An influential committee of MPs has rejected the government’s proposal of Amanda Spielman to become the next chief inspector of Ofsted.

Ms Spielman, who is chair of Ofqual, was put forward for the role last month by Education Secretary Nicky Morgan, who named her as the government’s preferred candidate to succeed Sir Michael Wilshaw.

But following a pre-appointment hearing on June 29, a House of Commons Education Committee report raised “significant concerns”, criticising Ms Spielman’s lack of “passion for the role” and the fact she has not worked as a teacher before, spending much of her career in corporate finance.

It provoked a firm defence of her suitability by Ms Morgan, but she declined to say for certain whether or not she would now press ahead with the appointment.

Chair of the Education Committee Neil Carmichael said: “The government’s preferred candidate has a broad range of experience, but failed to demonstrate to us the vision and passion we would expect.”

He went on to say although Ms Spielman had good experience of secondary schools, her understanding of early years, primary education, FE, and children’s services seemed lacking.

He added: “Ms Spielman’s responses on child protection were particularly troubling and did not inspire confidence that she grasped the importance of Ofsted’s inspections in preventing children being held at risk through service failure.”

Education Secretary Nicky Morgan refuted all of this.

She said: “Ms Spielman has a proven track record as a leader and huge experience in education.

“I chose her because I believe she will be a highly effective leader and where necessary challenge schools, local authorities and government where education and social care services are not meeting standards our children deserve.”

But she added: “I will now consider their report and respond in due course.”

A DfE spokesperson added: “Her understanding of the role, vision, leadership abilities and commitment to raising standards have been tested at each stage of a very rigorous public appointments process run by an independently chaired panel and overseen by the Cabinet Office and Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments”.

Martin Doel, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said: “While there may have been concerns that she has never been a teacher, we have had a series of chief inspectors at Ofsted who had little or no experience of FE.

“In this context, Ms Spielman’s lack of detailed knowledge did not seem problematic.”

Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP), added: “While we respect the committee’s concerns, our view is that the government should go ahead with Ms Spielman’s appointment because we believe that she has done a very good job at Ofqual.

“As for the committee’s desire for passion, some of the previous chief inspectors have had this in abundance and if misdirected, it’s not always a good thing.”

He was critical of current chief inspector Sir Michael Wilsaw for allowing “personal prejudice” to rule his views on FE, after he told MPs in March that he believed 16- to 19-year-olds should be taught in schools rather than colleges, and the FE sector was “in a mess”.

Ms Spielman’s case is not the first example of a select committee choosing not to support the government’s preferred candidate for a particular post.

In 2009, Maggie Atkinson, the then director of children’s services at Gateshead Council, was put forward as the preferred candidate for Children’s Commissioner and appointed by Ed Balls, despite a negative report from the Children, Families and Schools Committee.

In 2011, the Justice Select Committee declined to endorse the appointment of Diana Fulbrook as HM Chief Inspector of Probation. This led to Liz Calderbank being appointed on a temporary basis instead.

And in 2012 the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee declined to endorse the appointment of Les Ebdon, the preferred candidate, as director of the Office for Fair Access. However, Secretary of State, Vince Cable, decided to proceed anyway.

But in 2013, the Health Select Committee did not support the proposal of Dominic Dodd for chair of monitor, leading to Mr Dodd withdrawing his name from the running.

Ofsted was unable to comment ahead of publication.

The government has today launched a consultation on insolvency arrangements for general FE and sixth form colleges — which includes plans for a special administration regime (SAR) that would help protect the interests of learners.

The document containing nine questions geared at FE and sixth form colleges, their staff and students — as well as college creditors — has just been published by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) online.

It comes just a few days after FE Week exclusively revealed that the government is looking at allowing struggling colleges to be sold-off to the private sector, as revealed through a leaked government report looking ahead to how providers will operate after all post-16 area reviews have completed.

 

A key proposal set out in the consultation document is for the launch of the SAR, which would “be triggered where a college becomes insolvent and the Secretary of State deems it appropriate to apply for a SAR to protect learner provision”.

However, it added, a college or its creditors could also lodge a court petition for another “type of insolvency order under the Insolvency Act 1986”.

The idea of the SAR, as opposed to other possible processes for administration, would be to ensure “the interests of learners are given priority and the administrator is able to act accordingly”.

There would be no time limit to SAR regimes, it added.

While ordinary administrations typically take around 12 months, the document said “SARs may need longer due to the fact that they relate to continuity of public services and so have a special objective to be fulfilled. They can also be extended if required.”

The document stressed the overriding aim of the new insolvency regime would be to deliver “options for the rehabilitation of a college where possible and if not, to promote an orderly winding up with protections for learners and creditors”.

It will require new government legislation to come into force.

The report added the proposed regime would also include, where appropriate, “compulsory liquidation”.

Skills Minister Nick Boles said in the introduction: “Currently, the legal regime for colleges does not make clear how insolvent institutions should be dealt with.

“This anomaly cannot continue indefinitely. After the [post-16] area reviews, colleges will need a legal framework within which to manage their finances independently and flexibly, with opportunities to restructure and protections for learners.

“Any framework will need to make provision for corporations to exit the market when appropriate and without undue detriment to learners, creditors and taxpayers.”

Julian Gravatt, Assistant Chief Executive of the Association of Colleges (AoC), said: “It will be helpful to have more legal certainty in case of any further education and sixth form colleges becoming insolvent.

“The Special Administration Regime proposed will help to protect college students by safeguarding the continuity of services run by organisations that are independent of the Government.

“These plans won’t be realised for at least two years and reassurances will need to be sought through the consultation over the extent of protection for students and other potential technical issues.”

BIS first revealed that the government was planning to introduce an insolvency regime for colleges through guidance published in March.

It said that, following the area reviews, the government would no longer plan to bail out colleges in financial trouble, but instead allow them to go bust.

The consultation launch comes a week after FE Week reported on how a leaked government document, seen by the paper, had indicated that they
could be sold off to the private sector.

The draft report, called ‘Framework for due diligence in the FE sector following area reviews’, looks ahead to a post-area review world for colleges.

The most worrying section was titled ‘Acquisition of an FE college by a private sector organisation’.

It reads: “Private sector organisations such as private training providers may be interested in the acquisition of FE colleges.

“They may have different benchmarks and parameters as to what is acceptable in terms of both curriculum and financial performance of the college involved.”

The consultation and possibility of colleges being sold off will be discussed tomorrow at FE Week area review summit, an event in partnership with BIS held at the Festival of Skills.

 

Apprenticeships will have a minimum price tag attached to them for the first time after the apprenticeship levy is introduced, FE Week can reveal.

A Department for Business, Innovation and Skills official told delegates at a Capita conference on apprenticeships and traineeships, in Manchester, that the current funding caps would be replaced with new upper and lower limits from next April.

The news has been welcomed by Association of Employment and Learning Providers chief executive Mark Dawe, who had previously called for a price “floor” and warned of a race to the bottom price war without one.

Slides from the presentation by Helen Gorner, head of apprenticeship policy at BIS, referred to “funding bands”, which “set the ranges in which government expects the cost of training and assessment for apprenticeship to fall”.

The bands will “limit the amount of levy funds an employer can spend on training for an individual apprentice” and “vary according to the level and type of apprenticeship”.

Ms Gorner gave an example of a butcher apprenticeship standard, in band three, which would have an upper limit of £6,000 and a lower limit of £3,000.

Mr Dawe told FE Week that the introduction of a “funding range with a top and a bottom” was a “very welcome development”.

He said: “Without a floor under the cap, there would be a danger of cases arising of downward bidding between providers to try and win new business.”

And he warned that unchecked negotiation between employers and providers “could impact adversely on the quality of delivery”.

Current Trailblazer funding arrangements refer to maximum contributions – or caps – but do not include minimum costs.

Each apprenticeship standard currently has a funding cap which represents the maximum cost for delivering the standard.

There are five such caps – rising to six in 2016/17 – which range from £3,000 and £27,000.

Each cap includes a core government contribution as well as an employer contribution.

Under current funding rules, the butcher apprenticeship standard referred to by Ms Gorner attracted a maximum government contribution of £6,000, with an expected employer contribution of £3,000 – but no minimum cost is given.

Mr Dawe had previously called for the introduction of a lower price limit for apprenticeship standards during an evidence session for a parliamentary inquiry in apprenticeships on June 8.

He told MPs on the Education, Skills and the Economy sub-committee that AELP had concerns around the impact on quality if no such limit was introduced.

He warned of “unscrupulous providers” who would offer deals such as “two for one”.

Mr Dawe said AELP would prefer set rates, “so you just agree what you’re going to do for a set rate” but “if there’s going to be a cap then we think there should be a base, a floor as well”.

Further detail on the provisional funding bands for each apprenticeship was due to have been published by BIS in June.

But Skills Minister Nick Boles told delegates at last month’s AELP conference that it would be a “little delayed” following the outcome of the EU referendum vote on June 23.

He added: “We still expect to get that information out well before the summer break.”

Students protested today outside Burton and South Derbyshire College over plans to axe their courses.

The college confirmed to FE Week that all performing arts, painting and decorating, animal care, brickwork (excluding apprenticeships), and entry level three motor vehicle courses for 2016/17 could be scrapped next academic year, under plans now being consulted on.

The college blamed this on falling student numbers and resulting Education Funding Agency (EFA) funding cuts.

The move sparked a large protest by students — many of whom were reportedly expecting to continue in the second year of performing arts courses after the summer holidays.

A Burton and South Derbyshire spokesperson said: “The College’s EFA allocation has reduced as our recruitment of young people is lower than in previous years.

“Our catchment area has seen a decline in the 16-18 demographic and this is what has driven the reduction.

“In addition, the college has been successful in growing 16-18 apprenticeship numbers which have also had an impact.”

She added that to mitigate the loss of funding, “we have entered into consultation with a small number of curriculum areas that we are proposing will not run next academic year.

“We are working closely with other providers who can offer courses that are proposed not to run and who are happy to transfer learners so that their learning to date is not affected.”

The college, which Ofsted rated grade three-overall in April, down from ‘good’ in 2012, was allocated £9.98m by the agency for 2015/16.

Allocations for next academic year won’t be published by the Department for Education until October.

And the college spokesperson was unable to say what the figure would be for Burton and South Derbyshire in 2016/17 ahead of publication.

Drama student Abbie Wilson, 17, told the Burton Mail that the consultation had come “out of the blue”.

She said: “I am devastated as we have just been told our target grade and all got onto the course for our second year.

“When I was told, I just cried – we all have the hope of going to drama school but that might not happen now.”

When asked about the funding cut, a Department for Education spokesperson told FE Week the “main reason” for Burton and South Derbyshire’s funding cut was a drop in student numbers.

He said the college had been “funded for 2,165 students in 2015/16 against 1,839 in 2016/17”, adding “this isn’t a cut we have made, rather it is a reflection of their recruitment pattern changing between academic years.”

Pic caption: Protesting students (taken by the Burton Mail)

A long-awaited MPs’ report has called for the government to consult on handing over control of the National Careers Service (NCS) to the new Careers & Enterprise Company.

The document by the House of Commons Sub-Committee on Education, Skills and the Economy, which follows an enquiry launched in December, was published today.

It reported concern about overlaps between the Skills Funding Agency (SFA)-run NCS, which supports young people through a network of careers advisers and its website, and the company launched last summer to get private firms more involved with guiding school and college students.

The MPs called for a more joined-up approach that would see all “government-funded careers initiatives… brought under the umbrella of the Careers & Enterprise Company”.

“We recommend that the government consult on transferring responsibility for the NCS from the SFA to the company,” the report said.

The SFA, Department for Education, and the Careers & Enterprise Company all failed to provide a direct answer, when asked if they agreed with the proposal.

But Claudia Harris (pictured), chief executive of the new organisation, said: “It is critical for young people that careers and enterprise support is easy to navigate.

“We agree with the sub-committee’s findings that strong coordination is essential and schools and colleges must be supported in accessing the different services available to them.”

Education and Childcare Minister Sam Gyimah said: “The government strategy for improved careers education, due to be published later this year, will provide a roadmap for this parliament and set out what we want to achieve by 2020.”

He also conceded that “careers education varies hugely” across the country.

“That is why we have made it mandatory for all schools and colleges to secure independent careers guidance for all 12 to 18 year olds, and are investing £90m over this parliament to transform careers education and guidance including funding the Careers & Enterprise Company,” he said.

The sub-committee report stated that Katharine Horler, chair of the Board of Careers England, told members that the NCS’s “inspiration agenda was ‘exactly the same’ as the work the Careers & Enterprise Company was doing”.

The Science, Engineering, Manufacturing and Technologies Alliance, it added, saw “no real reason for the continued existence of the NCS as a separate entity”.

The 40-page document did, however, point out that those running the two organisations had insisted they fulfilled different roles.

The point was made by Skills Minister Boles, who the report recalled, told the committee: “The NCS is basically a series of contracts.

“It has a single unified website… but in terms of the provision of direct advice, it is a series of contracts.

“One of the whole points about the Careers and Enterprise Company was to have a business-led organisation that was in charge of the process of bringing businesses much more into the heart of school life.”

Ofqual has announced that its’ first ever fine to an awarding organisation will be for City & Guilds, over the late issuing of more than 22,000 results.

The qualifications and exams regulator published a notice of intention to impose the £38,000 financial penalty yesterday.

An Ofqual spokesperson confirmed to FE Week this “would be the first occasion we have fined an awarding organisation if it goes ahead”, under powers granted back in 2012.

The notice stated that 22,229 late results were issued between the middle of March and the end of May last year.

It said: “On February 1, 2015, City & Guilds identified an incident that resulted in it becoming aware, on or around February 16 that it could fail to issue results for certain qualifications (including paper-based Functional Skills) in accordance with its published timescales.

“On approximately March 13, City & Guilds first failed to issue results in accordance with its published timescales for these qualifications,” it added.

The awarding organisation notified Ofqual on April 17 and “thereafter maintained frequent and effective communications about its management of the incident”, before it was resolved from June 5 and “results thereafter were issued in accordance with published timescales”.

An Ofqual investigation followed, which resulted in it criticising City & Guilds for taking more than two months to report the incident.

The notice said this prevented the regulator from “exercising regulatory supervision of the response to an emerging incident to ensure that action is taken to mitigate potential prejudice to learners and to minimise the detrimental impact on public confidence in regulated qualifications”.

But it did say in mitigation that City & Guilds has “to date had a good history of compliance” with Ofqual’s conditions; has “co-operated fully with Ofqual’s investigation of the incident”; and has “not benefited financially from the incident”.

A City & Guilds spokesperson said: “We regret the incident that happened last year and are pleased to have cooperated fully with Ofqual to bring the situation to a close. We have also taken a number of steps to minimise the risk of such a situation happening again”.

The awarding organisation, which offers over 600 qualifications in a range of subjects in the UK, including over 100 apprenticeships, still has the opportunity to make representations in respect of the proposed fine, provided it is submitted by August 5.

Ofqual’s own guidance on its fines regime for awarding organisations states: “We can impose a monetary penalty (a fine) on an awarding organisation if it appears, on the evidence available to us, that it has breached a condition of its recognition.

“A fine may be for an amount up to 10 per cent of an awarding organisation’s annual turnover. This limit applies to each fine we decide to impose and is not a cumulative limit for a financial year.

“We will decide what the appropriate amount of the fine should be taking into account all the circumstances of the case.”

No further details about the circumstances surrounding the late results was provided in the notice, and Ofqual and City & Guilds both declined to provide more information.

The government has found almost £100m of additional funding for apprenticeships and traineeships through the latest round of growth requests, FE Week can reveal.

The figures were confirmed by the Skills Funding Agency on Tuesday (June 28), which said that it had funded “all credible growth cases” — although the amount of cash involved was not stated at the time.

FE Week can now reveal the total amount was £99.5m.

The SFA also provided a breakdown of the figures which show, for example, the total targeted growth allocation this year is £30.1m for all apprenticeships, and £10.3m for traineeships.

The total 2016/17 allocation increase for apprenticeships, meanwhile, is £53.2m, with the figure for traineeships standing at £5.9m.

An SFA spokesperson said: “We have funded all credible growth cases to grow delivery in these priority areas ahead of the start of the funding year.

“Alongside this exercise, we have also reviewed the baseline data used in calculating 2016-to-2017 apprenticeship and traineeship allocations, reflecting provider earnings for 12 months up to March 2016.”

She added that where “there is evidence of increased performance, we have increased providers’ 2016-to-2017 allocations accordingly”.

“All increases will be included in 2016-to-2017 contract variations which we will be issuing shortly.”

The SFA announced in May that growth requests would be offered for the delivery of any of the new apprenticeship standards.

A statement uploaded to gov.uk at the time said the offer would apply to standards — not existing apprenticeship frameworks — but did not specify which ones.

Asked if this meant providers who needed more funding could lodge growth requests for “any of the new standards”, an SFA spokesperson said: “Yes, on standards, we have not been specific on sector areas”.

“Requests are subject to affordability and our normal credibility checks,” she added.

So far more than 112 new standards have been approved by the government for delivery.

The targeted growth request – which included traineeships as well as apprenticeships – also covered delivery at higher and/or degree level, food, farming and agritech, and those that are science, and technology, engineering and maths (STEM)-based.

Earlier this year providers branded “ridiculous” the overdue news that many of their 16-to-18 apprenticeship and traineeship growth requests had not been funded in full by the SFA.

The agency announced in early February that it had awarded an additional £25m to colleges and training providers to deliver 16-to-18 apprenticeships — but there was no extra cash for 16-to-18 traineeships.

The announcement, which should have been made on January 8, was made in response to growth requests submitted by providers to help fund apprenticeships and traineeships in 2015/16.

It came just a week after FE Week exclusively revealed that the delay in confirming the growth requests was due to an overspend by the Department for Education.