.

“This is recognised by both [Lambeth and LSC] as being a key part of meeting the needs of the communities they serve,” it said.

NCG, which was rated ‘good’ in its most recent Ofsted inspection report published in September, counts three FE colleges, one sixth form college and two independent training providers as its members.

These are Newcastle College, Newcastle Sixth Form College, West Lancashire, Kidderminster College, Rathbone and Intraining.

As reported by FE Week in February, Carlisle College is due to become the fifth college member of NCG in April, after it rejected a proposal from the Cumbria area review to pair up with nearby Lakes College.

Panel debates end-point assessment and RoATP

Concerns about quality and the impact of reforms on social mobility dominated the panel debate of FE and skills sector leaders at the Annual Apprenticeship Conference.

Dame Asha Khemka DBE, principal of West Nottinghamshire College and a member of the board of the Institute for Apprenticeship, called for the sector to “work together to find solutions”, admitting that “we all know implementation is going to be rocky”.

However, she said the fact that so many standards’ end-point assessments were not yet in place was “not acceptable”.

Her fellow panel member Dr Sue Pember, the director of policy at HOLEX, described the lack of EPAs for approved standards as “diabolical”. “In my mind”, she said, “you shouldn’t put a standard on the books unless it’s got an EPA”, a position that was met with warm applause from delegates.

Replying to a question about whether the levy would lead to an increase in deadweight provision, which would use levy funds to pay for training that would already have taken place, Dr Pember said “deadweight is a word I don’t like to hear very often; it reminds me of Train to Gain”.

We all know implementation is going to be rocky

John Hyde, the executive chairman of HIT Training, warned that an increase in the use of levy funds to pay for “existing management training and degree sandwich courses may skew it too far”.

He insisted that entry-level apprenticeships and those for 16- to 18-year-olds “are still needed” and urged the government to “keep a close eye on it”.

There were stark warnings from the chief executives of both the Association of Colleges and the Association of Employment and Learning Providers.

David Hughes, the chief executive of AoC, said “we should go into this open-eyed; sometimes there will be scams and scandals”, but was careful to insist this wouldn’t apply to the majority. He also warned that the levy might “amplify” the behaviour of “unscrupulous” employers, noting that “the labour market is just grossly unfair and unjust, and the levy won’t solve that”.

Mark Dawe, the boss of AELP, asked whether the system could truly be considered employer-led when employers weren’t free to select the provider that they wanted to work with, as not all providers were on the register of apprenticeship training providers.

“Don’t distort the market through a procurement process that doesn’t recognise quality,” he insisted.

MPs queue up to blast apprenticeships register omissions

Fierce criticism has flooded in from MPs concerned at the large number of colleges that have missed out on the new register of apprenticeship training providers.

The list of providers that will be eligible to deliver apprenticeships from May was published on March 14 by the Skills Funding Agency – however, a large number of major providers of apprenticeships somehow missed out, including at least 19 colleges with a combined current allocation of £44 million.

Britain’s second city was left without any colleges able to deliver apprenticeships from May at all, as all four Birmingham colleges failed to get on the register.

The shadow skills minister Gordon Marsden wrote to his ministerial counterpart Robert Halfon on Wednesday demanding answers about the process, which he said left providers with “excellent track records of delivering apprenticeships” off the list.

Gordon Marsden

“A number of decisions on exclusions and indeed inclusions have aroused great concern,” he said, adding that the colleges that missed out had been “left without the ability to deliver new apprenticeships from May with very few answers as to why”.

This situation “raises key questions which need urgent answers to restore confidence” in the register and the application process, he said. He demanded to know the number of people at the SFA who had been involved in compiling the register, and the process for reconsidering applications by providers that had been turned down.

Speaking exclusively to FE Week, Mr Marsden said he understood many of the colleges had been “knocked back because of technical errors” in the applications. “All of this points to a very rushed and inadequately policed production of the register,” he insisted.

Last week, Keith Smith, the director of funding and programmes at the SFA, wrote on behalf of Mr Halfon to all the MPs with colleges in their constituency that had applied unsuccessfully to get on the register.

His letter, which was sent by email the day after the colleges learned their fate, is likely to raise eyebrows given the subsequent outcry over the register.

The absence of the four Birmingham colleges prompted two of the city’s MPs – Gisela Stuart (pictured above) and Jack Dromey – to raise questions in parliament during education questions on Monday. Ms Stuart, the MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, said their absence from the register was “destroying technical education for 16-year-olds in the West Midlands”.

Jack Dromey

And Mr Dromey, the MP for Birmingham Erdington, asked the minister to meet with the 10 MPs representing Britain’s second city to discuss the issue. Mr Dromey told FE Week that the decision to exclude the colleges “on the basis of the answer to one question is inexplicable”.

“The process is fundamentally flawed and it is essential that the SFA thinks again,” he said. Roger Godsiff, the MP for Birmingham Hall Green, said the process for applying to the register “smacked of a box-ticking exercise”.

He told FE Week that the Birmingham colleges had been “given to understand that the SFA would engage with them if their application was deficient in some form” but “all of them say that the SFA didn’t”.

Meanwhile, Richard Burden, the MP for Birmingham Northfield, said the omission was “shocking and out of order” – but added that it “can be nothing other than a mistake”. Sion Simon, the Labour candidate for mayor of the West Midlands, has launched a campaign to overturn the decision, after just three of the county’s 16 colleges made it onto the register.

“This decision will all but end technical education for young people in the West Midlands as we know it,” he said.

And Wakefield MP Mary Creagh has tabled an early-day motion calling on ministers to reconsider the application process, after Wakefield College failed to get on the register despite having an apprenticeship allocation of £2 million and a ‘good’ Ofsted rating.

“It’s clear that the government’s attempt to improve quality of providers has been a complete shambles,” she said. Meanwhile, Mark Dawe, AELP’s chief executive, insisted that a lot of “good quality” independent providers had also been left off the register.

“Why doesn’t the government trust its own regulator and inspectorate to determine what good quality is?” he asked. Mr Dawe said that providers had been told what sections they had failed on, but not the reasons why they had failed – which meant some were “at a bit of a loss to see what they have to change to get on”.

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “All those that applied to be on the register of training providers were given a clear set of criteria in order to receive funds for apprenticeship training, ensuring they are high quality and capable of delivering the training that young people deserve.

“We have also now reopened the register to give new organisations, and those who were not successful the first time, the chance to reapply.

“By regularly giving new providers a chance to get on the register, we are supporting diversity, quality and employer choice.”

 

No growth projections for Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers

There has been no modelling done by the Skills Funding Agency to predict how many providers will eventually end up on the new register of apprenticeship training providers, its boss has admitted.

Peter Lauener’s stunning revelation will be of concern to many in the sector, not least the new Ofsted boss Amanda Spielman, who admits in an exclusive interview on page 6 that she’s “worried” about the impact the register will have on her resources, given that it has already nearly doubled the number of providers that are now in line for inspection.

We don’t have a view of how many will be on there and it is something we’ll have a better fix on over time

Speaking to FE Week following a question and answer session on the forthcoming apprenticeship reforms at this year’s Annual Apprenticeship Conference, Mr Lauener said “we do not have a modelled view” on how many providers he expects will be on the register in a few years’ time.

“We don’t have a view of how many will be on there and it is something we’ll have a better fix on over time,” he admitted. “I think it would be unhelpful to have a view at this stage, not least because we have the levy coming.”

Before the register came into force, there were 793 apprenticeship providers in scope for inspection.

Now however, the RoATP has nearly double that many providers listed, with 1,473 organisations in the frame for inspection when it goes live in May.

To heap problems on Ofsted, the RoATP application process is due to take place four times every year, and sector figures expect this number will rise quickly, perhaps to well over 2,000.

“It is a huge challenge and we are only at the start of the conversations because there is nothing yet to inspect,” Ms Spielman has previously said. “This is about setting up for the future.”

Despite this, Mr Lauener insisted that there is no need for the SFA to project how many providers will eventually make it onto the register.

“We don’t have a view of how many,” he told FE Week. “Why would we have a view about a desired number?”

Ofsted watch: Another UTC hit with poor grade

A university technical college in Middlesex received a grade three in its first ever Ofsted inspection, spelling even more problems for the 14 to 19 institutions, in a week that saw a sixth form college rated ‘outstanding’.

Inspectors cited “historically low attendance” at Heathrow Aviation Engineering UTC as well as “poor” student attitudes towards being at the UTC, in an inspection report published March 22.

The report said parents and pupils reported to inspectors that they feel “let down by promises made by this UTC not being fulfilled”.

It added: “A legacy of challenges, including in staff recruitment and financial constraints, has been a significant challenge to overcome.”

Heathrow UTC has just 205 students on roll, with a capacity of 600.

The ‘requires improvement’ outcome adds to troubles for the UTC model.

FE Week revealed earlier this month that less than half of the university technical colleges visited by Ofsted have received ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ grades.

The education watchdog has now visited a total of 21 UTCs, but only nine of these, or 42 per cent, were judged to be good enough for higher grades.

St John Rigby RC Sixth Form College in Wigan on the other hand received an ‘outstanding’ grade from Ofsted, in an inspection report published March 21.

The previously grade two 1,300-learner SFC’s principal and leadership team have “worked relentlessly to ensure transformational change since the last inspection”, inspectors said.

They added: “Excellent teaching results in a high proportion of students making exceptional progress from their starting points. Consequently, most students achieve, and often exceed, their aspirational target grades.”

The damning Ofsted report that caused the downfall of huge apprenticeship training provider First4Skills was also published this week.

The Liverpool-based provider went bust earlier this month, affecting around 200 staff and around 6,500 learners, after the Skills Funding Agency pulled its contract following a grade four rating from the education watchdog.

Inspectors blasted leaders at the provider for failing to “tackle the significant weaknesses identified at the previous inspection”, with the result that “outcomes for learners and the quality of teaching, learning and assessment have declined further and are now inadequate”.

“Strategic priorities focus disproportionately on maximising the company’s income at the expense of providing high standards of education and training for learners,” it said.

Meanwhile another private provider, System Group Limited who delivers training nationally, went up from a grade three to a grade two.

The 2,100-learner provider was graded ‘good’ across the board, with inspectors highlighting the provider’s apprenticeship delivery.

“All apprentices benefit from the very regular contact, one-to-one coaching and support they receive from their trainer/assessors,” inspectors said. “Apprentices and learners have extremely good knowledge of safe working practices which they apply correctly.”

Vision West Nottinghamshire College kept its grade two in a report published March 21.

Inspectors said senior leaders have put the college “at the heart of the local community, enabling it to raise aspirations and support the area’s cultural and economic regeneration.”

But they added too few learners on classroom-based programmes achieve their qualifications in English and mathematics or “improve their skills sufficiently”.

Tameside College kept its grade three in a report published March 21.

To improve inspectors said the colleges needs to “increase significantly the proportion of apprentices who achieve their apprenticeship and who complete within the planned timescale”.

Epping Forest College had its first monitoring visit since being rated ‘inadequate’ on January 6.

Ofsted said the college was making good progress since the grade four.

Two short inspection reports were also published this week.

South West Regional Assessment Centre Limited, an employer provider, was found to continue as ‘good’ since a grade two in June 2013.

Staffordshire County Council also continues to be ‘good’ since a grade two November 2012.

 

GFE Colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Tameside College 14/02/2017 21/03/2017 3 3
Vision West Nottinghamshire College 07/02/2017 21/03/2017 2 2
Epping Forest College 26/01/2017 17/03/2017 M M

 

Sixth Form Colleges Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
St John Rigby RC Sixth Form College 14/02/2017 21/03/2017 1 2

 

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
System Group Limited 20/02/2017 24/03/2017 2 3
FIRST4SKILLS Limited 07/02/2017 20/03/2017 4 3

 

Other (including UTCs) Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Heathrow Aviation Engineering UTC 21/02/2017 22/03/2017 3 –

 

Short inspections (remains grade 2) Inspected Published
South West Regional Assessment Centre Ltd 23/02/2017 20/03/2017
Staffordshire County Council 27/02/2017 20/03/2017