Providers have been left in the dark about when procurement for adult education budget contracts will be launched for the first time, after the government admitted it has “no date”.

The Skills Funding Agency wrote to training providers in October and told them that their current AEB contracts will end this July – rather than be automatically renewed as before.

It stated 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 “must procure future training provision”.

The exercise was first expected to take place this month, but the government has now told FE Week that there is no scheduled timetable for when it will happen.

A spokesperson for the Department for Education said yesterday: “There is currently no date for when this procurement process is going to be, and no date yet for when that date is likely to be announced.”

Any delay beyond January for the process is likely to cause significant issues for training providers who need to get contracts up and running for the summer.

Colleges – which contract with the SFA through a grant funding agreement – are in the clear as they are not affected by the changes.

Since hearing the news in October that there is to be a procurement process for private providers, Mark Dawe, 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, it would “seem the process is incredibly biased against large independent providers”.

Responding to the news that the government currently has no set date for the process, Mr Dawe told FE Week: “We have been pressing for the whole of the AEB to be put out to tender. If the delay is to organise this, we strongly welcome it.”

As previously reported by FE Week, the requirement to procure the AEB provided by private training providers is the result of changes to European Union law.

The changes were first revealed in an SFA document, 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 would be for 2017/18 “with an option to extend contracts 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.

A senior Ofsted inspector has apologised after the inspectorate accepted multiple challenges to the wording of a report on Yeovil College, which included factual inaccuracies and insulting comments.

The words “college leaders have tackled the lack of pride and ambition that existed in the college” appeared on the front page of the ‘good’-rated report, which was first published in November and which has since been amended.

Principal John Evans, who took up the reins in January 2014, lodged a number of appeals to change the report’s wording, including a comment alluding to criticism of the leadership team that had been in place before he arrived, which had offended a number of remaining staff.

Following an investigation, Ofsted upheld three of the seven complaints, as Mr Evans also explained in an exclusive expert article.

In the letter Ofsted sent to report on the outcome of the investigation, seen by FE Week, senior inspector Rieks Drijver apologised for the trouble the original report had caused the college.

In regard to the comment on lack of pride and ambition, he wrote: “On behalf of Ofsted I am sorry that you have concerns about the wording on the front page of the inspection report and that it may cause offence to managers and governors who were employed at the time.”

Ofsted conceded that the inspector’s conclusion needed to be reworded to “better reflect the leadership and management” at the college.

The wording has now been amended to read “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.”

However Mr Evans, who is himself an Ofsted inspector, admitted that he had mixed feelings about the outcome.

“I am pleased that Ofsted has proved to be what I always thought it was – a quality-assurance organisation,” he said.

“However, I am disappointed that the initial report went public with an unfair flavour.

“I had asked to have the report suspended until the investigation was completed, as I felt the emotive words would upset many of the excellent existing staff and governors.”

Mr Evans also said that Ofsted’s assertions on low attendance in English and maths did not “reflect the situation at the time of inspection”, and that claim was also overturned.

He successfully argued that although attendance in the subjects had been low in the previous year, it had increased and was no longer a weakness in the current one.

“There was no evidence base for the assertion about poor attendance in English and maths,” he writes.

He also complained about the prominence of a separate recommendation, 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 at his college was small at 22, and that the percentage difference in success rates to other groups was down to just two learners.

“This is important but hardly significant,” he said; as a result of the complaint, the mixed-heritage recommendation was also removed from the report’s front page.

An Ofsted spokesperson told FE Week that “this is still a live complaint and as such, Ofsted doesn’t comment until all stages of the complaint process have been completed.”

…………………………………………………………………

Editorial: Well done Ofsted, but…

Paul Offord

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.

The government’s decision to publish today a “customer service” guide explaining what colleges can expect from area reviews – despite more than half of them having already finished – has been described as “beyond parody”.

Release of the guidance came among a flurry of reports and recommendations from wave three of the area reviews, also published this afternoon.

The new “statement of customer service to institutions” says participants should expect, for example, “the timetable and milestones of the review to follow a standard pattern clarified at the start of each review”, a “clear delivery plan be communicated in advance of the first steering group”; and a “dedicated delivery team” from the Joint Area Review Delivery Unit.

But the timing of the guide’s release has been slammed, as three of the five areas reviews have already been completed.

James Kewin, deputy chief executive at the Sixth Form Colleges Association, told FE Week: “This document is beyond parody.

“Leaving aside the highly questionable idea that colleges are ‘customers’ in the area review process, to issue a statement of customer service just as the process draws to an end makes little sense.

“Nor does focusing on the smooth implementation of a policy that has so many obvious flaws, not least the absence of school and academy sixth forms.

“This is a distraction – the government should focus instead on reviewing the funding available to 16 to 19 year olds – that is the surest way of ensuring our members can remain sustainable and provide young people with the high quality education they deserve.”

The customer service guide also states a number of other review-related services that can be expected from DfE, which more than 160 providers who have already completed their reviews would no doubt have appreciated knowing in advance.

It said that colleges play “a central role in the review process and should expect confirmation of information required from colleges in advance of the review”.

An FE or sixth-form college adviser team can be expected, it explained, to visit each one to “gather contextual, financial and quality information, and discuss options being considered”.

It also stresses that “each adviser works to a written code of conduct that stipulates the standard for their engagement and requires each adviser to act with integrity, honesty, objectivity and impartiality”.

Today’s release comes after the government published 13 wave one and two area review reports and recommendations in November.

The reports for the London area reviews have however still not yet been published.

The capital was split into four sub-reviews, two of which were originally part of wave two, but were put back to coordinate with the other two reviews in wave three. None of these are yet available for public consumption.

Waves four and five, which started in September and November respectively, are in the midst of being completed and are expected to be finished by the end of March.

The Association of Colleges declined to comment.

A college in Sussex is bearing the full brunt of staff strikes at Southern Rail, having to shell out up to £10,000 on replacement buses while the dispute continues.

Train drivers from the ASLEF union began industrial action today and will continue the walkout tomorrow and Friday, over a row to do with driver-only trains.

Sussex Coast College in Hastings is having to fork out thousands of pounds to cover alternative travel costs for students to attend lessons because of this.

The college is using two buses to transport students 23 miles from Eastbourne to Rye, which costs £500 every strike day.

A college spokesperson told FE Week that since October, the college had spent more than £8,500 to put on the service for 15 days of strike action, including this week.

He added that with more strike days expected for the week commencing January 23, the college could “well top £10,000 by the end of that week”.

The college now wants compensation from Southern Rail.

Justin Rollings, head of marketing and communications, said: “We have had to put in some emergency measures which requires additional buses to and from Eastbourne, Bexhill and Rye, to enable the students to get to college.

“Without these measure, these strikes would affect our students and their studies them quite dramatically.”

Southern Rail said services are expected to be “severely disrupted every day until further notice” due to the drivers refusal to work overtime, with more strikes expected for another three days later this month unless an agreement is reached by both sides.

A spokesperson said: “We are deeply sorry for the utterly unnecessary and unwarranted disruption this industrial action is causing.

“The unions’ response is utterly disproportionate to our reasonable proposals to modernise the way we operate our services to improve customer service and reduce delays and cancellations.

“We want nothing more than an end to this dispute as quickly as possible.”

ASLEF was unable to comment ahead of publication.

An investigation has been launched into whether the civil service code has been breached, after a former Skills Funding Agency senior manager was embroiled in an alleged Israeli plot to bring down a Conservative minister.

Maria Strizzolo has reportedly departed from the agency, where it is understood she was a key adviser to apprenticeships and skills minister Robert Halfon.

This followed reports in the national media, and the online unveiling of a covertly filmed video, thought to show her in conversation with controversial former Israeli embassy official Shai Masot.

He can be seen making an apparent threat to target Sir Alan Duncan, the Foreign Office Minister and a vocal supporter of a Palestinian state.

FE Week asked if the agency or Mr Halfon, who Ms Strizzolo was also chief of staff to when he was deputy chairman of the Conservative Party until last summer (according to LinkedIn), would like to comment on her departure.

No comment was forthcoming, but the Department for Education spokesperson explained this was because an “active investigation” had been launched into whether the civil service code had been broken.

The video comes in an Al Jazeera film claiming to expose the way that the Israeli government has ‘infiltrated’ both the Conservative and Labour parties.

An Embassy of Israel spokesperson said that it “rejects the remarks concerning Minister Duncan, which are completely unacceptable; the comments were made by a junior embassy employee who is not an Israeli diplomat, and whose employment with the embassy has terminated”.

Ms Strizzolo’s LinkedIn page still said that she was a senior manager at the Skills Funding Agency and Apprenticeship Delivery Board ahead of publication. She was unavailable for comment to FE Week.

However, she told the Mail Online that her conversation with Masot was “tongue-in-cheek and gossipy”, adding: “Any suggestion that I…could exert the type of influence you are suggesting is risible.”

The promised new qualifications achievement rates dashboard for apprenticeships, education and training will still be unavailable until at least tomorrow, following almost a week of problems that provoked repeated complaints though online forum FE Connect.

The main issue accepted by Skills Funding Agency is that the QAR is incorrectly only including learners as timely, where they have an actual end date in the 2015/16 year.

It means, for example, that a learner who had a planned end date for example of July 31 last year (before the end of 2015/16), but actually achieved this in 2016/17 with an end date of August 1 or beyond (but within the required 90 days), isn’t being recognised.

Issues were acknowledged as far back as January 4, when the QAR team announced on SFA forum FE Connect: “After investigation we found that the automated procedure to write and load the QAR data extract files to the hub had failed to include additional fields that allow you to arrive at the results displayed on the QAR dashboards.

“It also omitted age-bands for E&T. An amended extract file will be loaded onto the Hub today that fixes both these points.”

However, the problems are still ongoing, with providers told at shortly before midday today that “the QAR dashboard is still not up and running after its maintenance”.

“We are hoping to resolve the issue today and publish tomorrow (January 10) but this is only if and when we have resolved the access issues we are currently experiencing,” added the CDS Service Centre.

It comes after the SFA announced through an online Update bulletin on December 21 that it would “shortly publish provisional 2015 to 2016 qualification achievement rates and minimum standards” covering apprenticeships and education and training.

It added: “We aim to publish the final QAR data following publication of the next SFR at the end of January 2017. We would welcome your feedback at the earliest opportunity but no later than Monday 16 January 2017.”

The SFA came in for fierce criticism on FE Connect in early December over its management of a key provider submission of learner data, which was labelled a “total farce” and “very disturbing”.

The agency’s online data collection system, known as the ‘Hub’, was understood to have initially gone down on December 5, when providers had less than a day left to submit their fourth Individualised Learner Record returns of the academic year.

It added an extra day in light of this, but providers still complained they were experiencing problems up to the 6pm deadline.

Despite this, the SFA opted against a further extension, even though the return that month, named ILR R04, was particularly significant – as it is used to calculate not only the SFA 16 to 18 monthly apprenticeship payments, but also by the Education Funding Agency to support the setting of allocations for the next academic year.

The SFA was unavailable to comment on the latest QAR problems.