Insufficient progress for inadequate college

A college that nose-dived from ‘outstanding’ to ‘inadequate’ in March has been slammed by Ofsted again for making insufficient progress.

Following its second monitoring visit since the education watchdog’s damning report, Mid-Cheshire College was deemed to have made ‘insufficient progress’ in improving the quality of teaching, learning and assessment and with ensuring learners make good progress and achieve their potential.

The report said that while improvements had been made by learners in a number of areas including GCSE English, public services, and information and communication technology, achievement rates had fallen further “in many other areas” in 2015/16.

The report said: “Too few learners achieved their qualifications on diploma courses and level two courses, and achievement rates were too low in many subject areas including health and social care, science and mathematics, construction, engineering, and hairdressing.”

This, Ofsted said, was down to “poor-quality” teaching, learning and assessment and some teachers’ low expectations of what learners can achieve.

It added: “As a result, a culture of low expectations persists in the college.”

Despite leaders and managers taking action to improve the quality of teaching, learning and assessment at the college, such as appointing mentors to support underperforming teachers, these actions were found to have had “insufficient impact on the quality of provision”.

Ofsted found that “too much teaching, learning and assessment is still weak” at Mid-Cheshire, “too many lessons lack purpose”, and “teachers too often use unchallenging and inappropriate activities”.

Some students were said to have, “poor attitudes to their learning”, while other lacked proper additional support.

Mid-Cheshire’s performance management process has been “delivered with increased rigour” since the last inspection, but this “resulted in a number of the weakest teachers leaving the college”.

Other teachers were not improving fast enough, and therefore were having a negative impact on their students.

Ofsted said the senior leadership team had “taken action to improve learners’ attitudes to their study and their readiness for work” and also “improved the learning environment in many areas”.

But while leaders and managers had worked to be more visible around the college and challenge learners to be punctual, the report said “these actions have not yet improved all aspects of behaviour sufficiently”. 

Areas where the college was found to have made reasonable progress included: a re-written post-inspection action plan after the first monitoring visit, to include specific actions for improvement; “is well advanced” plans to ensure that all learners carry out a placement in 2016/17; and leaders and managers introducing an improved system for gathering and analysing data at the college.

Finally, leaders and managers were said to have improved safeguarding arrangements, meaning safeguarding is now effective.

The report into the FE commissioner’s intervention at the college, published last week but dated April, pulled no punches about its problems, describing the leadership at Mid-Cheshire as “dysfunctional”. 

Mid-Cheshire College was part of the Cheshire and Warrington area review in wave two, which is now completed.

One of the outcomes was for a four-way merger involving Mid-Cheshire, West Cheshire, South Cheshire and Warrington colleges.

In early September, FE Week reported that consultation had opened on the first phase of this merger, between West Cheshire and South Cheshire.

Mid-Cheshire is expected to join them in August next year.

Heading in the right direction

I was of course pleased when the government listened to mounting calls through our SaveOurApprenticeships campaign for a rethink on apprenticeship funding cuts.

Credit should go to FE’s new minister Robert Halfon for taking on board the findings of our initial analysis showing how younger learners in deprived areas would have been worst hit, and by all accounts making it a personal crusade to pressure stubborn civil servants into taking action.

The resulting funding announcement of an extra 20 per cent on the band limit for 16-18 year-olds, and £60 million of “additional support in areas of disadvantage”, was a big step in the right direction.

But to use a well-worn cliché, our subsequent number crunching showed that while the campaign may have triumphed in the first battle, the war for truly fair funding still has to be won.

We all want reformed apprenticeships to break down class barriers.

They won’t do that if younger people, especially those in deprived areas, miss out on what should be life enhancing opportunities.

 

Jaguar Land Rover red-faced by ‘poor’ Ofsted rating

Jaguar Land Rover, the British car manufacturer regularly lauded by ministers for its apprenticeship scheme, has been hit with a shock grade three rating after an Ofsted inspection.

The Indian-owned firm received a ‘requires improvement’ score across the board for its dealership apprenticeship programme, for which it is an employer provider.

The report will raise eyebrows in Westminster, as the government has often praised the firm’s apprenticeship provision.

Prime Minister Theresa May, for example, spoke glowingly of a visit to its Coventry headquarters, during a parliamentary exchange on apprenticeships on September 14.

She said: “We’re committed as a government to ensuring more apprenticeships are being created – that’s giving young people opportunities, like the young people I met when I went to Jaguar Land Rover, to learn a skill, get into a job, get into the workplace, and get on where their talents take them.”

However, it was the apprentices’ performance, as well as poor oversight for subcontractors, that the Ofsted report published on October 17 said had brought Jaguar Land Rover down to earth from its previous rating of ‘good’ overall.

Inspectors found that “too many apprentices complete their portfolios too slowly”, even though “the large majority” completed their programmes successfully.

The report also warned that senior leaders “entrusted the subcontractors with delivering good-quality provision, with insufficient challenge and insufficiently clear specifications of the quality expected”.

Inspectors found that “too many apprentices complete their portfolios too slowly”

According to the SFA’s list, Jaguar Land Rover Holdings Ltd has two subcontractors – Calex UK Ltd, worth £1,048,961, and Babcock Training Ltd, worth £77,828, as of August 31.

Jaguar Land Rover’s disappointment follows another inadequate rating for an employer-provider car manufacturer in late May.

Ofsted inspectors blamed the flaws in Citroen’s apprenticeship provision on poor management of the same subcontractor, Calex.

Paul Joyce, Ofsted’s deputy director for FE and skills, warned the government about declining standards at employer providers during a parliamentary committee hearing on October 19, and the issue is likely to arise again in the outgoing Ofsted chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw’s final annual inspection, which is due in the coming weeks.

Nevertheless, the Skills Funding Agency has gone ahead with its new employer-provider register, to help encourage more employers to run their own training.

It hasn’t all been bad news for employer-providers though: Siemens was rated ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted in August.

The report said: “Through highly effective training, apprentices emerge as self-confident and able engineers who can lead teams, manage large projects and provide innovative solutions.”

In addition to its dealership apprenticeship programme, Jaguar Land Rover also runs apprenticeships in manufacturing, automotive, and engineering through a separate programme in its manufacturing division.

It does not operate as the employer-provider for this programme, however, so it is not therefore subject to Ofsted inspection.

“We are aware of the outcome of the recent inspection of Jaguar Land Rover Holdings and will be working with the company to ensure that robust plans for improvement are in place to ensure apprentices develop the skills they need to build successful careers,” said an SFA spokesperson.

A spokesperson for Jaguar Land Rover told FE Week that the firm was “clearly disappointed” with Ofsted’s findings.

“Our management team had undertaken a review of the programme just prior to Ofsted’s review that recognised improvements were required – as has been referenced in the Ofsted report,” he said.

“We are working hard with our team to ensure that our high success rates for the programme are supported by high-quality reporting and management of the programme metrics.”

Calex UK Ltd was unavailable to comment, despite repeated requests.

DfE bailing out colleges

The government has announced new rules which will allow it to repeatedly bail out failing colleges that go bust, reneging on a previous commitment.

The new Technical and Further Education Bill announced on Thursday last week includes provisions to apply a ‘special administration regime’ to insolvent colleges and sixth forms in order to put the interests of learners ahead of the interests of creditors.

When it first announced the proposals in March, the Department for Education said it would not provide financial support to failing colleges once area review recommendations had been implemented – and that they would be allowed to go bust.

However, the DfE has now U-turned on that promise, and confirmed that extra cash would be made available if needed.

“The Secretary of State would of course want any special administration to be successful and will have wide powers to provide funding if necessary to achieve this,” it has now said, in a response to a consultation on the insolvency regime plans.

“Our intention is that these powers will allow funding to be provided by grant or loan as well as guarantee or indemnity”.

However, it did warn that colleges shouldn’t feel entitled to repeated bailouts, adding: “While the special administration regime will provide a necessary safety net for colleges and their learners, its use will be exceptional.”

The DfE’s volte-face was met with scorn by the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, which represents non-college FE providers.

The DfE’s volte-face was met with scorn by the Association of Employment and Learning Providers

“Observers might be forgiven for thinking that no matter how incompetently an institution is managed, the government will always bail it out,” said its chief executive Mark Dawe.

He reiterated AELP’s long-standing call for a level playing-field between the different types of provider, and urged the SFA to allow other providers to bid for ownership of failing colleges.

David Hughes, meanwhile, the chief executive of the Association of Colleges, welcomed the government’s focus on protecting the interests of learners – but didn’t comment directly on the U-turn.

A DfE spokesperson said: “Our insolvency proposals are about protecting students where a college has gone into special administration to ensure their studies are not disrupted.  Under these proposals, the funding would be used to protect learner provision while the future of the college is determined.

“Following the area review process, colleges in financial difficulty will no longer be able to apply for Exceptional Financial Support.“

The outgoing FE commissioner, Sir David Collins, told the education select committee last week that the area review process could produce “benefits of £200 million plus per year going forward”, for an upfront cost of between £2 million and £3 million.

According to the DfE, these savings will be based on the sector as a whole meeting “an operating surplus of three to five per cent of turnover”.

This, it said, would enable colleges “to invest between £200 million and £360 million more per year in high-quality technical education”.

Additionally, the DfE finally published a number of key area review documents in October, three months later than expected.

The implementation guidance, due diligence framework, and guidance for local authorities and local enterprise partnerships were all originally expected in July.

However they were finally released on October 19, alongside updated guidance and application forms for the restructuring facility, and for sixth form colleges to convert to academy status, as well as full details of the areas and colleges involved in waves four and five of the area reviews.

Editor Asks: Apprenticeships minister Robert Halfon on government u-turn on funding cuts

As it turned out, my exclusive interview with the new apprenticeships minister Robert Halfon was conducted just hours after the Independent, Guardian and Mirror had all reported a major government U-turn on apprenticeship rates.

“People are saying this is a U-turn, but actually I would describe it as listening with elephant-sized ears,” he volunteered – before the questions had even begun.

framework-table
How far does the u-turn go? Read our exclusive analysis

“I made it clear to you when you had the big [FE Week] event in parliament. I made it clear at party conference. I made it publicly clear in articles that we have listened –and that’s what my job is to do. The whole purpose of it was that it was a survey and a consultation, and so we’ve responded,” he said.

“FE Week, given what you’ve been up to, has been an incredibly important part of that consultation.”

That morning the government had announced that massive proposed cuts to the 16-18 apprenticeship framework rates would be softened by two measures: by increasing the £1,000 provider incentive with cash worth 20 per cent of the relevant funding band, and by adding £60 million to funding for providers for apprentices who live in a deprived area, or up to £600 per apprentice.

The minister, who appears uncomfortable with formalities, insisting I call him Rob, argued that when he “kept going on about social justice”, it wasn’t just warm words, and that this rethink shows he “really meant it”.

“FE Week, given what you’ve been up to, has been an incredibly important part of that consultation.”

Could he provide any reassurances that these new measures won’t be scrapped after 12 months? Not quite:

“The framework 20 per cent is a transitional measure and the idea is to help the providers adapt,” he said.

“It will reduce over time as the new standards come through.”

As for the disadvantage funding, this £60 million is “for one year”, he said, adding: “I am doing, again as part of my agenda on social justice, a serious review which will report sometime next year on what is genuinely the best way to incentivise, encourage and help disadvantaged people to do apprenticeships.”

Moving on to the apprenticeship levy, I asked him whether he thought large employers would look to use their whole levy pot, as was suggested in DfE research published the same day – a situation which would leave precious little funding available for smaller employers.

He was quick to dismiss the DfE’s research, saying: “I completely utterly reject that proposition, because I meet employers when I go all over the country. Some large employers say they love it, and they’re going to have apprenticeship; others just say they won’t.

“The treasury and others did serious studies to make sure the money was available. You know about all the incentives there are for smaller businesses to take on apprentices, which are guaranteed by the government, so I don’t think there is any evidence to say that this money won’t be there for smaller employers.”

He continued: “Obviously we always keep everything under review, and we’d work out what to do if that occurred, but I completely reject that it is going to happen, because there are many employers who don’t want to take up apprentices and many who do – and that is the whole purpose of the levy.”

In next week’s Editor Asks…part two, we tackle whether employer ownership of apprenticeships is compatible with social justice, the lack of assessment organisations, subcontracting, and whether the CBI is right to be concerned about timescales.

Rise in SFA contracts for small providers

Plans to cut the number of recipients of Skills Funding Agency cash have been shelved in an attempt to increase the provider base for degree and higher-level apprenticeships, and advanced learner loans.

A total of 1,023 providers received direct SFA funding this academic year, up from 984 at the start of 2015/16.
The SFA first attempted to introduce a minimum contract threshold of £500,000 five years ago, designed to cut the number of providers it funded directly.

FE Week understands that more than 200 providers lost their agency business when this policy was introduced, because they were unable or unwilling to increase their contracts to the half-million mark.

The SFA previously told FE Week that this minimum contract policy had “allowed efficiencies to be realised within the sector through a reduced agency role, economies of scale, and more opportunities for shared services between training organisations”.
But advanced learner loan contracts were introduced in August 2013, and they were this year expanded to include 19-23 year olds.

This year’s data shows a clear jump in the number of contracts – surprisingly a quarter (255) of these were providers with total allocations of under £500,000.

FE Week analysis also shows that 87 contracts (nine per cent) were for under £100,000, while a further 63 (16 per cent) fell below £250,000.

When asked to explain this, an SFA spokesperson told FE Week that “the number of contracts has risen” because it was “expanding the provider base for delivering degree and higher level apprenticeships”.

The agency had “completed a series of expression-of-interest exercises to expand the provider base” ahead of 2016/17, she added.
And this year’s contracting process had been “more efficient for providers and the SFA”, because all contracts for the year were issued through the digital skills funding service.

Paul Warner, policy director at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, was sceptical about this apparent change in approach by the SFA, and claimed that the department is facing “capacity challenges”.

“The number of providers under the £500,000 contract value threshold has gone up quite significantly, which supports our view that the changes made in August 2011 were misguided and not properly thought through,” he said.

“Given the government’s views on subcontracting, and the capacity challenges facing the SFA, it will be interesting to see how the final proposals for the new register for apprenticeship training providers will impact on the numbers.”

This is not the first time the SFA’s minimum contract-level policy has been called into question.

In May 2013, FE Week reported that 50 providers had been given total allocations of less than £500,000 – the smallest of which was for just £11,274.

The total amount allocated to the 50 providers was over £7 million, raising concerns that the SFA had abandoned the policy.

But, despite the number of allocations coming in below the minimum, the SFA said at the time that it would “continue to apply the principles of minimum contract values”, and that “the level at which these are set for individual procurement exercises is driven by the ability of providers to meet the needs of their communities and the provision procured.”

You’re fired! Lord Sugar could cut ties with DfE over apprentice champion role

The entrepreneur Lord Alan Sugar could be about to quit his role as the country’s apprenticeships champion after receiving no contact from government officials after six months on the job, FE Week can reveal.

The businessman, best known for his role in the hit TV show The Apprentice, was appointed “enterprise tsar” by former prime minister David Cameron back in May.

But in the wake of the turmoil in the Conservative government following Brexit, Lord Sugar believes he has been neglected by officials and says he will now “rethink” his position, according his spokesperson.

The Department for Education first appointed Lord Sugar to the role amid much fanfare, and said he would “be undertaking a series of roadshow events across England”, speaking to local school leavers and businesses “championing enterprise and apprenticeships”, and to “encourage businesses to take on apprentices themselves.”

But he has not been on any roadshows since the appointment was made, and none are scheduled for the rest of 2016.

Speaking exclusively to FE Week, the former Labour peer’s spokesperson said: “The appointment was made by David Cameron prior to Brexit. Since the total reshuffle of the government post-Brexit, this role seems to have taken a low priority with the various government officials.

“Lord Sugar has not done any road shows and there are none scheduled for 2016.

“He has had no contact with the new government regime and he will rethink his acceptance to the role if and when he is contacted by the relevant government officials.”

lord-sugar-appointment

The Department for Education refused to comment on Lord Sugar’s involvement in the enterprise tsar role, insisting that more information would be given “in due course”.

“There is nothing to add at this stage,” a spokesperson told FE Week. “Nothing has changed with his role and to say otherwise would be speculation.”

If he does quit the role, Lord Sugar would be the second high-profile figure to leave a government apprenticeship position this year, following Nadhim Zahawi’s departure as the prime minister’s apprenticeship advisor in August.

Mr Zahawi was first appointed to the position by Mr Cameron in November last year to support the Conservative manifesto pledge to deliver three million apprenticeship starts by 2020.

But his spokesperson told FE Week that Mr Zahawi no longer held the role following Mr Cameron’s sudden fall from grace in July. No one has been appointed to fill the position.

This has been Lord Sugar’s second stint as a government enterprise champion, after he served in the role for Labour in 2009, when he was made a life peer under the then-prime minister Gordon Brown.

But he quit the Labour party last May, blaming what he described as “negative business policies and the general anti-enterprise concepts” under Ed Miliband’s leadership.

Lord Sugar was knighted in 2000, and reportedly joined the billionaire’s club in 2015, with his estimated fortune currently standing at £1.15bn.

He founded his most famous business enterprise, the computer and electronics firm Amstrad, in 1968.

He was chairman of Tottenham Hotspur football club from 1991 to 2001, and is now best-known for following in the US presidential hopeful Donald Trump’s footsteps, by fronting the UK spinoff of his TV series The Apprentice on the BBC

At the time of his appointment to the enterprise tsar role, Lord Sugar said he was “delighted” to be taking on the challenge.

He said he would be “travelling the length and breadth of this country to tell young people why apprenticeships are a great way for them to build their skills – and talking about the opportunities for starting their own business, hopefully instilling some entrepreneurial spirit”.

Nick Boles, who was skills minister at the time, said he was delighted that Lord Sugar had agreed to help the government “bang the drum for apprenticeships and enterprise”.

Apprenticeship funding ‘u-turn’ – but how far does it really go?

Despite the very public “U-turn” the government made on proposed apprenticeship cuts on Tuesday, funding is still due to be cut from key frameworks by up to 50 per cent, exclusive analysis by FE Week has shown.

In August, this newspaper discovered that cuts proposed by the Department for Education would cause framework funding rates for 16- to 18-year-olds to tumble by more than half, and would disproportionately fall in some of the nation’s most deprived areas.

And following the extreme pressure brought to bear by our #SaveOurApprenticeships campaign, the DfE announced on Tuesday that it would introduce two measures to arrest the decline – by paying an extra 20 per cent on the funding band limit for 16-18 year-olds, and promising £60 million of “additional support in areas of disadvantage”.

However, FE Week has crunched the numbers again (click here to download) and found that while the cuts aren’t quite as steep as before, most frameworks will still feel cuts of 20 per cent or more.

For instance, before the U-turn, we calculated cuts of between 27 and 50 per cent to construction skills at level two. After it, the cuts range from 14 to 37 per cent – figures which could still devastate the sector. In other popular sectors such as hairdressing and engineering, our analysis revealed that at levels two and three respectively, there could still be a maximum drop of 49 to 51 per cent.

David Lammy, the Labour MP who helped FE Week spearhead its campaign, has reacted with fury to our calculations, and has promised to raise the matter in a special parliamentary backbench debate on Tuesday (November 1).

He said: “The government has to explain why – even after this U-turn – its updated funding proposals will still result in cuts of 50 per cent.

“Whilst the government has reinstated the additional support for disadvantaged young people, it has only committed to maintaining this funding for one year and offered no further guarantees.

“I am pleased to have secured a backbench debate on the issue to enable MPs from all sides to make their voices heard.”

The DfE refused to comment directly on FE Week’s figures. Instead, its spokesperson said: “Through the new levy, £2.5 billion will be invested in apprenticeships by 2019-20 – twice what was spent in 2010-11.

“What we need is a simple system that works for all, which is why we have confirmed that the cost an employer will pay for an apprenticeship is the same, regardless of age.

“This week, we confirmed that to help market transition, providers will get an extra 20 per cent for training a young person on a framework. This is on top of the £1,000 paid per 16- to 18-year-old apprentice to both the employer and training provider.”

Mark Dawe, the chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, echoed Mr Lammy’s sentiment, saying: “There are still cases where the funding for frameworks is dramatically lower.

“We need to understand these specific cases and demonstrate to the government the concern about the ability to deliver these and the consequences, if there are no further changes.”

Robert Halfon, the apprenticeships and skills minister who will preside over these cuts, confirmed in an interview with FE Week’s editor Nick Linford that neither of the DfE’s new measures would be permanent – and that the extra £60 million would only last for 12 months.

He will answer Mr Lammy’s questions during Tuesday’s debate, while he is also likely to face tough questions on the funding changes surrounding the new apprenticeship levy launching in April at a Commons sub-committee on education, skills and the economy hearing the following day.

At last month’s #SaveOurApprenticeships launch, Mr Halfon conceded that “we need to look at all of those apprenticeship funding figures – and we are”.

Jonathan Slater, the top civil servant at the DfE, also claimed during a recent meeting of the public accounts committee that getting the funding rate right for young people from deprived areas “is one of the most active debates we’ve been working through”.

Court date set for AoC judicial review over new sixth form

The court start date has been set for the Association of College’s first judicial review against the government in more than a decade.

The AoC revealed a month ago that it was going to take legal action over the Department for Education’s controversial decision to fund a new sixth form at Abbs Cross Academy and Arts College, in Hornchurch.

It believes that the government’s own rules were not followed when the department’s regional schools commissioner approved the request from the Loxford School Trust

These state, for example, that sixth forms should only be created in schools which expect to enrol 200 students or more.

They should also be graded ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted, offer a full programme of at least 15 A-levels, and not impose a financial burden on the rest of the school.

When asked this week about progress with the case, an AoC spokesperson said: “We can confirm that the hearing is due to start on November 1.”

The hearing is scheduled to last for one day only, and the Administrative Court venue will be announced the day before the hearing. The listings office said it is likely to be within the main Royal Courts of Justice, in London.

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, previously told FE Week: “We thought long and hard about this action, recognising that the legal costs would be high.

“We will have invested over £50,000 on this process; an investment we felt was necessary at this stage because we wanted to secure clarity on such an important issue.”

Abbs Cross fell from a ‘good’ Ofsted rating to ‘inadequate’ in June 2015, and has since been subject to a number of section eight special measures monitoring inspections, one in December 2015 and the following in March this year.

The results of the third was published this month, with inspector John Lambern stating: “Having considered all the evidence I am of the opinion that at this time leaders and managers are taking effective action towards the removal of special measures.”

The review is being launched by AoC in partnership with Havering Sixth Form College, which is 1.5 miles away from Abbs Cross.

The outcome could have a bearing on the way the government approves new selective schools, and establish the status of guidance to the regional schools commissioners.

A DfE spokesperson said: “We are aware of the judicial review. It would not be appropriate to comment while proceedings are ongoing.”