There are two levels of unfairness in FE

Mark Dawe made his maiden speech as chief executive of AELP at last year’s Annual Apprenticeship Conference. One year on, he tackles a familiar question: are FE institutions treated fairly?

My youngest of four children, the only girl, often retorts “What about me?” when I make the mistake of saying “come on, boys”. Given my own experience in the further education sector, I really should empathise more.

I come from a background of educational privilege and I have seen what is possible. I have also run an exam board working with nearly every school in the country, while in various roles in FE I worked closely with schools and universities. I have witnessed the political priorities in what was the original all-encompassing DfES. Here is what I’ve learned.

There is inequity in the education system

Despite positive noises about skills and extra money in last week’s budget, I don’t think anyone can deny that while all public services are suffering at the moment, further education gets a tougher deal compared with schools and universities.

The sector has every right to shout and scream on behalf of the young people and adults it tries to support

And this disparity has a direct knock-on effect for learners. FE has some of the most challenging learners and is the engine for social mobility and productivity.

While it’s increasingly recognised, resources don’t follow rhetoric – I am sure I don’t need to go into the funding per learner in HE or schools compared to FE – and the sector has every right to shout and scream on behalf of the young people and adults it tries to support.

In many ways the Brexit vote represented a proportion of the population who didn’t feel like they had a voice – something we have said in FE for decades. Maybe if ministers, secretaries of state and prime ministers paid a little more attention to the FE sector, they would have a better understanding of the mood – and challenges – of the nation.

There is inequity within FE

Some people accuse me of being anti-college, but this couldn’t be further from the truth. Working in colleges for over 12 years, I have represented them regionally and nationally. I was principal of the first college to join what was then ALP – they understood how to engage with employers and I wanted to learn how. Moreover, many of the issues were common to all providers and I thought we should be campaigning side by side.

I am a cheerleader for the FE sector as a whole. I hate ‘Cinderella’, ‘second chance’, ‘safety net’ and the many other labels the sector has been given and still uses itself. With the apprenticeship policy and the technical and professional proposals, we can see a genuine light at the end of the reputation tunnel.

However, I also hate injustice, and as much as there is inequity of treatment between FE and HE and schools, inequity also exists within the sector.

Namely, independent training providers and colleges are treated differently.

In some cases, this may be justified – especially when their functions and purposes are different – but there are also cases I shall outline below, where the inequity feels like nothing more than bias.

Terminations

The government’s approach to colleges and ITPs is very different. Take the recent demise of First4Skills, closed down almost overnight primarily because of a grade four from Ofsted, resulting in an abrupt end to their Skills Funding Agency contract.

While I hold to my conviction that ‘inadequate’ provision does not deserve new starts, the owner of First4Skills is a grade three (previously grade four) college that continued to get funding for new starts despite a damning letter from the minister over four months ago. If ever there were a situation to open a wound and then rub handfuls of salt into it, this has to be it.

Bailouts

The government made clear in its apprenticeship register rules that a college with a grade four could continue to recruit apprentices if its apprenticeship provision was at a better grade, but gave no such leeway to the non-college sector.

Colleges didn’t have to demonstrate financial security; non-colleges did, despite the message that colleges would be allowed to go bust.

Capital funding

The ITP sector has never ever had capital funding or any kind of capital support yet colleges have. ITPs are not getting grants for consultancy to set up apprenticeship companies, joint ventures, etc – while colleges are. While this is not technically state aid (we checked), it is the closest yet.

Subcontracting

The news is nearly always about subcontractors going bust, or lack of control over the subcontractor, but it is those doing the subcontracting that need to be challenged. The prime contractor is responsible for monitoring the quality and financial stability of those they work with.

Bad subcontracting is a consequence of a clunky funding system, where the money is not going to the providers that can do the job and there is no willingness to redistribute funds once allocated – in many cases allowing large management fees for no management, which is totally unacceptable.

Good subcontracting and proper partnerships are great for the sector. Dishing out money while retaining a margin is simply bad practice.

Adult funding

Over 90 per cent of adult education is now grant-funded to colleges and local authority providers – with only £110 million put out to tender. To add insult to injury, colleges are able to compete with ITPs for their paltry slice of funds.

This isn’t going to remain static; we have the continued pressure of austerity and the looming implementation of devolution. Surely combined authorities will see that a greater proportion of the budget should be commissioned?

However, it seems this may be stymied in the name of financial stability for colleges; we are already hearing local authorities complain that the DfE readiness conditions include a requirement not to destabilise the college sector.

Let’s be honest about the biases

In short, there is an underlying bias in favour of colleges. If this is what the government wants, let’s at least be honest about it. Let’s have colleges as public assets and provide them the support they need to survive in their current form.

There is an underlying bias in favour of colleges

However if they are independent, let the many good colleges flourish, while those that fail can wither and die.

Fundamentally, some key decisions have to be made about what we want our colleges to be. My view is that large monolithic institutions delivering skills development away from the workplace doesn’t work.

Just listen to the voice of apprentices and employers articulating the benefits of being embedded in the workplace and supported while in a job. Large educational establishments scare many of the learners we are trying to reach.

We need to speak for those who don’t have a voice

When we argue for fair funding, it should be for FE and its students. Funding should follow the learner and be the same no matter who is delivering it.

I sometimes wonder (conspiracy theory warning) whether there is a deliberate plan to cause friction within the sector, so we forget the problems caused by government for the learners we are all striving to serve.

We all need to fight the elitist viewpoint that level two is low quality and doesn’t deserve to underpin an apprenticeship, fight the view that academic assessment is good therefore everything has to be externally examined, no matter what skills and competencies are being developed and tested.

The schools fairer funding campaign is getting lots of media attention, and HE fees almost brought down a government; but ripping out 16-18 apprenticeship funding and disadvantage funding, for example, was barely noticed outside the FE sector.

We have to speak up for those young people and adults with the quietest voices, and we need to purge the biases that lead to inefficiencies and poor delivery, and encourage everyone in the system to play to their strengths.

Colleges and ITPs have different strengths

Many colleges agree ITPs are far better at engaging with employers: colleges are not structured to respond in the flexible ways employers expect. They suffer from their own bureaucracy, which stifles their chances of proper employer engagement.

Colleges have incredible resources for full-time learning, but local niche organisations are often better at community work.

Some colleges are excellent at meeting the agenda, but generally the further the apprenticeship delivery unit is from the college systems, management, KPIs and processes and the more they are left alone, the more successful they are.

Each part of the FE sector has its own strengths – the sooner we recognise this, the sooner we will all be able to focus on those strengths and work collaboratively.

Timeline: Mark Dawe’s first year as chief executive of AELP

Ofsted boss commits to more ‘positive and purposeful’ approach to FE

Ofsted’s new chief inspector was vowed to “reset” the relationship between the education watchdog and colleges, in her first speech to the FE sector since taking over from Sir Michael Wilshaw in January.

Amanda Spielman struck a more conciliatory tone than her controversial predecessor at the AoC Ofsted conference this morning in London.

But while she acknowledged the pressures the sector was facing, she also made it clear she will not shy away from challenging the sector.

Ms Spielman said: “We need a much more positive and purposeful relationship between Ofsted and the FE sector. And so I want to use today to reset that relationship.”

She continued: “I will not be using my position at Ofsted to impose my personal views, or to make unevidenced claims about the sector.”

Instead, she said she was interested in “collecting inspection evidence, analysing it rigorously and reporting it objectively”.

Amanda Spielman speaking today

“It is only when you have evidence on your side that you have the authority to make respected judgements which genuinely drive improvement,” she said.

Seven out of 10 colleges were good or better, Ms Spielman said, and she had seen some “excellent practice”.

“But while we must recognise the good practice, we can’t lose sight of the fact that inspection grades have been in decline for at least two years now,” she said.

“This is a worrying sign, and a trend that needs to be reversed: too many colleges are struggling to maintain quality, and too few that require improvement are demonstrating the capability to do so.”

Ms Spielman made it clear she would work with colleges to drive up standards.

“That challenge means that we, and I use we in the broadest sense, need to take a hard look in the mirror to ensure we are doing all we can to make sure that college education is the best it can be,” she said.

The Ofsted boss recognised that the government’s “well-intentioned” English and maths GCSE resit policy was “causing significant problems” to colleges.

She said the policy had a “disproportionate effect on different institutions”, with around three-quarters of students at FE colleges following vocational courses.

The large numbers of students failing to improve their grades following resits was “such a waste”, Ms Spielman said.

“We must ask ourselves whether expecting all students without a C grade to retake English and maths is the right way forward.”

She continued: “Our hope therefore, is that while maintaining this important policy objective, the government will reflect on feedback from Ofsted and the wider sector, to refine its approach to promoting these vital maths and English skills.”

Ms Spielman also spoke about the impact of funding pressures on colleges.

“What is undeniable is that while the other age ranges have been largely protected from funding pressures until recently, the same has not been true for education post-16,” she said.

“This has had real consequences,” she said.

“And while college funding is the domain of the SFA, and not Ofsted, we do know from our work that it is having an impact on the quality of education,” she acknowledged.

Ms Spielman continued: “My hope is that the announcements in the budget pave the way for a new approach to FE funding, where the benefits of investment are realised, and the temptation to keep paring back is resisted.”

Former Ofsted boss Sir Michael Wilshaw, who retired in January, caused huge controversy with his outspoken comments about the FE sector.

In March 2016, he laid into the sector during a parliamentary select committee, telling MPs that he believed all 16 to 19-year-olds should be educated in schools.

In July he was caught making up evidence about the standard of careers guidance in colleges, calling it “uniformly weak” without an identifiable source to back up his claims.

And in December he contradicted Ofsted’s own annual report by pointing the finger at colleges for the sharp increase in 16 to 18-year-olds failing English and maths GCSE resits.

Having heard Ms Spielman’s speech, David Hughes, AoC chief executive, said: “It was also pleasing that she has recognised the important role of colleges and proposed a “positive and purposeful conversation” with the sector.

“It is clear she is committed to Ofsted inspecting colleges based on evidence and wants to ensure that Ofsted truly is an agent for quality improvement, not just of quality measurement.

“We have been working hard to highlight the difficulties in making the current English and maths GCSE resits policy work effectively. It is a challenge for every college and we believe has enormous consequences for college inspection outcomes.

“It is therefore very welcome news to hear Amanda supporting the call for the Government to reconsider its approach to this policy as well as acknowledging the need for inspectors to recognise the scale of the English and maths challenge which colleges face.

“I look forward to working closely with Amanda and her team to further develop this new relationship for the benefit of colleges and students.”

Outrage at decision to widen admissions for small sixth form

The controversial decision to widen admissions at a struggling small-school sixth form has come in for fierce criticism, due to a rapid decline in the need for post-16 provision in the area.

Dyke House Community College (pictured), an academy in Hartlepool, opened a sixth form in 2014, offering A-level and BTEC courses.

This was on the condition that the school only took on students who had come up from its own year 11, after they finished their GCSEs, with maximum capacity set at 200.

But it has struggled to fill places since opening, with just 89 students studying at the sixth form in 2015/16, and only 65 on courses this academic year.

To increase numbers, the school applied to widen its admissions to allow students from other providers to join its sixth form from 2018/19, which was approved by the Department for Education in January.

However, other local providers, including the principals of Hartlepool’s FE and sixth form colleges, are in uproar about the decision along with council leaders, claiming that it represented a “wild west” approach to approval.

They complained to FE Week that the move will put unreasonable extra pressure on other local post-16 providers, in the face of a fast-declining 16-to-18 population that was found by the Tees Valley area review.

Darren Hankey, principal of Hartlepool College, said he was “really at a loss” as to why the government green-lit the admissions change.

“There is clearly no need for extra post-16 provision across the Tees Valley or in Hartlepool,” he told FE Week.

“I don’t blame the school; it is doing all it can to secure its future. However, there should be more of a joined-up approach from the powers that be because. At the moment, it appears to be rationalisation on the one hand and a wild-west approach on the other.”

Maureen Bunter, principal of Hartlepool SFC, said Dyke House’s low student numbers cast doubt on how financially sustainable it would be. The decision to expand its admissions, she claimed, “completely contradicts the purpose of the area reviews”.

A Hartlepool council spokesperson said the authority “does not support the revision of the admissions policy for the sixth form at Dyke House” and has contacted the Education Funding Agency to “try to understand their position on this matter”.

After FE Week put the concerns to him, Andrew Jordon, executive principal at Dyke House Community College, said the purpose of widening the sixth form’s admission policy was to offer “greater choice and opportunity for all children in Hartlepool who are contemplating their next step in FE”.

This is only the latest baffling decision involving small sixth forms, after the Association of Colleges took the DfE to court last November over its controversial decision to approve a new small school sixth form at Abbs Cross Academy and Arts College in Essex, even though it would have broken the government’s own rules.

Julian Gravatt

The move prevented plans for the sixth form from going ahead, and the government was supposed to launch a review into the guidance on how small-school sixth forms are approved.

The report on Tees Valley area review of post-16 education, published last November, warned that by 2019/20 there would be about 2,000 fewer 16- to 18-year-olds in the area than there are now.

A raft of mergers were recommended to ensure FE providers in the area would continue to be financially viable, including joining Hartlepool College and Hartlepool SFC.

Julian Gravatt, the AOC’s assistant chief executive, told FE Week that the government must consider the “demand and growth of student numbers, before giving permission for any new institutions to open or expand their offer”.

When asked if AoC had contributed yet to the government review on small sixth forms, he said the association had submitted a letter with proposals for amended guidance on the approval process to civil servants in November.

It is unclear whether the government had taken the matter any further; the DfE refused to respond to FE Week’s request for an update on the review’s progress.

Sector in shock: Apprenticeship provider register winners and losers

The selection process for the new register of apprenticeship training providers has been branded an “omnishambles”, after providers with no delivery experience whatsoever have found their way onto it while numerous huge, established colleges have missed out.

The Skills Funding Agency this week published the full list of 1,708 providers which will be eligible to deliver apprenticeships from May, whittled down from 2,327 applications.

Many colleges with significant current apprenticeship allocations, including Bournemouth and Poole College, Hartlepool College, Birmingham Metropolitan College and Northbrook College, have expressed dismay after they didn’t make it onto the list.

To add insult to injury, FE Week analysis shows, for example, that one person operating from a rented office in Knutsford, Cheshire has succeeded in getting their three companies, Cranage Ltd, Obscurant Limited, and Tatton Solutions Ltd onto the approved ‘main route’ register – even though none of these companies has any experience of running government-funded apprenticeships.

The shadow skills minister Gordon Marsden told FE Week that the register was “looking like an omnishambles”.

He continued: “I fear that this reflects the concern I’ve been expressing for months that the SFA just doesn’t have the resources to carry out due diligence on this scale.

“The SFA should now give a clear indication of how thorough the checking process has been.”

Cranage, Obscurant, and Tatton Solutions were all incorporated between August and December 2015, and their first sets of annual accounts are due within months.

Another private training provider, the Hertfordshire-based Apple Training Academy, is on the RoATP despite having ceased trading, while the Essex-based Firm Training only launched in February 2017 – from a residential address (see below).

A DfE spokesperson told FE Week that “all providers were given a clear set of criteria they had to meet, in order to ensure they can receive public funds for apprenticeship training: due diligence, financial health, capacity and quality”.

He continued: “We will provide personalised feedback to all providers who do not make it onto the register to help them understand what they need to do to be successful in the future.”

The process was geared towards “ensuring excellence for apprenticeship provision”, and it “cannot compromise on our commitment” to rigorous quality tests.

The director of Cranage, Obscurant, and Tatton Solutions is Peter Sherry, the former chief executive of the National Skills Academy Logistics which went into liquidation in 2013 after the Skills Funding Agency pulled its financial support.

Obscurant is also on the old register of training organisations (Roto) – but Cranage and Tatton are not.

Mr Sherry confirmed that just 16 people work across all three companies, but added that with Cranage, which still has no official website, “we are still effectively looking at where we will run”.

“We are looking at senior management qualifications,” he added. “But in doing those we want to see whether we can work with a third party, maybe even a college or another prime.”

The SFA declined to comment on whether connected companies were supposed to apply for the register, though Mr Sherry said: “We are finding employers, now in control of apprenticeships funding, are often now looking to work with a number of different specialist smaller companies. That is the model we plan to follow.”

He added: “Some employers see it as a massive advantage that you have not offered apprenticeships previously. They like it if we come to them fresh and with a different approach.”

The inclusion of his firms on RoATP will surprise many in FE, who were led to believe that only providers with a firm track record in delivering apprenticeships would be allowed onto it, in order to maintain quality.

Peter Lauener, the head of the SFA and shadow chief executive of the Institute for Apprenticeships, told FE Week’s Annual Apprenticeship Conference a year ago that the new register was being introduced “to make sure any provider available for an employer to use meets the right standards”.

Small distance learning provider ‘delighted’

An Essex-based private provider has been accepted onto the RoATP despite only being incorporated in February last year, apparently from a residential property.

Firm Training says it delivers distance learning specialising in online access to higher education for courses including nursing and midwifery, according its website.

However there is no evidence of the provider having any experience of running government-funded apprenticeships training.

It is not on the SFA’s general register of training organisations and its website lists no address.

Firm Training is however registered on the UK register of learning providers to a residential property in Essex.

FE Week asked Firm Training if it had ever delivered government-funded apprenticeships, and what types of apprenticeships it would offer now it’s on the register.

A spokesperson would only say: “I would like to say that we are delighted to be added to the register and are now situated in an office (waiting for the registered address to be amended).”

Firm stops trading days before register success

A private training provider is on RoATP despite having ceased trading.

Hertfordshire-based Apple Training Academy is listed as a main provider on the register, but is understood to have gone out of business this month.

FE Week has been unable to contact Apple Training Academy directly, as the provider’s phone is no longer working and our emails have not been answered.

However, a spokesperson for the provider’s accountants, Lawrence and Company, confirmed it had ceased trading and was currently going through insolvency.

Apple Training Academy is not listed on the SFA’s current register of training organisations, nor does it appear on the SFA’s subcontractor list.

According to its website, which is still up and running, it had offered a range qualifications in health and social care, child care, business and management, and training.

A news story posted on February 27 indicated that it would be offering apprenticeships from May.

“New apprenticeship funding is available from 1st May. Don’t miss out!” it said.

The provider’s Facebook page is full of comments from angry customers who have lost money, having paid for training but not received it.

Exclusive: National College fails to make Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers

A high profile new government-backed national college has failed to make it onto the new Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers, due to what it claims is a “technicality” in its application.

The Skills Funding Agency announced the full list of providers that will be eligible to deliver apprenticeships from May this week, but the submission from the National College Creative Industries was unsuccessful.

The new college, based in Purfleet, Essex, opened to students in September. It began with 35 apprentices and, according to a spokesperson, has a commitment to sub-contract a further 12.

A statement from the college, sent to FE Week today, said: “The National College Creative Industries will be re-applying to the Skills Funding Agency to be accepted on to the RoATP.

“The original application submitted in November did not meet the criteria, in section nine of the 14 main assessment areas, due to a technicality.”

It added the reapplication process will open again at the end of March, when the college expects to “be successful” in its reapplication.

“This delay will not have any impact for apprenticeships currently being delivered by the National College Creative Industries.

“We are working closely with employers and we intend to deliver apprenticeships to non-levied employers, including small and medium enterprises as planned.”

The release said the college “remains committed to delivering high quality apprenticeships”, and intends to “pioneer apprenticeships with industry specialist assessors who are dedicated to working with our apprentices and employers”.

In being excluded from the register, the National College Creative Industries is in the company of a number of major apprenticeship delivering colleges, which told FE Week they were “stunned”, “disappointed” and “frustrated” at not making the list.

Those left out in the cold include Bournemouth and Poole College, Hartlepool College, Birmingham Metropolitan College and Northbrook College.

In May 2016, the government announced details of nearly £80 million in funding to support the creation of five new National Colleges.

The sector skills council, Creative & Cultural Skills, and its employer partners provided the National College Creative Industries with a start-up grant which enabled it to be incorporated and employ industry practitioners. 

Up to £5.5 million of matched funding has also been allocated to it by the government for a “capital project”, but this is still under tender and the college is currently operating out of The Backstage Centre, a theatre venue in High House Production Park.

So far only the National College for Digital Skills and National College for the Creative and Cultural Industries are up and running, since last September, but FE Week understands the National College for High Speed Rail and the National College for Nuclear are in development.

The National College for Onshore Oil and Gas was expected to open in 2016/17, but plans were understood to have stalled when Theresa May became prime minister, due to a need to assess what level of support her government intends to give to fracking in the future.

Uncertain future for 900 learners as Chesterfield provider calls in administrators

A national training provider has called in the administrators – leaving up to 900 learners uncertain about their futures and 54 staff out of work.

Slic Training, which has a head office in Chesterfield but delivers training as a subcontractor nationally to seven main providers, went into administration on March 10.

The provider has subcontracts worth a total of £3.6 million and had delivered land based provision, mainly horticulture apprenticeships, as well as pre-employment training to between 800 and 900 learners.

Chief executive Ian Benison told FE Week the problems with Slic Training resulted from an “unfortunate set of circumstances” that ended in them being unable to pay staff wages on the last day of February.

He said he tried to find a buyer to save the firm but was unsuccessful. As a result he was forced to put the provider into administration and make all staff redundant with immediate effect on March 10.

Mr Benison added: “I don’t want to go blaming certain organisations or people for what has happened, but all I’m happy to say is that this is the result of an unfortunate set of circumstances which were avoidable.

“We had fantastic staff and potential but this unfortunate set of circumstances impacted on our cash flow. We didn’t get supported by the bank who withdraw their support for us and that was the final piece of the jigsaw, they let us down badly.

“I feel really sorry for the employers and learners who we are letting down as a result.”

Slic Training had been on the Skills Funding Agency’s Register of Training Organisations, but not on its new Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers published yesterday.

Mr Benison said he is “led to believe” that the seven main providers who Slic subcontracted for are putting a plan of action together, that may include “offering jobs to some of the SLIC staff to continue training the learners and make minimal disruption for them”.

South Essex College was one of the main providers and had 308 apprentices and a contract worth £1,446,752 with Slic.

Anthony McGarel, deputy principal of South Essex College, said: “Yes we are aware of the situation and SLIC are fully cooperating with us. We’re putting a plan in place with the other providers so that none of these students will be left high and dry, every single one will complete their course.”

Skills Training UK had 17 learners with Slic Training, with a subcontract worth £79,529.

The main provider’s development director Graham Clarke said: “When SLIC Training emailed to alert us to cash flow problems we decided (as a precaution) to start making alternative arrangements for the 17 learners they were managing on our behalf.

“On Monday, March 13, we were emailed to say they had gone into liquidation the previous Friday.

“We then escalated our efforts to complete the new arrangements and are pleased to say that 14 of the 17 learners have already been placed with other Skills Training UK partners in the Black Country. Some are already continuing their programmes with the new providers.”

The five other main providers for Slic were Calderdale College, with a £563,465 contract, Prevista Ltd with a £891,000 contract, Qube Qualifications and Development Ltd with a contract worth £273,894, RNN Group with a £373,927 contract, and Sheffield City Council with a £1,773 contract. All five were unable to comment ahead of publication.

The SFA has been approached for comment, but was unable to do so. The same was the case with administrators Begbies Traynor.

Why is there no appeals process for the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers?

After her company failed to get a place on the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers, despite its Ofsted ‘good’ rating, Anne-Marie Morris wrote a letter to Sue Husband expressing her sense of injustice at the lack of an appeals process

Open letter to Sue Husband, Director of the National Apprenticeship Service, Skills Funding Agency

Dear Sue,

I am only a little person within a team, who works for a small training provider on which the SFA have made a decision that I believe is just so wrong. 

I have worked for this company for almost seven years. Previously I worked for social services for almost 20 years and always thought all private companies were just about making money and not quality –  how wrong I was!

I have had learners cry when they achieve their apprenticeship

This company really cares about our learners. We work really hard to ensure learners achieve their qualification, that they develop their skills and knowledge and I can say we do this really well. I have had learners cry when they have achieved their apprenticeship, as some have been out of education for decades and never thought they would ever be able to achieve a qualification of the quality they have.

The company I work for has supported thousands of learners to gain a quality qualification that has really made a difference to their lives. Often the learners have stayed with this company and completed various levels of apprenticeship qualification, resulting in learners receiving promotions, from care or support workers all the way through to becoming managers.

The company also really values us as staff. They ensure we keep our own knowledge, skills and understanding up to date, we are thoroughly supported in all areas of our own jobs as assessor tutors – as you can appreciate, our roles have changed significantly since the old days of NVQs.

Through this support we have great confidence, we are highly motivated and skilled in delivery, ensuring learners’ individual learning styles are met. We are experts in embedding ‘British values’, Prevent, functional skills, equality, diversity, employability skills, personal development, well-being and safeguarding. We have our practices observed every month to ensure our teaching, learning and assessment process meets the required standards; these observations are graded and detailed support plans are produced, which identify areas of development to ensure quality is maintained.

We were all over the moon with our Ofsted grade

Last year we gained an Ofsted ‘good’, which we had worked really hard for as a team. We were all over the moon with this grade as we knew we deserved it. Since then we have gone from strength to strength, as our confidence has grown preparing extremely well for the new Trailblazer to start. We have even been invited to seminars to explain this process to other providers, as we are so well prepared. We know how important it is to share best practice, as this helps all learners to achieve and benefit from their apprenticeships.

Ninety-nine per cent of our business is the delivery of apprenticeships, which we do extremely well. Yet we were told yesterday by our director that the SFA have not agreed our tender to be on the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers. This means from 1 May 2017 we will be unable to enrol new learners on apprenticeships, despite having met all the requirements and being graded as Ofsted ‘good’.

How can this decision be correct, given there are other providers on the register that are graded as ‘inadequate’? We have been told there is no opportunity for feedback or to appeal the decision.

This will have a devastating impact on all our lives

As you can imagine everyone in the company is devastated as all the hard work and commitment we make towards supporting learners to achieve their apprenticeships to such a high standard appears to not have been considered at all.

I personally would really like to understand how this can happen and why we as a company cannot appeal the decision.

I, along with my colleagues, will surely lose the jobs we have been so proud of and the future of such a professional, caring company is now in doubt. We are only a small training provider with 70 staff members but this will have a devastating impact on all of our lives.

Yours,

Anne-Marie Morris

Team Leader/Assessor at Acacia Training

Colleges delivering hundreds of apprenticeships ‘surprised’ to be left off new provider register

A number of major apprenticeship delivering colleges are “stunned”, “disappointed” and “frustrated” at not being on the new Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers.

As reported by FE Week, the Skills Funding Agency yesterday published the full list of providers that will be eligible to deliver apprenticeships from May.

Among the colleges with significant current apprenticeship allocations that did not make it onto the list are Bournemouth and Poole College, Hartlepool College, Birmingham Metropolitan College and Northbrook College.

The news has prompted concern from David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, who has vowed to raise the issue with the SFA and Department for Education as a “matter of urgency”.

Diane Grannell, Bournemouth and Poole College principal, said: “We are extremely disappointed and frustrated that we were not one of the initial organisations included on the register and we are doing everything we can to urgently rectify this situation.”

The college, which retained its grade two rating following a short inspection in February 2016, has a 2016/17 apprenticeships allocation of £5.6m, with the report stressing: “Students and apprentices continue to experience good education and training.”

Following the bad news on RoATP, Ms Grannell added: “Our failure was only due to a lack of clarity in one answer of our 2,000 word submission and at no point did the SFA ask the college to clarify any information.”

A spokesperson for Hartlepool College, which has a current apprenticeship allocation of almost £2.9 million, was “genuinely stunned” not to be on the register.

She said the college, which received a grade two overall and for its apprenticeship provision at its most recent inspection in 2014 that praised the high achievement rates for its apprentices, said it had missed out on a place on the register “due to an unexpected and frankly inexplicable ‘fail’ on a rather straightforward quality assurance question (QA10)”.

She continued: “We have provided a robust response to the question as part of our online submission that we would argue covers all the required criteria – hence we are attempting to engage with the RoATP team to try to resolve.

“We hasten to add that this is not an appeal or an attempt to add new information; we genuinely believe that there could be an administrative error”.

Birmingham Metropolitan College has an allocation of more than £4.6 million for apprenticeships in 2016/17, according to the latest Skills Funding Agency figures.

But the college does not appear on the new register published yesterday.

Andrew Cleaves, BMet principal, told FE Week: “Following the recent publication of the register, we are very surprised and disappointed by the outcome,” he said.

He said that the college had “put forward a solid proposal to the SFA” and had “grown significantly this past year”.

The college’s most recently published Ofsted report in 2015 gave BMet a grade three overall, with a grade three for apprenticeship provision.

But Mr Cleaves said the college was reinspected in February and rated ‘good’ for apprenticeships, with the report due to be published “imminently”.

“We are now working with the SFA to see how we can address things and are confident that this will reach a positive conclusion over the coming weeks, for BMet and our many satisfied employers and apprentices,” he said.

FE Week has also learned of another college that is “seeking clarification” from the SFA after not making it onto the RoATP. 

A spokesperson for Northbrook College, which has a current apprenticeship allocation of just over £3 million, said that the college had “expected to be included” on the list.

As reported by FE Week, the new RoATP was published yesterday by the SFA.

A total of 1,708 providers are on the list, with 1,303 of those being listed as ‘main providers’, who will be the only providers able to deliver training directly to levy-paying employers from May.

FE Week is also investigating a number of other providers with significant apprenticeship contracts that have not made it onto the new register. More to follow.

Breaking: SFA delays announcement of allocations for non-levy funding

Allocation worth up to £440m for delivering apprenticeship training to non-levy employers have been delayed by the Skills Funding Agency, FE Week can reveal.

It is understood that everyone who applied for the non-levy funding has been sent a notification on the government’s Bravo e-tendering portal – seen by FE Week – confirming the delay.

It will cause huge sector frustration – as the delay, with no alternative date supplied, comes shortly before the apprenticeship levy is due to go live next month.

The SFA message stated: “We are notifying you that we have amended the timetable for communication of results to applicants that was published in the specification document for ITT 30190.

“As soon as we are able, we will advise you of the amended timetable through this e-tendering portal (Bravo). If you have any questions, please ask them through this message board. Thank you.”

Mark Dawe, chief executive at AELP said: “It is disappointing that the statement on Bravo doesn’t offer any timetable on when providers can now expect to be notified and the ‘early March’ deadline looks like it has been missed.

“Providers really need to know their allocations so they can properly plan their provision and confirm with their existing employers whether or not their partnerships can continue, many of which have been in place for many years.

“More uncertainty is not in the interests of apprentices either who want to be confident that they can complete their programmes without unnecessary disruption.”

FE Week reported on March 8 that a key meeting that the SFA was supposed to hold that day, to reach final decisions on which providers will be allocated a non-levy employer funding allocation, had been cancelled.

We also learned that no date had been set, for when this would be rescheduled.

The SFA had been due to hold the meeting, where amounts that providers would receive was supposed to be agreed.

FE Week has asked the Department for Education this evening for more information on what is happening with the delay, but they declined to comment.

It comes as the list of those who have made it onto the Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers was published today.

Initial applications to join the RoATP, which providers have to be on if they want to deliver apprenticeship starts from May 1, closed on November 25.

FE Week analysis showed a week later that 1,753 providers applied to the register, to be able to deliver training directly or as a sub-contractor to large, levy-paying employers.

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

This meant that 25 per cent of providers turned down the opportunity to receive an allocation to deliver apprenticeships to companies that won’t be subject to the levy.

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

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

FE Week asked the department that evening if this was a panic measure to bring in more providers, and if the results of this second window would now be published before May 1.

The DfE took two weeks to respond, eventually saying on February 22 that this wasn’t a sign of panic.

The levy, first announced by the government in July, is set at 0.5 per cent of an employer’s paybill.

As outlined in the new guidance, all employers will receive a £15,000 allowance to offset against the levy. This means only businesses with a paybill of more than £3m will pay. 

That money raised will be ring-fenced, so it can only be spent on training apprentices and all levy-paying companies will receive a 10 per cent top up on monthly levy contributions. But the government will still allocate funding for apprenticeships with non-levy payers.