Questions are being asked about the ability of the new Institute for Apprenticeships (IfA) to police new Trailblazer standards — after FE Week discovered it is only set to have 40 members of staff by 2019/20.

A leaked document called ‘BIS2020 — Finance and Headcount outline’, seen by FE Week, indicated that the IfA would take on 40 employees in 2016/17 — and the number would not increase over the next three years.

This compares, for example, to more than 100 people who worked for the UK Commission for Employment and Skills in 2013-14 and 2014-15, according to its accounts up to March 31 last year.

It comes after Skills Minister Nick Boles told key FE figures he had “no idea — or if I had an idea I’m not going to share it” about how big the IfA should be to effectively police employers once reforms took effect.

He made the comments at a January Policy Exchange round-table discussion, after being quizzed by FE Week on how it would keep checks on hundreds of new Trailblazer standards, around 600,000 starts a-year, 1,000 or more providers, and half a million employers.

Mr Boles has also now admitted that “there has not yet been an assessment of the potential location for the new IfA”.

It prompted shadow Skills Minister Gordon Marsden (pictured) to warn that the “continued vacuum of information” around the IfA was “extremely concerning”.

He raised concerns over the “relatively small number of staff which we now know they will have at their disposal to deliver an extremely complex set of activities — not just around the standards but indeed liaising over any issues that may arise in a period of considerable expansion”.

“The continued failure to clarify further what the membership of the board will be and whether it will have the necessary width and input not just from employers but from all those other groups concerned, is extremely concerning,” Mr Marsden added.

The only IfA appointment so far has been of former senior civil servant at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), Rachel Sandby-Thomas, as shadow chief executive.

Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said: “The government continues to expand the remit and responsibility of the IfA.

“Therefore it is vital for the success of the apprenticeship reforms that the organisation is fit for purpose and is able to respond promptly and flexibly.”

The leaked document also indicated that IfA costs had been “excluded” from analysis of BIS departmental savings.

A BIS spokesperson confirmed on April 27 that 221 Trailblazer apprenticeship standards had currently been published, of which 91 have had final government approval, while “more than 160” are still in development.

The spokesperson declined to respond directly to FE Week questions over the heavy workload for a relatively small number of IfA employees.

However, she said: “The institute will be responsible for setting quality criteria for the development of apprenticeship standards and assessment plans, advising on the maximum level of government funding available for standards and increasing the quality of apprenticeships.

“The IfA board will be appointed through a public appointments process. The outcome will be announced as soon as the process allows in 2016.”

Three more college link-ups have been announced as the Skills Minister Nick Boles warned against colleges rushing into mergers ahead of their area reviews.

The latest potential mergers, involving three general FE colleges, two sixth form colleges (SFCs) and a university, add to the 15 previously reported by FE Week as being on the cards for 2016.

All of these latest announcements have been made while the colleges’ respective area reviews are still ongoing, or before they have started.

During House of Commons education questions on April 25, Mr Boles cautioned: “In general, we do not want mergers to be rushed into before an area review has had a chance to look at the provision in a whole area.”

But Shrewsbury College (SC) confirmed on April 21 that it would join forces with Shrewsbury SFC (SSFC) on July 31 — following a consultation on a possible three-way merger also involving New College Telford (NCT), an SFC.

Meanwhile, NCT announced on April 22 it is no longer looking at linking up with SC and SSFC, and is instead in talks about a possible merger with Telford College of Arts and Technology (TCAT).

All four colleges are part of the Marches and Worcestershire area review, in wave two of the area reviews, which had its first steering group meeting on January 18, and is yet to conclude.

Fiona O’Brien, NCT principal, said: “From our discussions in recent weeks, it has become increasingly clear that the benefits of merging our two Telford-based colleges have overwhelming advantages for learners in the borough.”

The “reluctance” of learners to travel from Telford to Shrewsbury was one of the reasons cited by Ms O’Brien for the change of plan.

Merging the two Telford-based colleges was also the “preferred option” of the area review panel, she added.

Jo Lomax, TCAT interim principal, said “this is a merger which makes sense on many levels, and that there is enthusiasm on both sides to see if we can make it happen”.

Newham College, part of the London (East) area review in wave three of the reviews, which will hold its first steering group on May 10, also announced on April 21 that it had formed a strategic alliance with the University of East London.

The two institutions aim to develop a “more coordinated approach” to FE and HE provision in the area through the partnership, the college said in a statement.

Di Gowland, Newham College principal, said: “This will enable Newham College and the University of East London to develop an unrivalled range of seamless education opportunities for both local people and our wider communities.”

News of the partnership comes after Bury College announced earlier this month that it was planning to merge with the University of Bolton.

The Birmingham and Solihull area review was a waste of time and money, according to the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), which claims the six-month process has resulted only in “limited change”.

The review, which involved four general FE colleges and three sixth form colleges (SFCs), only recommended one merger — between Bournville College, and South and City College.

However, a merger for Bournville would still have been “on the cards” without the review because of its “serious” financial problems, ATL’s post-16 policy specialist Janet Clark told FE Week.

Dr Mary Bousted (pictured), ATL’s general secretary, was “shocked and concerned” that “taxpayers have funded an area review of post-16 education and training in Birmingham and Solihull which has resulted in limited change to the current provision”.

She added: “If the government was really concerned about the sector, young people, and efficiency savings, it could have saved everyone’s time and money, and arrived at the same result, by consulting the expert and highly dedicated college staff in the Birmingham area.”

But a spokesperson for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) said the recommendations — which also include possible academy status conversions for all three SFCs — would “deliver significant improvement” and “enable the colleges to collaborate more effectively”.

She added “these changes will include addressing at speed the failing delivery of one of the institutions”, but declined to say which college this involved.

Details of the review recommendations were set out in a joint press release by the seven institutions involved in the area review, following the final steering group meeting on March 4.

But the recommendations have not yet been formally published by the government.

Bournville was rated “inadequate” for its financial health by the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) in 2014, and is still subject to two SFA notices of concern.

Rob Smith, Bournville’s vice-principal of corporate services, denied the merger had been a virtual certainty for the college before the area review.

“During this process, it became clear that the college would be able to achieve improved financial viability if it was able to secure agreement with an appropriate merger partner,” he said.

“A number of merger options were considered during the review, before the one with South and City College Birmingham was recommended,” he concluded.

The area review also recommended that Birmingham Metropolitan College (BMet), Solihull College and Joseph Chamberlain SFC remain as standalone institutions, according to a statement from
the college.

It added SFC Solihull should pursue “conversion to academy status and merger with the Ninestiles Academy Trust”, while Cadbury SFC could either merge with Bournville College and South and City College, or join a multi-academy trust.

But Cadbury SFC subsequently announced on April 22 that it was in talks with Coventry University about becoming part of its academy trust.

Andrew Cleaves, principal at BMet, told FE Week that the “really big change” that had resulted from the area review was new understanding of how “colleges and SFCs are much better working together rather than competing”.

A college principal in the north-west has left his post unexpectedly, but his former colleagues remain tight-lipped as to why.

Michael Sheehan (pictured) first took charge at Wigan & Leigh College, which has recently been part of the Greater Manchester area review, in August 2014.

A spokesperson for the college told FE Week that Mr Sheehan had “decided to leave the college”, but declined to provide further explanation of his reasons.

She added: “Michael, one of the country’s leading FE professionals, has led the college through a rapid period of transition and improvement during his time as principal.”

Liz Shea, chair of the governing board, said: “The college has seen great improvement throughout Michael’s time as principal and I am confident that it will continue to go from strength to strength.

“I would like to thank him for his commitment and dedication to the college throughout this time.”

Anna Dawe, Wigan & Leigh’s vice-principal for curriculum, has been appointed acting-principal until a permanent appointment is made.

FE Week reported Mr Sheehan’s appointment at the college in September 2014.

Previously head of Pendleton College in Salford, and Runshaw College in Lancashire, he replaced Catherine Hurst when he joined Wigan & Leigh.

Ms Hurst was the principal for six years from 2007 and left the college to “explore new challenges”.

At the time Mr Sheehan said: “I am excited to be offered the opportunity to lead Wigan & Leigh College and am looking forward to working with students and staff.

“The college is at the heart of the local community and is a key provider of education in the borough. With the multimillion-pound redevelopment of the campus, coupled with staff who are dedicated to providing a positive learning experience, the college has a bright future.”

Mr Sheehan’s decision to leave his post was announced on April 22, 2016.

In the college’s most recent Ofsted report, released in April 2015, Wigan & Leigh had fallen from ‘good’ to ‘requires improvement’.

Problems included poor attendance, work that was deemed “insufficiently challenging”, and the proportion of students and apprentices achieving qualifications being “too low” – with English and maths a particular weakness.

However, the report noted at the time that “the new principal and senior management team have taken swift action in recent months to improve outcomes for learners”.

Mr Sheehan was unavailable for comment.

The launch date for the apprenticeship levy, due in April next year, needs to be postponed unless the government backs down on its phased implementation plan, the director general of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has said.

Carolyn Fairbairn told an audience of bosses that businesses were experiencing “deep frustration over the levy plans as they currently stand” during a speech in the City of London this week.

I spoke with Fairbairn, who was appointed director-general of the CBI in November last year, before her speech to discuss the CBI’s concerns about the implementation of the apprenticeship levy, and why she believes a “radical rethink” is necessary.

…this really needs to be rethought in some quite fundamental ways

The levy on large businesses, first announced by Chancellor George Osborne in the July budget last year, aims to raise revenue to help fund all post-16 apprenticeships in England. It requires all employers operating in the UK with a pay bill of over £3m a year to submit 0.5 per cent of their payroll to the levy as an investment in apprenticeship programmes.

Initially reluctant to admit that the CBI wanted the postponement, Fairbairn admitted to being concerned that “the clock is ticking”, and described the current timeline as “extraordinarily tight”.

“We are hearing from our members right across the country that this really needs to be rethought in some quite fundamental ways,” she said, adding: “delay is certainly an option”.

The CBI does want the levy system to be in place by the government’s scheduled date of April 2017.

In her speech, for example, Fairbairn called for the digital apprenticeships system, which manages levy spend, to be “ready and able to support the delivery of apprenticeship training which businesses need, in full and from the start”.

…they will reduce the number of apprenticeships

However, this is not what updated government guidance on how it will work implies, after plans were revealed for a phased delivery — and the system is not now expected to be fully operational until 2020, as FE Week reported on April 21.

I questioned Fairbairn on how these demands could possibly be met, given that we are just 11 months away from the official launch. In response, she accepted that “if that is the case, then we think there’s really no option but to have a delay — absolutely right”.

She told me that if the current deadline was to be properly met, work on the levy would have to be “really accelerated” and solutions to “a large number of unanswered questions” would need to be offered soon.

“How much funding can be spent on each apprentice? Who can it be spent on? How will the system work in the devolved nations?” Fairbairn asked, emphasising the gaps in policy that have caused concern for CBI members.

Without answers on issues such as these, she added, there is a risk of a “half-finished system” being implemented next April. And while Fairbairn told me that the CBI’s members supported the need to bridge the skills gap, she admitted that they were generally unenthusiastic about the levy as it stands.

“Did they like the idea of an apprenticeship levy of 0.5 per cent pay roll tax? No they did not,” she said. “That was a shock, and I think that it has been something really not welcomed, because it feels top-down.”

We also discussed another key topic from Fairbairn’s speech — the new Institute for Apprenticeships (IfA).

I asked her if the CBI felt sufficiently “in the tent” enough over the plans for the IfA at the moment, given the government’s initial promise that it would be employer-led.

“We think there is a long way to go to before it is really fulfilling its full role here, and it’s not yet business-led,” she said.

Currently, the only member of staff yet appointed at the IfA is the shadow chief executive officer, Rachel Sandby-Thomas, who was previously director general for skills, deregulation and local growth at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Fairbairn told me that the CBI wanted a stronger role for the IfA that includes measuring and managing the system around the levy.

“What isn’t happening [at the moment] is the involvement of the institute in the designing of the standards and the leading of the process,” she said. “One of the things we are calling for here is for the institute to be involved in the setting of measures that are about outcomes rather than just about number of starts.”

Fairbairn said the target of 3m new apprenticeship starts by 2020 was a positive ambition for the government, but that the progress of the learners must not be overlooked.

“We are calling for the institute to have a role in defining a measure that is about outcomes, that would combine the impact on an individual – maybe something about careers progress, or salary progress,” she added.

Without this, she said, the government’s ambitious target would be “insufficient” and risked the “unintended consequence of driving quantity over quality”.

I then asked her about another aspect of the CBI’s “radical rethink” — the suggestion to introduce an “allowable expenses” regime, which would let firms recover the cost of staff time and capital investment. She said that for a significant number of CBI members, who have existing apprenticeship schemes or training, the remit of the levy is “extremely narrow”.

“They’re now having to pay 0.5 per cent of payroll and they can only claim back a small part of their current apprenticeship spend,” she said.

“As a result of that, we’re hearing from quite a number of our members that they will reduce the number of apprenticeships, because particularly in sectors where there are very narrow margins they are having to find savings from somewhere.”

However, she added, the CBI’s members recognise that the levy is going happen and want to make it work well.

“What is motivating our intervention is to make it better, to make it really solve the skills gap, to really be a once in a generation change,” she said.

The Common Inspection Framework was revised by Ofsted in September 2015, which introduced short inspections for grade two providers.

In a series of provider type reports, we take a look at the grades for independent training providers (ITPs). Of the 85 published inspections since September, 61 (72 per cent) were full. In terms of grade ones, two ITPs lost it, one retaining it and one achieved at their first inspection. Just 24 per cent of the 80 ITPs saw their overall grade improve, with 44 (55 per cent) staying the same and 17 (21 per cent) falling.

When including the five ITPs being inspected for the first time, the ITPs shifted from 66 per cent to 72 per cent grade one or two, with an average overall grade of 2.49.

Here we also publish the supplementary grades where a significant number of ITPs have been assigned them.

Click on the image below to see the full results.

Former apprentices will be obliged to go back into schools to promote apprenticeships, through a new “commitment” set to be imposed on them by the government.

Skills Minister Nick Boles revealed the plan at a parliamentary sub-committee on education, skills and the economy (ESE) on Wednesday (April 27).

He told MPs that the government planned to “introduce a commitment on the part of an apprentice and of the apprentice’s employer that the apprentice will go back to their school when they’ve completed their apprenticeship and talk about the values of the apprenticeship they did”.

“Young people are more likely to listen to somebody who’s three years older than them, went to the same school and might well live too not far away from where they live,” he continued.

“I think that the messages they will get through that will do more to correct the bad impressions than any amount of government marketing.”

He added hearing from other young people about their positive experiences of apprenticeships would “probably be the most powerful thing of all”.

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) welcomed the proposed apprentice commitment.

Pippa Morgan (pictured above), CBI head of education and skills, told FE Week that businesses were “keen to engage with schools to help children and young people understand the opportunities their subjects can open up”.

“Firms recognise the need to do their bit, and the need to make sure people get quality careers advice that sets them up for success,” she continued.

Poppy Wolfarth, a board member of the National Union of Students’ National Society of Apprentices, agreed changing perceptions of apprenticeships was “best addressed” by apprentices, but sounded a note of caution about the proposed commitment.

“This could be a great scheme if the schools are happy to let apprentices in and employers would allow their apprentices time off,” she said.

“However all apprentices should not be obliged to take part as they might not have the confidence or knowledge,” she continued.

She added: “The government needs to take a more direct approach to information, advice and guidance in schools and not rely on apprentices.”

Mr Boles’ comments, made during an evidence session for the ESE careers advice inquiry, come after the government announced in January that it was planning to introduce legislation to force schools to let FE providers talk to students about post-16 vocational options.

“I think it’s perhaps too much to expect every teacher to know everything about every aspect of the world of work,” he said of the legislation.

“The best way of giving people information is for them to see first-hand the full range of alternatives,” he continued.

A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said the department was still considering the apprentice commitment proposal and did not have any further details about it at the moment.

A spokesperson for the Federation of Small Businesses declined to comment.