Latest news from FE Week

Mystery surrounds late Learndirect performance breach

The nation’s largest FE provider has finally been hit with a serious performance breach notice, a month after its apprenticeship achievement rates plummeted below minimum standards.

But some in the sector are wondering why the notice did not appear earlier – or why it was only eventually included in the government’s notices of concern list on Friday.

The omission is particularly confusing because the issue date listed on the notice is March 14.

The provider giant’s apprenticeship achievement rate tumbled from 65.1 per cent in 2014/15 to just 57.8 per cent for the last academic year, according to national data released last month by the Education and Skills Funding Agency. This brought it below the minimum standards threshold of 62 per cent.

Commenting on this unusual delay, a spokesperson for the company said: “It is not appropriate for Learndirect to comment on a government publication.”

The DfE also declined to provide any comment.

The consequences of being issued a notice of serious breach can include a ban on recruiting new learners or applying for additional funding, according to the agency’s approach to intervention.

Learndirect was one of a number of providers to have fallen foul of recent changes in the way achievement rates are calculated, which led to a slew of notices of concern or serious breach sent to providers.

As previously reported by FE Week, 35 providers were hit with such notices in March for failing to meet minimum standards, according to an ESFA list published in April.

But Learndirect wasn’t among them – nor was it on the list when we reported on its falling achievement rates in June.

The reason for this delay is still unclear, although it could have been connected to firm’s reference number.

FE Week heard rumours back in June that the ESFA had formally informed Learndirect that it would be permitted to switch a new UK Provider Reference Number – which is now its only one on the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers.

Such a move would have allowed the provider, which had almost 200,000 learners at its most recent Ofsted report in 2013, in which it was rated ‘good’, to wipe the slate clean concerning low achievement rates.

However, both Learndirect and the ESFA have denied this had been allowed, just days before the backdated notice finally appeared on the list.

Two months before this, FE Week reported that Learndirect employees had been informed they were to be placed in a month-long consultancy period, facing potential job cuts.

A spokesperson told us at the time that this was because it was no longer going to offer GCSEs as part of its early-years courses.

But in June it emerged that up to one in 10 Learndirect staff could face redundancy as a result of a restructuring programme, initiated in response to “uncertainty relating to the outcome of the adult education budget procurement process, and a business decision to focus on levy-only apprenticeship delivery”, according to group chief executive Andy Palmer.

First degree apprentices in UK graduate

The first group of degree apprentices in the UK have graduated today, with seven out of the 11 gaining first class honours.

The Aston University learners were awarded bachelors of science degrees in digital and technology solutions, following three years of combined study and work with the global consulting, technology and outsourcing company Capgemini.

The other four all achieved second-class degrees.

Professor Ian Nabney, executive dean of the university’s School of Engineering and Applied Science, said: “Degree apprenticeships are a valuable option to applicants whose learning style is less suited to a traditional on-campus study route.

“The difference in delivery allows them to apply their learning in the workplace rather than the classroom. This offers those with the right skills and aptitudes a challenging but rewarding route to graduate-level jobs, while their academic achievement is recognised as being at the same high level as a traditionally earned degree.”

the skills and apprenticeships minister Anne Milton offered her own words of congratulation for the graduates’ graft.

“I am delighted,” she said. “The hard work and commitment involved is truly admirable and highlights the opportunities apprenticeships can bring.

“I hope this will encourage more people to consider a degree apprenticeship.”

Also recognised today at the ceremony was Sue Husband, director of the National Apprenticeship Service, who collected an honorary doctorate in science.

“I am absolutely delighted to attend the graduation of the first cohort of degree apprentices in the country, for what is a momentous occasion,” she said.

“Degree apprenticeships are a significant step forward, providing the opportunity to develop and nurture talented individuals, and are a key part of our apprenticeships reform programme.”

This good news will be welcomed by many involved with degree apprenticeships, which have endured a difficult time of late.

FE Week reported in June that many higher education leaders are issuing dire warnings about their very future.

The FE sector reacted in horror after the Education and Skills Funding Agency announced in April that it would pause the procurement process for providers delivering apprenticeships to smaller non-levy-paying employers, and would extend existing contracts instead.

It then emerged that many universities had been ruled out of delivering new degree-level apprenticeships to small employers from September, as they cannot be funded through the extended contracts.

It’s a situation that will risk the future growth of degree apprenticeships, according to Nicola Dandridge, the chief executive of Universities UK, the representative body for higher education leaders.

“Employers want degree apprentices to address key skills needs and to drive growth,” she said, adding that “any region that has many non-levy-paying employers, such as the south-west, will see very few degree apprenticeships supported from this procurement, regardless of employer demand or local enterprise partnership strategy”.

The problem arose because non-levy allocations for providers’ existing contracts were worked out on the basis of their previous delivery, a situation which will apply for the eight months between May to December this year.

As most degree apprenticeships are new programmes starting in September, they cannot be funded by existing contracts.

The pause has therefore meant that these new degree apprenticeships can only be funded through levy-paying large employers until December at least.

Five HE institutions – many of them modern universities, those that won their status after 1992 – and 20 FE colleges received funding through phase one of the Higher Education Funding Council for England’s degree apprenticeship development fund.

The cash, which totalled £4.5 million across 18 projects, was awarded in November with the specific aim of developing “new provision to support up to 5,200 new degree apprenticeships” from this autumn.

But Alan Palmer, head of policy and research at Million Plus, which represents modern universities, said the procurement pause puts this commitment “at risk”.

Main image caption: James Gee, one of the Gapgemini degree apprentices

Almost 400 staff face uncertain summer through post-merger job cuts plan

Nearly 400 staff at one of the largest colleges in the country face an uncertain future while post-merger restructuring gets underway, a union has claimed.

Nottingham College, a new body formed formed between New College Nottingham and Central College Nottingham, which finally merged on June 8 after a 10-month delay, is currently consulting on a restructure over the summer while staff are on holiday.

The college’s chief executive, John van de Laarschot, admitted that merging two organisations is “never easy and rarely painless” but insisted the restructure was an “important and necessary step”.

“Staff have been aware for a while about the need for the college to merge structures, systems and processes in order to drive efficiency, remove duplication and respond to changing market forces,” he told FE Week.

“We have worked hard to propose a well thought-through structure for Nottingham College that meets the needs and expectations of our staff, our students, our partners and our employer community, and which, where possible, provides new opportunities for staff.”

As part of the plans, the college has admitted that at least 153 jobs will be lost in its bid to remove “duplicate posts” that are currently in place as a result of the merger.

The University and College Union has claimed that this commitment will leave 378 staff in the running to lose their jobs and facing an uncertain summer.

In turn, the college said that the new structure would create 122 new jobs, but it is not yet known what types of posts these will be.

Some existing staff might be redeployed into the newly created roles, but voluntary redundancy will be offered to those who wish to leave the organisation.

UCU argues that many of the new posts could see staff downgraded and left with worse terms and conditions.

Nottingham College has told FE Week that compulsory redundancies could also play a part in the restructure.

Sue Davis, a regional official for the union, has accused the college of leaving staff in the dark by failing to publish full details of the proposed new structure.

“The whole restructure process is being rushed through without proper time for consultation,” she said.

“We are deeply concerned that the job cuts will lead to fewer opportunities and less support for local people to get the skills they need.”

UCU said that while its own consultation on voluntary redundancy closes on July 24, many of the job descriptions for new posts are still unavailable for staff to consider.

The timing of the college’s consultation, over the holiday period just weeks after the official merger which formed it, has also been criticised.

The union has now called on the college to halt the restructure process.

Ms Davis said: “Many staff are now being asked to make decisions about their future without appropriate information, while others face the choice of losing their job or accepting a new contract which leaves them with lower pay, and worse terms and conditions.

“Trying to rush through a consultation over the summer period makes meaningful engagement extremely difficult and is leaving hundreds of staff in limbo about their future.”

FE Week reported in May last year that Mr van de Laarschot, a former chief executive of Stoke-on-Trent city council, who had reportedly received a £230,000 pay-off for his own voluntary redundancy from the local authority just six months previously, had been appointed to lead the two merging colleges.

New College Nottingham was rated ‘good’ by Ofsted in January, and Central College Nottingham also received a grade two during the previous January.

With an estimated annual turnover of over £80 million, Nottingham College expects to employ 1,500 staff after the restructure and support up to 40,000 full- and part-time students into employment, higher-level apprenticeships or degree courses.

Statistics regulator pressured DfE into achievement rate U-turn

The government was pressured into its major U-turn on the publication of hidden achievement rate data in the wake of FE Week reporting, the national statistics regulation boss has revealed.

The Department for Education last month released 2015/16 National Achievement Rate Tables for individual providers, a few months after it closed several significant “loopholes”, causing significant achievement-rate drops.

However, it refused at first to provide comparable figures for previous years, prompting many in the sector to accuse it of a cover-up.

Now, a letter written by Ed Humpherson, the director-general for regulation at the UK Statistics Authority, has revealed that his team effectively leaned on the DfE, apparently after reading FE Week’s reports on the scandal, before it finally agreed to publish the figures on July 27.

His letter, which refers to our first story from last month, explains that the UKSA decided that “not providing comparable data for individual providers means that users cannot make comparisons to previous years”.

“We have contacted DfE and discussed the provision of this data,” he wrote. “DfE recognised the need to provide historic individual provider-level data using the new methods.”

The letter, written to FE Week, then recognised that “since that discussion, DfE has published advice on its website on the appropriate use of historic data when making comparisons over time”.

“It has also made a commitment to publish the back series under the new method.”

NARTs, which cover apprenticeships, education and training, are published annually, though in recent years releases have been subject to delays.

Figures for courses ending no later than July 31 the previous year are typically published in March, but were delayed several times this year, for example by the general election purdah period.

Despite failing to publish the revised figures for 2014/15 back in June, DfE statisticians did admit that when the data was recalculated to remove the loopholes, some providers saw their achievement rates for that year fall by over 20 percentage points.

This prompted Jonathan Portes, an independent expert in government statistics and a professor of economics and public policy at Kings College London, to call for an investigation into this failure to be forthcoming with the necessary data, a situation he described as “incomprehensible”.

FE Week eventually requested the missing data via a Freedom of Information request submitted to the DfE.

A week later, the Department caved and announced it would now be assessing how how to publish extra information that “allows for some comparability at provider level” for earlier years based on 2015 to 2016 methodology.

We received our response to the FoI 20 working days after the request – and though it did not provide the requested data, it said it would be made public on July 27, as exclusively revealed by FE Week.

“The department intends to publish the information as additional information to the ‘national achievement rates tables transparency data 2013 to 2014 and 2014 to 2015’ publication on July 27, 2017,” explained the statement.

DfE confirms £267m underspend of 16-19 budget in last two years

A whopping £130 million per year has gone unspent in 16 to 19 funding for each of the past two years.

The budgetary underspend – attributed to low student numbers – was revealed in a parliamentary question, answered by skills minister Anne Milton, from former shadow schools minister Nic Dakin.

Mr Dakin asked how much of the Department for Education’s “budget allocated to 16 to 19-year old education was reallocated to other budgets in the financial years (a) 2014-15, (b) 2015-16 and (c) 2016-17”.

In response Ms Milton said that 16 to 19 budgets were set using “estimates of student numbers”:

“In 2014-15 and 2015-16 student numbers and associated costs were lower than these estimates, which resulted in lower spending than the forecast, by £135m and £132m respectively, representing 2.2% of the budget. This was available for reallocation,” she said.

But Ms Milton stressed that this underspend “did not affect funding per student”.

She was unable to say if there was a similar shortfall in spending for 2016/17 as “final expenditure is not yet available”.

The news has prompted angry responses from the sector.

James Kewin, deputy chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges’ Association, said that any underspend was “difficult to defend” in light of “funding cuts and cost increases” in 16 to 19 education that have led to courses being cut, class sizes increasing and support services being reduced.

“This money was intended for sixth form students and it should be spent on the education of sixth form students – every last penny should reach the front line,” he urged.

Julian Gravatt, deputy chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said that Ms Milton’s answer was “the first acknowledgement that there’s a sizeable underspend” in the 16 to 19 budget.

He argued that the unspent cash should have been used to “increase funding rates in line with inflation”.

“Instead colleges have been forced to cut back on courses and restrict teaching hours. The losers have been the current cohort of students,” he said.

Both the AoC and the SFCA, along with the Association of School and College Leaders, will be working to ensure the cash gets redirected back to schools and colleges, Mr Kewin and Mr Gravatt said.

Teaching is at the heart of the skills plan

In order to deliver the skilled workers our economy needs, education and industry need to forge closer links, says Paul Kessell-Holland

The rapid pace of change in technical education shows no signs of slowing. There has been an endless succession of commissions, reports, recommendations and plans, with the over-arching theme being ‘we need more engineers/scientists/technicians but where will these people come from?’

New technical workers are a fairly straightforward economic need, but there are a range of challenges inherent in fulfilling it. We clearly require a greater number of skilled staff in a range of industrial and technical disciplines, but this means we need to get more young people interested in following a career in these fields, and to retrain people established in other areas of employment. And this means we need to provide them with a robust, relevant and comprehensive technical education.

Education providers are, in the main, reporting that recruitment to science engineering and technology courses is growing – the lure of well-paid jobs with a career path as well as a resurgence of interest in industry and manufacturing is persuading more young people to train. Unfortunately this is only exacerbating a separate problem – where do the teachers come from?

Professionalising teaching is an important aim

Traditionally many of the teaching staff at colleges have come from industry, and this is one of the great powers of the technical and vocational training sector: it means relevant and up-to-date knowledge in the classroom, and a real understanding of the world of work. However, this steady stream of career changers is not enough to meet demand any longer, and we need to begin to grow wider and deeper recruitment plans if we are to meet demand. The Education and Training Foundation is working with a range of organisations on a number of pilot programmes to see how best to establish a larger pool of technical teaching talent and source new staff.

Crucially, these programmes need to do more than simply supporting the recruitment of individuals. For example, professional engineers are experts in their field; they understand only too well the need to remain up to date in their chosen discipline. Education is no different, and without a strong understanding of educational practice many new entrants to the profession struggle to get across their depth of knowledge in their subject.

Others may have substantial academic and theoretical knowledge but lack the key industrial experience that makes their teaching come alive and feel relevant for learners. This is why in all our teacher recruitment programmes we combine initial teacher training to an appropriate level with a wider experience of industrial updating or work shadowing, to ensure everything in the classroom reflects the world of work wherever possible. By building and maintaining local partnerships with industry the ETF is working to ensure every young person studying technical disciplines does so with teachers who know their subject, and know how to teach it in equal measure.

Professionalising teaching is an important aim. The professional standards for teachers and trainers underpin all our work, providing a common language for education professionals to discuss what they do in the classroom. The Society for Education and Training is a constantly growing professional body which supports this agenda on a whole career basis. Qualified Teacher Learning and Skills provide a real pinnacle achievement for technical teaching staff wanting to demonstrate real professional skill.

Behind all this activity lies a simple equation: the more professional the teaching workforce, the better the teaching. The better the teaching, the better the outcomes for learners. The more success our learners experience, the more will remain in education and the higher their achievements. The economy needs these young people, and the economy needs their teachers to be ready and well equipped for the challenges to come.

Paul Kessell-Holland is head of partnerships at the Education and Training Foundation

Government breaks deferred loan repayments promise

Learners stuck with heavy loans debt but no qualifications, after a training provider went bust, are still being forced to make repayments, even though the government promised these would be deferred.

The situation has been brought to FE Week’s attention by nine learners affected by the demise of Hampshire-based Edudo Ltd, which we reported in February had left 100 students out of pocket and unable to complete courses after it entered voluntary liquidation in January.

This was one of a series of FE Week revelations that have demonstrated how hundreds of learners have been left high and dry in similar situations.

Our #SaveOurAdultEducation campaign for justice on their behalf appeared to have enjoyed some success in persuading the government to defer their repayments for a year.

But Lukasz Pacuk, a 34-year-old former carpentry learner with Edudo, has now told FE Week: “I still have a big loan, no certificate, and have lost three years of studying time. Nobody contacted us about stopping the loan payments.”

“These people [the eight other former Edudo learners] are in the same situation and are harmed like me,” he said.

“I’ve had a loss of health, stress, and money is still being taken out of my account.”

FE Week has seen evidence that the nine former learners, all from Poland, are still having loan repayments taken out of their pay packets. They claim to have had no contact from either the government or the Student Loans Company to discuss deferment arrangements.

The nine, who say they were part of a bigger group of around 70 people, explained they took out advance learner loans with Edudo in 2015, amounting to £4,170 each.

They began working towards an NVQ level two in wood occupations-site carpentry, but were later told to go for level three.

Mr Pacuk claimed that Edudo assessors said that as 80 per cent of the group did not speak English, the course would take longer than the original agreed finish date of June 2015.

After completing his NVQ training, Lukasz claimed he was visited by a number of assessors on his building site, with the latest one coming in October 2016, who told him he would receive his certificate in December.

But as revealed by FE Week, Edudo, which was allocated £500,500 in advanced learner loans by the ESFA as of September last year, sold its “assets and business” to Learning Republic Group Ltd in November 2016, before entering voluntary liquidation.

The Department for Education said it was unable to comment on individual cases, but would be seeking to address any issues identified.

Edudo’s former boss Ronan Smith, who didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment this week, is the only director listed on Companies House for Learning Republic Group.

The Education and Skills Funding Agency has previously told FE Week that Learning Republic is not a provider on the register of training organisations, and does not hold a loan agreement with them.

The provider therefore cannot complete training of former government-funded Edudo learners.

FE Week has been demanding that loans debt for learners such as Lukasz should be written off since January, when we revealed how hundreds had been left with debt but no qualifications through the demise of London-based John Frank Training. Similar problems followed when Edudo and Focus Training & Development Ltd went out of business.

FE Week saw a letter in April sent to a number of students affected by provider collapses, which told them that the government would “defer your repayment status for one year”.

The Student Loans Company declined to comment this week on why this has not happened for former Edudo learners.

Prison education and training needs fixing – here’s how

Prison education has been sidelined for too long and major change is needed now, says Rob Mills

The general election brought us our third justice secretary in under two years. And with Dame Sally Coates’ report into prison education now a year old, the white paper on prison safety and reform not fully implemented, and the government’s commitment to prison reform, which was given prominence in 2016, omitted from the Queen’s speech, the sector has been left high and dry.

Two recent reports have, moreover, branded prisoner resettlement services as next to useless. So what will the new secretary of state do now to a rehabilitate a system that is a billion-pound problem?

Of the 94,700 prisoners in education in 2016, 47 per cent had no formal qualifications. Over 72,000 were assessed for English and maths, with 43 per cent found to be working at or below entry level three in English, and 58 per cent at that level in maths. Of the 75,000 prisoners released that year, 75 per cent moved into unemployment and 46 per cent were reconvicted after 12 months. The total yearly cost of reoffending to the tax payer is some £15 billion.

There is a clear absence of a single point of responsibility and accountability

Spending on prison education totaled some £280 million between 2009-2014, but just £131 million has been earmarked for 2014-2020. Since the money spent so far has not resulted in a substantial decline of reoffending rates, a fundamental change needs to occur in terms of the structure and delivery of education, training, skills and employment services in prisons.

Prisoners enter a system where the landscape of education and employment support is fragmented, and good practice is patchy and inconsistent. The problem with employment support is one of coordination. Over the course of a prisoner’s sentence, multiple agencies and individuals are responsible for helping them find work on release, and there is a clear absence of a single point of responsibility and accountability for this, which creates confusion for both prisoners and service providers.

Community rehabilitation companies, which should engage with prisoners on release to find employment, are failing. In a damning report released last month into the ‘Through the Gate’ resettlement services run by these companies, the HM Inspectorate wrote: “We did not see any cases where Through the Gate services had assisted a prisoner to get employment after release.”

Employment outcomes should be effectively recorded to provide an accurate picture of the value of the programmes being delivered. At present, there is little robust, comprehensive data available that can trace positive outcomes to interventions.

These are what I believe to be some of the most important steps that need taking.

We need a clear ‘employment pathway’, and to eliminate the duplication and fragmentation of employment services. There should be a single point of contact responsible to coordinate prisoners’ journeys upon entry, through education and skills, moving towards rehabilitation.

Employment outcome data should be captured at each opportunity so that the effectiveness of a learner’s programme can be evaluated and where necessary, improvements can be made. Employers should be actively encouraged to support the development of employability skills programmes and to provide training within prisons – thereby encouraging them to employ or at least invite for interview prisoners on release.

The approved list of qualifications funded by SFA also needs to be removed, allowing governors and service providers to determine the qualifications and skills best suited to their prison, linked to local labour market demand.

Employability skills are often too narrowly identified with learning skills, with too much emphasis on CV-writing, literacy and numeracy. True employability skills should encompass the development of confidence, self-belief, resilience and the ability to work with others – skills that are much more valued by employers in helping to secure sustainable careers in an increasingly competitive employment market.

Rob Mills is a leading expert in the Justice sector and an Associate Senior Specialist Education Advisor of the Shropshire Academy & Learning Trust

To boost social mobility, we need more degree apprenticeships

If we really want to develop our economy, we should focus more on the top echelons, suggests Adrian Anderson

At the recent AELP June conference there was a lot of talk about the value of intermediate apprenticeships and the importance of not equating quality apprenticeships with those at a higher level. But let’s be quite clear: if the purpose of apprenticeships is to raise productivity and enhance social mobility, England’s apprenticeship programme must have a significant focus on higher-level skills provision.

From a productivity standpoint, ask any economist and they will emphasise the UK’s acute need of a highly skilled workforce to compete with our OECD and BRIC competitors. If you have these skills, you’re also likely to earn more. For these reasons, apprenticeships have been positioned as England’s flagship skills programme, but look at the current figures on delivery and it’s clear how much the focus of apprenticeship delivery has to change.

In the 2015/16 academic year there were 509,400 apprenticeship starts. By level, this was 57 per cent at level two, 38 per cent at level three, two per cent at level four, three per cent at level five and just 0.2 per cent at level six. The top five starts by apprenticeship framework were: health and social care (85k), business administration (50k), management (46k), hospitality and catering (32k), and customer service (26K)

Shouldn’t the skills sector embrace rather than resist change?

The apprenticeship reforms and the levy, however, herald a clear and significant shift upwards in apprenticeship levels. Employers have taken a lead through the trailblazer process to develop apprenticeships that are needed by the economy.

NHS trusts, with massive levy bills, have developed degree apprenticeships in nursing. Degree apprenticeships are also being developed by local authorities for social workers and by police forces for officers, occupations vital to the provision of high-quality public services. Surely no one could disagree with a substantial focus and public sector levy spend on degree apprenticeships in nursing, social work and policing?

In the private sector let’s hope our post-Brexit car industry makes extensive use of the manufacturing degree apprenticeship and our lights are kept on by the nuclear industry combatting chronic skills shortages through investment in the nuclear engineering degree apprenticeship. Through investment in the digital solutions higher and degree apprenticeships we’ll have a better chance of overcoming the cyberattacks that have featured in the news in recent months.

And yes, there are some occupations where intermediate apprenticeships should be valued. No one would doubt the case for apprenticeships in butchery, bakery or carpentry, for instance. My point is that the current balance in apprenticeship provision is wrong and there’s been far too much focus on the generic lower-level apprenticeships in questionable job roles. Wasn’t this also a conclusion of the Richard review?

From a social mobility standpoint, the argument is also clear-cut: intermediate apprenticeships do help many young people enter the labour market. But don’t we need clear work-based progression routes to higher level occupations, ideally through higher and degree apprenticeships, for the system to make a major contribution to social mobility? Shouldn’t one of the ambitions of the reforms be an employer-funded debt-free route from apprenticeships to the professions, in which individual learners, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds, earn while they learn? And if employers want to shift away from some of the old generic level two frameworks, will not the needs of new learners who would, in the past, have followed such programmes be best met by the new T-levels?

Of course, a change in focus could be difficult for some providers – but change Will happen. The opportunities, however, are substantial: through the levy there’s significantly more funding (40 per cent more!) than in the past for delivery. The government is planning substantial investment in T-levels, which is another opportunity. We’re also seeing both independent training providers and further education colleges developing their presence in the higher and degree apprenticeship market. Shouldn’t the skills sector embrace rather than resist change and be at the forefront of developing the skills needed by the UK economy?

Adrian Anderson is chief executive of the University Vocational Awards Council