Four cows at Chichester College have been presented with awards by agriculture students for over 10 years of service.
Three dairy shorthorn cows, named Brinsbury Margot, Digitalis and Symphony, have each spent 10 years at the college, while Rantonhall Baroness has completed 12 years of service, producing a grand total of 68,092 litres of milk between them.
The four cows, who are the matriarchs of the herd, with daughters, granddaughters and great-granddaughters all at the college, were recognised during end-of-term celebrations at the Brinsbury campus.
Dan Stamper, the farm manager at Chichester College, said: “We felt it was important to mark the achievement of these four cows and to highlight how seriously we take animal health and welfare on the farm.
“It is absolutely vital to get this right to ensure our cows enjoy healthy, happy and long lives.”
The college is home to 150 dairy cows, and students are involved in all aspects of dairy farming, from measuring grass to milking the cows twice daily.
Featured picture: Agriculture students with Brinsbury Margot
Sometimes it’s worth challenging an Ofsted report, says John Evans.
One of the many dilemmas that principals must struggle with is when to appeal against an Ofsted decision. You have to balance the emotional response to the feelings of being unfairly treated with the knowledge that Ofsted seldom admits to being wrong.
My college was inspected in October 2016 and we had been prepared for over a year. The wait is always worse than the actual inspection, but within a couple of hours of receiving the phone call, the lead inspector had been sent position papers, 2015/16 SAR and data, timetables and our strategic plan. We were ready.
The words were inaccurate and emotive
The week went well. We’d hoped for some grade ones but got all twos; however, strengths identified at the final feedback meeting included high learner-outcomes, English and maths, high quality work experience, and excellent partnerships and employer engagement.
It was with great surprise, then, that the written report sent for factual checking included some new additions. The words “college leaders have tackled the lack of pride and ambition that existed in the college” appeared on the front page – in fact, in the second bullet point. These words were not used at any point during the week and the statement is untrue and extremely emotive.
It also said “leaders and teachers should ensure that a higher proportion of learners attend their English and mathematics lessons and achieve their qualification”.
Again, this had not been mentioned as an issue by any of the inspectors.
Also on pages one and two of the report, and listed as part of a significant recommendation, was the statement that there were “lower levels of success for the small group of 16- to 18-year-old learners with mixed heritage”.
The total group of mixed-heritage learners was 22. The percentage difference in success rates compared with other groups was equivalent to two learners. This is important but hardly significant.
As the nominee, and an Ofsted inspector myself, I would have been able to challenge these statements if they had been fed back during the inspection process.
I challenged the statements through the Ofsted accuracy-check process to the lead inspector. I explained that the words were inaccurate and emotive, and that there was no evidence base for the assertion about poor attendance in English and maths. I also pointed out that the mixed-heritage data was not significant.
His formal response was simply this: “No change required”.
For the first time in my career, I was left with a decision: whether to challenge Ofsted or not. Would it be worth it?
Following discussions with the chair of governors, we agreed to put in a formal complaint – the Ofsted term for an appeal. It is not easy to do, as it is based entirely on an electronic form, with a choice of three types of complaint: conduct (inspector behaviour), process (did inspectors follow the handbook?) or judgement (does the evidence match the decision?).
I submitted all of my points under the process category.
As an Ofsted inspector myself, I would have been able to challenge these statements if they had been fed back during the inspection process
An Ofsted investigating officer was appointed and spent time reviewing the evidence and interviewing relevant people.
I asked to have the report suspended until the investigation was completed, as I felt the emotive words would upset many of our excellent existing staff and governors. Ofsted refused and published the report on November 16.
On December 22 I received the formal response. Ofsted had upheld the three complaints. They removed the emotive words from the report and replaced them with: “College leaders have improved the quality of provision. They have created a culture in which staff work resolutely in the best interests of their learners and the college is a purposeful community.”
All reference to poor attendance at English and maths was removed due to insufficient evidence and the mixed-heritage recommendation was removed from pages one and two as it was not deemed significant.
I am left with mixed feelings. I am pleased that Ofsted has proved to be what I always thought it was – a quality-assurance organisation. However, I am disappointed that the initial report went public with an unfair flavour.
But I did learn something: Ofsted isn’t always right first time!
Your weekly guide to who’s new, and who’s leaving.
David Byrnehas been announced as principal-designate for the proposed merger of Barnet and Southgate College with Waltham Forest College.
Byrne has been the principal and CEO of Barnet and Southgate college – itself the result of a previous merger – in North London since 2012.
In the new role, Mr Byrne will initially be responsible for leading the public consultation on the proposed merger, and gathering views from the communities and stakeholders served by the colleges.
As principal-designate, he says he has plans to “strengthen ties with neighbouring colleges”, alongside developing the college curriculum in order to “deliver more high quality courses that meet the needs of young people and businesses”.
He added: “FE colleges need to continue to adapt and respond proactively to meet the needs of young people and employers.
“The principal of Waltham Forest College [Penny Wycherley] has done an amazing job at leading her college through a period of significant improvement. She has helped shape this merger and I am proud to be working with her to make it happen.”
The awarding body YMCA Awards has made two new appointments to its senior leadership team as it looks to become a global education brand, it has revealed.
It specialises in health, fitness and wellbeing qualifications and is monitored by exam regulator Ofqual. To date, it has awarded more than 500,000 qualifications.
Dr Fiona Summers has now been appointed as its head of quality and compliance.
In the role, she will work closely with learning providers and businesses to help deliver qualifications to those aspiring to a career in the active leisure sector. She will also oversee a range of new learning services including training days and webinars throughout 2017.
Before taking up her new role, Dr Summers worked at another awarding body, the charity Ascentis, and hopes to bring her experience in quality assurance with her.
Also joining YMCA Awards’ leadership team is Simon Titley, who will take up the position of head of centre support.
He joins from Pearson, where he has worked for three years as its senior delivery manager. Before this, he worked as its digital content manager for two years.
There he was responsible for designing customer experience initiatives, and supporting leaners and businesses throughout their training.
Rob May, the director of YMCA Awards, said: “We’re delighted to welcome Fiona and Simon to the team.”
He continued: “They will be instrumental in ensuring our qualifications and new digital learning tools meet the highest quality and usability standards, while we continue to maintain strong relationships with our new and existing customers.”
The new appointments establish a five-strong leadership team at the organisation, as it works on growing the brand, and working with an increased number of fitness centres throughout 2017.
If you want to let us know of any new faces at the top of your college, training provider or awarding organisation please let us know by emailing news@feweek.co.uk
FE was poorly represented in this year’s honours not because it was overlooked, but because the sector failed to submit enough nominations, says Dame Asha Khemka.
The FE sector was sadly lacking profile in the most recent new year’s honours. Some point to this as yet another example of how the sector generally lacks profile and positive reputation with government, seeing it as just another indication of how the sector will fare now that it is part of a combined Department for Education.
Our sector has unsung heroes in abundance
I don’t agree. As a member of the education honours committee, directly involved in overseeing and approving applications for nominations, we have been wrestling with ways to increase nominations from all sections of society.
There is a dearth of nominations coming from black and minority ethnic communities, from working class communities, from nominees with disabilities and from the LGBT+ community. This is not because there aren’t tremendously worthy recipients within these groups, or that there is some conspiracy afoot whereby thousands of nominations from these groups end up in the bin. The problem lies in the number of nominations received from them, and I suspect the issue with our sector is not much different.
Is it a lack of awareness about the process, or a perception that the honours system is elitist and exclusive? Or is it perhaps because not all sections in society are as good about shouting about their triumphs as others? I suspect it is a combination of factors that can be addressed.
The FE sector is rich with worthy nominees for honours. All of us can think of at least one person within our own institutions who has made a huge difference to the lives of the communities that we serve; who has gone over and above any reasonable expectation to ensure that lives are made richer through education.
Amazing things happen in our sector every single day. Perhaps we take too much for granted over the extraordinary things our colleagues do, until they become ordinary. These individuals are not just in our senior leadership teams. Honours are not just for principals and governors.
Perhaps we take too much for granted over the extraordinary things our colleagues do, until they become ordinary
Perhaps it is time we shouted about the unsung heroes within our own organisations. Our sector, more than any other, has them in abundance. Perhaps every single organisation should make their new year’s resolution to put forward one of their heroes for an honour this year. Let’s look beyond the confines of senior leadership and governing body teams for worthy nominees. What have we got to lose? Maybe then we will see the number of nominees from within our sector reflect the amazing work that we do.
How widely do we currently share the call for nominations within our own institutions? Is it something that goes no further than the senior management team?
With the best will in the world, senior managers can’t know every single thing that is happening in institutions; we should seek suggestions for nominations from a far wider group of individuals.
Not only will this enable us to develop a far richer bank of potential nominees for honours, but it will also help us better identify the organisational stars whom we need to nurture and develop.
Is awareness and support also an issue? How many of us know how to go about putting an honours nomination together? Further information and guidance is available at www.gov.uk/honours.
In the same way we support our sector through nominations for Beacon Awards, we should do the same for honours nominations. Perhaps those colleges which have been successful would be willing to share the secrets of their success with others. This is where representative bodies such as the Association of Colleges and the Education and Training Foundation can help. Let’s develop a bank of resources that can help the sector as a whole write successful nominations, so that the process itself becomes less daunting.
It is easy to point fingers, to see the lack of FE representation as yet one more example of a maligned sector. But let’s look within ourselves first, and at what we can do collectively to ensure that our sector is fairly represented in the number of nominations that are put forward. You never know, we might be pleasantly surprised.
Dame Asha Khemka is principal and chief executive of West Nottinghamshire College, and a member of the education honours committee
An unnecessary change, it was littered with mistakes and lacked essential elements of the old QAR system – which also had better terminology. Information system managers up and down the country expressed their dissatisfaction publicly.
It was expected that the 2017 update would address these concerns, yet the new QAR, released over the Christmas break, is once again highly problematic.
Last year’s concerns were mostly limited to the unhelpful – almost unusable – format of the dashboard. On this point, sector-wide negative feedback has been ignored and the format remains largely unchanged. The dashboard is slow and unreliable, lacks key information and is set up in a way that will cause further delays in producing information that was previously readily available.
But this year has also brought a host of new problems we are struggling to resolve due to the lack of accessible, accurate data.
At this point it may be helpful to insert a quick reminder of the (baffling) terminology changes from last year:
1) ‘Success rates’ (SR) no longer exist. These are now ‘achievement rates’.
2) The old ‘achievement rates’ are now called ‘pass rates’.
3) ‘Learner starts’ are now known as ‘leavers’ (don’t ask).
The latest QAR contains the ‘confirmed’ achievement rates but these seem to be wrong. Some colleges are reporting achievement rates on the QAR’s first release up to five percentage points lower than they had predicted, which could be at least a grade’s difference in Ofsted’s eyes. It seems the reason for the differences is that the software hasn’t picked up on the ‘90-day rule’, i.e. that achievers count if they pass within three months of the end date.
Colleges need national rates at course level upwards to make meaningful quality judgements against their own performance
Another key difference is that we are unable to see either national averages (they have been promised as part of the National Achievement Rate Tables next month), or the overall AR for our college. And while we are able to calculate our overall figure from the 16-18 and 19+ breakdowns, the QAR doesn’t contain the data that would allow us to work out the national overall AR.
Using weighted averages by sector subject area is a concept that even some Ofsted inspectors we know and love struggle with, yet they are the best objective measures of quality available.
We should also be able to see achievement rates for UTC and school sixth forms – we should all be working to the same rulebook.
Other problems include a time-consuming export function, which produces poorly formatted, often unusable PDFs (we’ll have to resort to screen printing) and a lack of clarity about raw data downloads.
While colleges have been supplied with a csv download of the data used in the QAR dashboards for validation purposes, there have been a number of issues with the files, including no date of birth populated to allow analysis by age band and no clear guidance on the filters that need to be applied. This means it takes a significant amount of time to match the QAR data, and colleges are reporting many leaver number differences.
No wonder reports are bland
The QAR dashboard also states that due to “changes in business rules” it is “not directly comparable with last year’s dashboard”, which is singularly helpful for measuring quality over time.
I encourage all information system managers to feed back to the powers that be.
Colleges need national rates at course level upwards to make meaningful quality judgements against their own performance. Without validated data and the ability to compare correct achievement rates with national averages for the same year, how can informed decisions on quality be made both internally and by Ofsted?
How could any college in this year’s Ofsted round be reasonably assessed without accurate 2015/16 benchmarks?
No wonder reports are bland. Consider appraisals like “this college’s performance is in line with the rates for colleges nationally”, which presumably refers to those from 2014/15. Reports used to be informative and give ideas on how to improve. Not now.
My advice? Fight the good fight. We’re not finished yet.
Graham Taylor is principal and chief executive at New College Swindon
The first ever procurement process for adult education budget contracts has been given the ministerial green light and is expected to begin within days.
FE Week understands the plan has been given the go-ahead by the secretary of state for education, Justine Greening (pictured).
The Skills Funding Agency first wrote to training providers in October and told them that their current AEB contracts would come to an end this July, rather than having them automatically renewed as before.
It said that changes to contracting regulations, which came into force in February last year, meant that the SFA could no longer automatically renew contracts when they ended and instead would have to “procure future training provision”.
The exercise had been expected to take place this month, but the government told FE Week on January 11 that there was currently no timetable in place.
The Department for Education had no official update as we went to press, but FE Week sources confirmed that the Skills Funding Agency wants the tender put out as soon as possible, and will start looking as early as next week.
Around 500 training providers will now battle for a share of the AEB, which totals around £1.5 billion.
Around 500 training providers will now battle for a share of the AEB, which totals around £1.5 billion
Only around £250 million of the budget is up for grabs however, as colleges, local authorities and universities – which contract with the SFA through a grant funding agreement – are not affected by the changes and will not have to tender.
Since hearing about the procurement process in October, Mark Dawe (pictured), chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, has lobbied for all providers – including colleges – to have to compete to deliver AEB provision.
At the time he said that, without a tender, the process seemed “incredibly biased against large independent providers”.
After hearing that the government would continue only to tender for private providers, Mr Dawe told FE Week: “Not going out to tender for the whole £1.5 billion is another of example of the government using the adult education budget to prop up some colleges.
“It is far better to tender the whole budget to get value for money at the highest quality, regardless of provider type.”
As previously reported by FE Week, the new procurement procedure resulted from changes to European Union law.
They were first revealed in an SFA document entitled ‘Adult Education Budget: Changing context and arrangements for 2016 to 2017’, published last January, which said: “In advance of 2017/18, changes to EU procurement regulations will require us to procure the adult budget provided to ITPs.
“This means that the AEB will be subject to competition as part of a procurement process.”
The new contracts were to be ready for 2017/18, “with an option to extend … for a further two years, which we will review on an annual basis,” according to the letter sent to providers in October.
The change will not affect apprenticeship provision, which will be procured separately through the new register of apprenticeship training providers.
Ofsted should be congratulated for admitting that it got it wrong with the wording of important extracts of its report on Yeovil College.
No individual or organisation is flawless by any means, and while Elton John may have said in his famous song that ‘sorry seems to be the hardest word’ – it shouldn’t be.
Questions need to be asked though about the complaints process, if publication of reports such as this one go ahead before a decision has been made on whether the content is indeed inaccurate and insulting.
This is wrong.
It would save both the inspectorate future embarrassment and providers unwarranted upset if the rules were changed.
I sympathise with the view that reports should be published as soon as possible after inspection.
They shouldn’t be delayed unduly while concerns are considered.
But this shouldn’t be a problem, so long as there’s a strict time limit on the appeals process.
Providers are at risk of being duped into believing they need to pay thousands to become “industry-approved” before they can deliver new apprenticeships for the food and drink industry, FE Week has learned.
A body called the National Skills Academy for Food and Drink has been accused by industry figures of “misleading” the sector with aggressive sales emails and erroneous claims of being “the skills body for UK food and drink manufacturing”.
A week ago, the government announced that the Institute for Apprenticeships (IfA) would crack down on “unnecessary” income-generating behaviour.
The NSAFD, which no longer receives public funding as a sector skills council, appears to make a number of bold claims about its status and services.
The NSAFD, which no longer receives public funding as a sector skills council, appears to make a number of bold claims about its status and services
On one sales email seen by FE Week, the organisation warns that unless providers become what it calls “industry-approved” – a status attained through a payment of £5,000 – they will be “less likely to win business” with a long list of prominent employers – at least one of which claims not to be aware of its inclusion on the list.
The group claims that only “industry-approved” providers can deliver its “industry-approved apprenticeships programmes” (IAAPs), but it appears that these are no different to existing food and drink apprenticeships standards, but with more guidance on how they should be delivered.
The NSAFD also claims that its IAAPs are supported by the government, though the term itself appears to be a marketing label which is not used by any other organisation.
Similarly, the organisation’s website promotes an “industry-approved specialist network”, and says that if “providers meet additional quality criteria, they will be able to offer Trailblazer Apprenticeships and other kite-marked programme delivery”.
In fact, however, any organisation on the Skills Funding Agency’s register of apprenticeship training providers is able to offer apprenticeship standards, without the need to meet any “additional criteria.”
Bill Jermey, the chair of the Food and Drink Training and Education Council (FTC), accused the NSAFD of being “misleading”, and said it was attempting to create a “niche” for itself.
The NSAFD sales email also lists 50 prominent employers, including Branston, Aunt Bessie’s, ABP Food Group, and Dunbia, and claimed that “many of these organisations” were involved with “the development of the new food and drink trailblazer standards and the subsequent Industry Approved Apprenticeship Programmes (IAAP)”.
It continued: “The IAAPs can only be delivered by industry-approved providers, this means unless you are an active member of the NSAFD and have achieved industry-approved status (which is signed off by members of the trailblazer development groups – food manufacturing businesses) you will be less likely to win business with any of the employers listed above.
“They will choose to work with an industry-approved provider, who has gone through the necessary quality checks and CPD, than a provider who has not.”
Mr Jermey told FE Week that “the NSAFD has been making a number of misleading claims about the IAAPs, for example saying that training providers need to be industry approved to deliver trailblazers”.
This, he said, “is simply not true”.
He continued: “We very much support the IFA’s intention to curb this behaviour. It seems to be more about NSAFD making money and carving out a niche for themselves.”
At least one of the 50 companies listed, meat producers Dunbia, did not even know it was being used in the sales drive
FE Week understands at least one of the 50 companies listed, meat producers Dunbia, did not even know it was being used in the sales drive.
Bosses at the firm were so incensed at the NSAFD’s claims that they complained in an email seen by this newspaper.
Another of the NSAFD’s claims, that “many” of the 50 employers had involved in the development of the new food and drink trailblazer standards, has also been called into question, as the SFA confirmed that less than a third – 15 of the 50 – actually had been consulted.
Justine Fosh, NSAFD’s chief executive, told FE Week that, by including the list of its business members in the email, its sales team were “highlighting the people we work with, many of whom have provided us with permission to use their logos and names on our website”.
She continued: “It is correct in asserting many of the employers we are working with will opt to use industry-approved providers for the delivery of apprenticeships.
“We are very clear in all communication that there are no restrictions on any provider seeking to deliver apprenticeships – providing they are on the RoATP and satisfy the SFA then they deliver.
“Every provider is free to engage with any standard.”
However, her claims appear to be contradicted by her organisation’s own website, which clearly states that providers would need to “meet additional quality criteria” in order to be allowed “to offer trailblazer apprenticeships”.
In an attempt to justify the stiff £5,000 price-tag, Ms Fosh said that the new standards only outline “in a top-level way the knowledge, skills and behaviours required for an apprentice in an occupation” and that they “provide no guidance on the type of training that is required”.
“Industry-approved apprenticeship programmes fill this gap,” she argued.
The NSAFD had invested £1 million into its development
She claimed the concept of industry-approved programmes was cleared by the government, and said the NSAFD had invested £1 million into its development.
FE Week asked the Department for Education if the concept was indeed government approved, but it was unable to comment ahead of publication.
We also asked if any action would be taken against the NSAFD based on our findings.
A spokesperson said the IfA’s draft strategic guidance, published on January 4, was “clear on the need to challenge this kind of practice… [as] our only requirement [to run new standards] is for providers to secure approval to be on the register of apprenticeship training providers.”
Paragraph 34 of the guidance states that the DfE has “made efforts to discourage” some “behaviours” from “a few organisations involved in the development and delivery of reformed apprenticeships”.
It continues: “These are largely around trying to generate income from offering certain services which are not a necessary part of the system, or trying to secure a particular role for themselves without fair competition.”
The IfA will be expected to “discourage behaviour seeking to make a profit by delivering services that are not necessary and do not add value, and work to ensure the system as a whole is fair and consistent with the principles of the reforms”.
The example given in the guidance concerns bodies requesting for payment to include providers on a list of approved apprenticeship-assessment organisations, something the
SFA also administers at a national level. Ms Fosh denied that the NSAFD curated such a list.
FE Week understands the government is seriously concerned about a broad range of emerging sales techniques, but that current legislation contains no power to take any formal action.
National Skills Academy also owns AO for mandatory qualification
The National Skills Academy for Food and Drink recently bought an awarding organisation, making it the sole supplier of a new mandatory apprenticeship qualification – and prompting widespread concerns over lack of competition.
The NSAFD bought Occupational Awards Ltd from the now-defunct sector skills council for furniture and wood manufacturing, Proskills, in July 2016.
An article on the skills council’s website, dated November 9, claims that the purchase would “allow NSAFD to further support the food and drink industry through the awarding of industry-approved qualifications and focused end-point assessment products and services to support food apprentices”.
The ‘food and drink process operator’ and ‘food and drink advanced process operator’ standards both require a diploma in ‘food and drink operations’ at levels two and three respectively.
These qualifications, which are regulated by Ofqual, were launched in August 2016 and were only offered through OAL.
OAL’s own website (pictured) explains that the qualifications are “endorsed by the NSA for Food and Drink”, though it somehow fails to mention any link between the two organisations.
In fact, FE Week could find no mention anywhere on the site that the NSAFD owned OAL.
Bill Jermey, chair of the Food and Drink Training and Education Council, told FE Week that he was worried that NSAFD’s ownership of “an awarding organisation with no historical links to the food sector means they are looking to create a closed circle of employers and subscribing providers who are locked in to their industry-approved apprenticeship programmes”.
Justine Fosh, NSAFD’s chief executive, told FE Week that the need for “at least one assessment organisation able to assess the new industry apprenticeship standards” was the key driver for its purchase of OAL.
“The industry identified as a risk that there may be limited interest in assessing complex industry standards, as few organisations had the internal capability, and there was a risk that few would step forward,” she said.
However, a letter from Mr Jermey to the chair of the food and drink process operations trailblazer group, seen by FE Week, outlines concerns from employers, providers and assessment experts about the deliverability of the end-point assessment.
The letter also makes reference to another awarding organisation being put off bidding to become an EPA organisation because of these deliverability risks.
The market in apprenticeship sector kitemarks
Bodies charging providers for “industry-approved” status are common in many sectors, FE Week can reveal.
Mark Dawe (pictured below), the boss of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said that he had received “numerous complaints” from AELP members who have been “required to make multiple payments” to feature on various bodies’ approved lists.
Sector skills councils running “approved provider” schemes similar to that outlined in our investigation include the Tech Partnership, Cogent Skills and People 1st.
People 1st claims that members of its provider network will “have a commitment” from its employer members to “use you and your fellow accredited colleges/providers as preferred suppliers” in the hospitality and aviation industries.
Annette Allmark, People 1st’s director of strategic policy, defended the network, telling FE Week: “People 1st is frequently asked by employers ‘how can I tell if a training provider is of a good standard?’.
“Therefore, if we make recommendations, we want to know that providers will deliver a service that employers will value and help them deliver their objectives to boost business productivity.”
She added: “Our provider network is open to colleges and training providers, and is endorsed by a panel of leading employers. There is a fee to join the network, but membership is not in any way mandatory.”
Mark Dawe
Cogent Skills also runs a quality assured scheme, which gives providers “market access to high-value science industry employers”.
When asked to comment on concerns around these schemes, Alex Slater, the body’s head of business operations, told FE Week that demand “came from employers asking for quality-assured, sector-specific providers within easy reach, with the knowledge and understanding of the regulation and unique challenges presented to organisations operating in the science industries.
Some schemes may yield a genuine benefit, but there is always the fear that their aim is to create an income stream
“This saves them having to deploy internal resource on what is a significant task.”
She added: “Members rates are kept in the low hundreds, as this is a partnership that is run for the benefit of sector employers and to support training capacity around the country.”
The Tech Industry Gold standard issued by the Tech Partnership is described on its website as “a quality mark that is designed to help employers choose apprenticeship training providers who have a proven track record in delivering excellent digital apprenticeships”.
However, the IT body declined FE Week’s request to comment on its provider network.
Teresa Frith, senior skills policy manager at the Association of Colleges, questions the motives of these so-called “industry-approved” programmes.
She said: “Some schemes may yield a genuine benefit, but there is always the fear that their aim is to create an income stream, with little serious thought given to ensuring investors get what they are promised.”
An awarding organisation that fell victim to a high-profile case of qualifications fraud has called on the government to set up an expert panel, amid fears that the problem has been swept under the carpet.
Industry Qualifications wants the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy to work with examinations regulator Ofqual to establish a panel to explore the issue, especially for industries that “require individuals to have specified qualifications to obtain a license to work”.
The AO had to revoke 251 level two and three door-supervision and CCTV surveillance qualifications it certificated in 2015, after Ashley Commerce College was exposed for allowing students to gain the qualifications illegally.
An undercover BBC investigation alleged that staff at the college, based in Ilford, were prepared to sit exams for students who were training to work as security guards.
The Security Industry Authority, which regulates the sector, told FE Week in May 2015 that it would be revoking a further 129 licenses awarded to security guards who had passed the IQ-certified courses at ACC, as a result of the investigation.
But IQ’s chief executive Raymond Clarke now fears the whole affair has been whitewashed by the government in the hope that it will quietly disappear, and told FE Week that there is a “risk to public safety and wellbeing” if the issue is not addressed nationally.
Since his organisation’s experience of fraud, Mr Clarke said it had been “very difficult to gain traction” with the police and the regulatory authorities to criminally prosecute those involved.
He said that the scale of the problem is currently unknown and information concerning those involved in fraud or serious malpractice is incomplete and largely inaccessible.
IQ wants the proposed panel to review the current regulatory mechanisms for recording and disseminating information on those involved in fraud, and develop proposals to “ensure such individuals are barred from future participation in qualifications development or assessment”.
It must also establish the level and nature of qualifications fraud in the UK’s qualification system, and “review the approach to the prosecution of qualifications fraud and the establishment of procedures and protocols with the police to ensure effective prosecution”.
A DfE spokesperson insisted that it was down to each individual AO to issue qualifications securely.
“Fraud is a crime and we expect all AOs to set robust procedures to ensure only those candidates who have met the right standards are awarded qualifications,” he said.
“Ensuring that qualifications have been properly issued – including licences to practice – is the responsibility of the awarding organisation, with oversight by the independent exams regulator, Ofqual.”
A spokesperson for Ofqual said that it places “paramount importance” on awarding safe and secure qualifications, but declined to comment on whether a government-backed expert panel would needed to manage fraud.
He said that the watchdog’s rules require all regulated awarding organisations to “set robust procedures”, and to make sure that their qualifications are only awarded to candidates who have met the right standard in assessments completed in the right conditions.
“As the exams regulator, we are continually vigilant about malpractice including fraud,” he said.
“We investigate and take action when necessary, and alert other stakeholders including the police and currently have a number of ongoing investigations.”
