The reforms suggested by Lord Sainsbury’s influential review into technical and professional education (TPE) will not be piloted by the government until 2019/20, FE Week can reveal.

It is also now understood that the peer’s report — which is set to recommend the creation of 15 new “professional and technical” routes with apprenticeship or substantial work experience — will not be published until July 8.

This date is four months after the report was first supposed to be unveiled — with further delays expected as a result to the first skills white paper in a decade, which is believed to reflect the recommendations which will be made by Lord Sainsbury’s independent panel.

The pilot timetable will now be unveiled just before parliamentary summer recess. The delays to the report were welcomed by sector leaders, provided it meant time had been allowed to create properly thought-out and tested qualifications.

Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, told FE Week: “The TPE reform, combined with the apprenticeship changes, should see a step change providing parity of opportunity through vocational learning.

“It is vital that this is not lost, so if delay and piloting is necessary, we fully support the approach.”

Mr Dawe added that good curriculum and qualification change “takes time”, and insisted that the final framework needs to “ensure that vocational education is not seen as second best and demonstrates clear pathways to high levels of learning and work”.

Bill Watkin, chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, said the delays were “unfortunate” but added that it was outcomes “that really matter here”.

He added: “All over the country there are sixth form colleges achieving the highest standards in both academic and vocational curricula, sending countless young people to university or a great job.

“It is vital that they continue to offer young people the opportunity to study A-levels alongside BTECs, in a way that focuses on one or the other and often blends the two, according to the aptitudes and interests of each student.

“The sector is hoping for clarification at the earliest opportunity.”

Iain Wright, chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) committee, claimed that the government had been “paralysed” by the EU referendum debate — but when the TPE report and skills white paper finally arrived, they “promise a shake-up of the post-16 sector”.

He added: “It is vital that the government allow time for a proper reflection on these issues so we can ensure we have a system where technical qualifications are valued as highly as academic achievement and one which is better able to meet the skills requirements of a modern economy.”

FE Week reported last month that the Department for Education (DfE) had been prevented from publishing Lord Sainsbury’s report before the referendum on June 23, due to purdah rules governing the release of important information during periods of national campaigning.

The DfE said it would not comment on “speculation”, when approached by FE Week about the pilot and new review release date.

Colleges have been warned to be on their guard against “sophisticated” fraudsters, after a scam involving fake faxes was detected by staff at one provider in London.

The Mary Ward Adult Education Centre nearly fell victim to the con last week, before the college’s bank contacted them to question a suspicious payment.

A fraudster had sent a fax requesting a £4,437 clearing house automated payment system (CHAPS) payment after researching the college’s personal bank details, which are in the public domain.

But Allister Duncan, head of finance and resources at the college (pictured), explained: “Thankfully the bank picked up on the questionable nature of the instruction and queried it with us.”

However, he warned: “It may well be that whoever is behind this may try this on with other colleges.”

Mr Duncan also told FE Week: “Clearly the sort of amount involved in this case is enough to be worthwhile, but not enough to generally cause a lot of interest. If the sum was in the tens of thousands of pounds it is likely to raise questions, so this is quite a clever and sophisticated pitch.”

The Education Funding Agency (EFA) also sent out an alert on May 26, warning that customers of an attempted scam involving Portakabin Ltd, which makes portable buildings often used by schools and colleges.

It said: “We have been advised by Portakabin Ltd that some of their customers may have received a fraudulent letter about a change to their bank account details.

“The letter is attempting fraud and, if you have received one, you should ignore any instructions.”

Portakabin told FE Week it had been able to flag up the attempt internally and report it to the bank being used by the fraudster.

Company director James Robinson said: “As a precaution, we immediately alerted all our customers, even though the bank account no longer existed. We also reported it to the National Fraud and Cyber Crime Reporting Centre.

“We do not believe any of our customers have been affected. The letter was speculative and no data security has been breached.

“Unfortunately, fraud crime continues to rise and we all have to be extremely vigilant and highly suspicious of any unsolicited communications unless the company concerned has been contacted to check any new payment instructions are completely genuine.”

This is not the first time colleges have been targeted by these types of scams.

In January last year FE Week reported that college finance directors had been targeted in a bailiff scam involving a series of phone calls with con artists.

Staff from at least eight colleges, including the College of Haringey, Enfield and North East London and City of Southampton College, were subjected to the rip-off attempt.

The fraudsters employed the same tactics on each occasion, centring their bogus story on Northampton County Court, to which a non-existent debt running into thousands of pounds was meant to be owed.

At the time it was understood no college had fallen for the scam.

Colleges are significantly less likely to challenge GCSE and A-level exam grades than schools – and they are more likely to be rejected when they do.

The exams regulator Ofqual looked at the number of enquiries about students’ results which were filed by schools and colleges following last summer’s exams.

It found that between them, schools and colleges challenged one GCSE exam result out of every 16, and one in 13 A-levels.

But the figures were much higher just amongst FE, sixth form and tertiary colleges — which challenged just one GCSE result in 22, and one A-level grade in every 19.

Independent schools had the highest proportion of challenges, querying one GCSE in 11 and one in eight A-level exam results.

What’s more, the report discovered that GCSE, FE, sixth form and tertiary colleges “have the lowest percentage of grades changed” at just 17 per cent.

In comparison, secondary selective schools had a 25 per cent success rate with grade challenges, while independent schools managed a rate of 23.1 per cent.

And for A-levels, FE, sixth form and tertiary colleges again experienced the lowest percentage of grade changes at a mere 15.1 per cent, even though independent schools, city academies, secondary comprehensive/middle schools and ‘other’ schools have “similar rates of grade changes” of between 16.1 per cent and 16.6 per cent.

Ofqual said it did “not have any information which might explain these differences”.

It costs institutions up to £50 to appeal each individual exam paper, although there is no charge if the appeal is successful, which can perhaps explain why the generally wealthier independent schools have more success.

Catherine Sezen, the Association of Colleges’ senior policy manager for 14-19 and curriculum, said of the Ofqual figures: “Colleges always act in the best interest of their students and where they think there is a case to answer, they will suggest querying the grade.”

She added: “We may see an increase in the number of exam grade queries at GCSE level over the coming years as the system adjusts to the standards that will be expected to achieve higher grades.”

Julie Swan, Ofqual’s executive director for general qualifications, said: “It’s up to each school or college to decide the extent to which it uses the marking review provisions.”

Firms taking on apprentices have been advised to stick “to their core business” — after Citroën UK became the second employer branded inadequate by Ofsted under the common inspector framework.

The education watchdog’s damning verdict on the car manufacturer — published on May 27 — means that a quarter of employers inspected under the new framework launched in September have been awarded the lowest possible rating.

Questions have now been raised about government moves to encourage more employers to run their own training, with the average Ofsted rating across all eight employer providers inspected in the last nine months being a disappointing three.

In contrast, the independent training providers averaged grade two under the common inspection framework, as FE Week revealed on May 2.

And after learning of Citroën’s inadequate rating, Mark Dawe, the chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (pictured), warned: “Those organisations engaging with the apprenticeship programme for the first time under the [apprenticeship] levy may be better off sticking to their core business and instead using the services of an experienced training provider.”

The report on Citroën, which has a Skills Funding Agency (SFA) allocation of £1.07m for 2015/16, highlighted concerns over leadership and safeguarding arrangements.

Inspectors found leaders had failed to set their subcontractor “robust and challenging apprenticeship delivery targets”.

According to the SFA’s list of declared subcontractors, Calex UK has a subcontract with Citroën UK worth £750,000, as of December 15.

The report urged leaders at Citroën to “implement a more rigorous approach to challenging and monitoring” Calex UK’s performance.

It added: “Safeguarding arrangements for apprentices are inadequate.”

A spokesperson for Citroën and its subcontractor said: “Having reviewed this latest Ofsted report, it is clear the new overall rating is due to a much greater emphasis on safeguarding, which, if judged to be ineffective, automatically grades the provision as inadequate, regardless of the quality of the programme in all other areas.

“We acknowledge and accept the need to update the safeguarding elements of the programme. This is currently being actioned and will be in place, alongside further enhancements to maths and English provision, prior to a follow-up meeting with Ofsted.”

He added: “It is important to note that the majority of apprentices on our programme go on to lead an exciting career within the Citroën UK dealer network.”

Pearson was meanwhile slammed by Ofsted in January for its inadequate apprenticeship provision, after the inspection team found “no key strengths”.

A Pearson spokesperson said in response: “We take this report very seriously and are making further improvements in our programme so that our apprentices receive the highest possible standard of learning and support.”

Next Retail was also heavily criticised last year, before the common inspection framework was launched, for its apprenticeship provision.

After being branded inadequate by Ofsted following an inspection in July, the retailer was issued a notice of concern by the SFA and temporarily barred from taking on new apprentices.

A spokesperson told FE Week it “completely accepted the report’s findings and recommendations, and immediately commenced a vigorous programme of improvements”.

When asked by FE Week if it would be pulling funding from Citroën following the inadequate Ofsted rating, a Skills Funding Agency spokesperson said: “We are considering Citroën UK’s Ofsted inspection in line with our intervention strategy.”

---

In the driving seat for government apprentice reforms

The government’s apprenticeship reforms – which aim to put employers “in the driving seat” – are likely to see more employers delivering their own in-house apprenticeship provision.

The government said in its ‘English Apprenticeships: Our 2020 Vision’ document in December that, alongside colleges “taking a greater share of the apprenticeship training market”, it would expect to see “employers offering apprenticeship training directly”.

And guidance published by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) on the apprenticeship levy, published in April, said all employers who wanted to use their levy funds to pay for in-house provision would need to register.

It said: “We recognise that employers can be extremely successful training providers and we want to encourage those who want to take this route to deliver high-quality apprenticeships.”

Asked if BIS stood by this view in light of Citroën’s inadequate rating, a spokesperson said: “If an employer wants to use funds in their digital account to pay for apprenticeship training that they provide and manage, they will need to be an approved training provider.”

As revealed at FE Week’s Annual Apprenticeship Conference in March, the government is consulting on a new set of criteria that training providers will need to meet to be allowed to deliver apprenticeships.

FE Week understands that one of the key issues is where to set the bar, to ensure that it is sufficiently challenging but not so challenging that employer providers can’t reach it.

AELP chief executive Mark Dawe called for the criteria to be “robust” but also “easily understood by applicants”.

He added: “We would expect financial health to be a consideration and also the ability to deliver high-quality apprenticeships.”