Latest news from FE Week

Large employers are auctioning access to their future apprenticeship levy pot to the highest bidding training provider, the Association for Employment and Learning Providers has claimed.

The revelation came as part of the AELP’s response to the government’s apprenticeship reforms consultations, published this afternoon, in which it called for “negotiated” funding proposed to be shelved.

Their response, which was based on feedback from 100s of its members,  said: “Such a policy encourages inappropriate behaviour and, for example, we are already seeing employers asking providers to pay them to have access to their levy – this has to be wrong.”

Under the current proposals, unveiled mid-August, all apprenticeship frameworks and standards starts from May 2017 will be funded up to one of 15 bands, ranging from £1,500 to £27,000, with employers negotiating the final price with training providers.

“Fundamentally we still believe negotiating a price for education and training is wrong. There is no other part of Department for Education’s education and training system where the rates for delivery are not set. We believe that keeping negotiated funding will lead to a fall in quality of provision and impact the social mobility agenda.”

The AELP response also called for current funding rates for apprenticeship frameworks to be maintained until there is an equivalent replacement standard.

It came after exclusive FE Week analysis revealed that the government’s proposals would see funding for some of the most popular frameworks slashed by up to 50 per cent for the most deprived 16-to-18-year-old apprentices.

The proposed rates for frameworks, which the Skills Funding Agency said are designed to simplify funding arrangements, are based on the current adult funding rates and don’t take into account the different uplifts and discounts that currently exist.

The AELP said it had received a “high volume of concern” from providers about planned funding rates for 16- to 18-year olds, which it said were “not adequate”.

The disappearance of the area uplift and disadvantage uplift from funding rates would mean that “learners with most need will be abandoned and areas such as central London will become apprenticeship deserts,” it warned.

The AELP response also called for a delay to the full introduction of the new Register of Apprenticeship Training Providers as well as the removal of proposed employer cash contributions for level 2 and 3 provision.

AELP has also said the timeframes were “too tight” and called for a phased transition to the new register, with non-levy paying employers being able to use providers from the existing register until August 1.

It said: “Without appropriate transition we believe the whole system will collapse as there will be insufficient time between March 2017’s confirmation of a provider’s ability to deliver apprenticeships and enabling starts from May 1.”

Speaking about the AELP response, chief executive Mark Dawe (pictured) said: “We believe AELP’s concerns about the proposals can be simply resolved as we have suggested in our response and it is right for the government to press ahead with the levy and its apprenticeship policy. 

“Some aspects of the reform need to be phased and introduced later than April 2017 to ensure a far less risky transition. 

“We are ready to share solutions with ministers and officials to assist in the successful implementation of reforms for a skills programme which is so vital for Britain’s economic future and for promoting social mobility.”

Serious concerns about funding cuts for 16-18 year old apprentices have been raised by shadow skills minster Gordon Marsden, in a letter to apprenticeships and skills minister Robert Halfon based on FE Week research.

He referred directly to our analysis, published last month, which showed that proposed funding for apprentices from that age group would lead to current rates to providers being cut by around 30 per cent, rising to over half for those living in most deprived areas of central London.

The letter warned that the proposals “offer a damaging lack of support for young apprentices and further weaken proposed attempts to widen participation”.

Mr Marsden added that he was “extremely concerned at the potential adverse effects for social mobility stemming from the proposed new apprenticeship funding methods”.

“These changes have the potential to cause catastrophic consequences for young people in the most deprived areas,” he added.

Mr Marsden also pushed Mr Halfon (pictured left) for an answer on when the relevant impact assessment of the funding changes would be published.

He said the plans showed “little awareness of the equality implications” or the risk of “potentially putting off more small employers from taking on young people in this age range”.

Mr Marsden’s concerns, he added, were motivated by both his role as shadow skills minister and as MP for Blackpool, “where getting small employers on board is crucial to our local economic wellbeing”.

In speaking to FE Week before sending the letter, he also said: “If you had designed something deliberately to produce perverse incentives in the apprenticeship programme, you couldn’t have done it more brilliantly.”

Mr Marsden told FE Week that he intends to follow up on his letter in Monday’s parliamentary questions to Mr Halfon.

His protest comes just a week before the closure of the consultation on ‘Proposals for apprenticeship funding in England from May 2017’, which ends on Monday.

On August 23, David Lammy, former minister for HE and MP for Tottenham, also spoke out in response to FE Week’s research — slamming the prime minister for the proposed funding cuts.

He asked why the government was “shafting” the future of working class kids, saying that the impact of the potential cuts would be “devastating” for young people in deprived areas like his constituency.

As a result of current factors such as additional funding for 16 to 18 apprentices and a ‘disadvantage uplift’ for apprentices living in a deprived area, the highest funding levels at present go to 16 to 18 apprentices living and working in Tottenham.

The proposed funding changes bypass these other sources of money, and therefore would mean Tottenham and other central London areas were hit the hardest – potentially losing up to 50 per cent of their current funding for this age group.

In comparison, monies for many learners aged 24 and over would go up, particularly those living in affluent areas outside the South East and working for large employers.

Mr Lammy concluded the cuts would “hugely undermine” the government’s target to create 3m apprenticeships by 2020, and “entirely contradict” Theresa May’s promise to boost social mobility.

Mr Marsden today received an acknowledgement of the letter from Mr Halfon’s office, which said it would provide a comprehensive response “shortly”.

The future of the apprenticeship advisor post to the Prime Minister remains uncertain, as a spokesperson for Nadhim Zahawi has today told FE Week he is no longer in the role.

Mr Zahawi was appointed to the role in November last year by former PM David Cameron.

This was to support the conservative manifesto pledge to deliver 3m apprenticeship starts by 2020.

Today’s confirmation, by a spokesperson from Mr Zahawi’s constituency office in Stratford, comes after Number 10 refused for several weeks to be drawn on who his replacement would be — or if the post would even continue under the new Prime Ministership of Theresa May.

The PM’s press office had repeatedly declined since July to provide any information on who, if anyone, would be in the post for the coming academic year.

And after requesting an update from the Cabinet Office this afternoon, FE Week was even told that while “the PM appoints a number of advisers to different roles; we wouldn’t necessarily keep a list of them”.

One of Mr Zahawi’s responsibilities as PM advisor had been to co-chair the Apprenticeship Delivery Board — so it would appear that role has also become vacant.

The board is run by the Skills Funding Agency, which acts as a secretariat, but it would not be drawn today on the board’s membership — other than to say that a small number of extra members would be recruited.

Mr Zahawi wasn’t the first to serve in the post — his predecessor was Watford MP Richard Harrington — but Mr Cameron was the only PM to have an apprenticeships advisor.

Mr Zahawi hosted the 2015 National Apprenticeship Awards in January.

He also launched the Primary Futures Apprenticeships scheme, which aims to help pupils make a connection between what they learn in the classroom and how it relates to the world of work.

Mr Zahawi spoke of his hopes for a much-improved apprenticeship system, during a profile interview with FE Week in March.

He said: “I want to get to a place where, when I’m long gone from here, when we’re all long gone, the system just works — where I don’t meet young people who say to me, ‘Oh, I fell upon it [an apprenticeship] by accident’.

“The options are there for young people. It’s not just the traditional route of going to university — there is another route here which is aspirational, and can lead to a great career.”

Changes to how the government collects data charting student progress after they finish key stage five courses have dramatically improved success rates for colleges compared to schools.

Destination data showing levels of progress to sustained education, employment, and training in the year after learners complete A-levels and other level three qualifications — sat by 16 to 18-year-olds — were previously only based on information from educational institutions and local authorities.

But a report published today by the Department for Education (DfE) explained that figures for 2010/11 to 2013/14 have now been updated to include extra information from HM Revenue & Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions — taking into account tax and benefits records.

This produced much improved results for FE colleges.

The report stated: “For 2013/14, the proportion of students in sixth-form and other FE colleges progressing to sustained destinations is revised upwards by 19 percentage points to 87 per cent.”

This, it added, “compared with 91 per cent in mainstream state-funded school sixth forms, reducing the apparent gap in outcomes between the two sectors from 11 percentage points to just four percentage points”.

The document added colleges had shown “the larger increase” for the proportion of students progressing directly to sustained employment.

It said the figure had been “revised up by around 20 percentage points to reach 27 per cent or 28 per cent”, for each of the academic years covered.

The proportion also increased for schools, but less dramatically.

It said: “Schools have been revised upwards by 13 percentage points, up from 7 per cent to 20 per cent [for 2010/11, 2012/13, and 2013/14], except in 2011/12 where the employment destinations for schools now show a clear dip corresponding to the spike in education destinations.”

The revised data also showed the proportion of college students thought to have made no tangible progress — as there was no sustained destination for them —remained flat at 12 per cent over the first three years recorded, before falling to 11 per cent in 2013/14.

That was down from 14 per cent for the same academic year under the old data.

The report added: “Previously schools showed little change over time [for students with no sustained destination] with eight or nine per cent of students not sustaining an education or employment destination.

“With additional employment data this is reduced by one percentage point in each of the last three years.”

David Corke, director of education and skills policy at the Association of Colleges, welcomed the use of more “sophisticated” data collection.

He said: “The latest set of destinations data demonstrates the significant impact that colleges have when it comes to students’ progress at the end of their course.

“The data is now more sophisticated because previously it was missing the information from HMRC. Including this data demonstrates how good colleges are at helping students get into sustained employment.”

The chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers has called on the government to scrap its GCSE resit policy, as results out today show huge numbers of learners aged 17 and over failed their GCSE English or maths.

Figures released by the Joint Council for Qualifications showed that almost 122,500 learners aged 17 or above did not get at least a grade C in maths, while 93,000 failed to secure at least a C in English.

Mark Dawe called today’s results a “body blow” for the learners who did not make the grade.

“Surely this is evidence enough that hitting students over the head with the same form of learning and assessment is not the way forward.  

“Functional skills, designed to develop core maths and English skills but with the learning contextualised and relevant, is proven to engage and motivate these learners, particularly those who have been turned off these subjects by their school experience. 

“Maths and English are the most vital skills for economic and social mobility but these results show that repeating the same exercise doesn’t work and a more learner and employer focused approach with functional skills should now be embedded post 16.”

Martin Doel, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, echoed Mr Dawe’s remarks.

He said: “The government must consider creating a qualification that is more fit-for-purpose in developing English and maths skills that complement technical and professional studies, motivate students and meet the needs of employers, a requirement that was recognised in the recent report by Lord Sainsbury [Technical education reform: the case for change].”

Today’s figures show that, while the number of learners aged 17+  taking GCSE English and maths has risen significantly, the proportions achieving at least a grade C in those subject has slumped.

Just 34,486 – or 26.9 per cent – of the 128,201 learners aged 17+ who took GCSE English this year got at least a C.

And of the 173,628 learners aged 17 or above taking GCSE maths, only 51,220 – or 29.5 per cent – achieved a C or above.

In comparison, last year 35.1 per cent of the 97,163 learners aged 17+ achieved a C or above in English, while 35.8 per cent of the 130,979 GCSE maths learners aged 17+ got at least a C.

The JCQ said the rise in numbers taking the exams was “largely the result of government policy in England requiring all 16-19- year-old students to study the subject [English and maths] until they achieve at least a grade C.”

The fall in the proportion of 17+ learners making the grade was reflection of this increase in numbers, it said.

In 2014 the government made it a condition of funding that all 16 to 19 year olds who did not already have at least a grade C in GCSE English or maths should be enrolled in courses in these subjects.

In 2015 this was changed to require all of those with a grade D in those subjects to do to a GCSE course, rather than an equivalent ‘stepping stone’ course.

Ofsted chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw has repeatedly hit out at standards of English and maths provision in colleges, and caused an uproar by suggesting that all 16 to 19-year-olds should be educated in schools

In March he told MPs at an oral evidence session of the Education Select Committee: “Youngsters who don’t do very well at 16 often don’t do very well two years later, particularly in English and maths where the results are pretty poor.”

FE Week asked the Department for Education if it was going to change its policy in light of today’s results, but had not received a response at the time of going to press.

The former minister for HE has slammed the Prime Minister for “shafting” the future of working class kids in his constituency, after seeing FE Week research into proposed apprenticeship funding cuts.

David Lammy said the impact of potential funding cuts for 16 to 18 year-old apprentices would be “devastating” for young people in deprived areas like his own area of Tottenham, where unemployment rates are already almost double the national average.

He said: “I have one question for the government in response to these cuts: why are you shafting working class kids?”

Mr Lammy added the cuts would “hugely undermine” the government’s target to create 3m apprenticeships by 2020, and “entirely contradict” Theresa May’s promise to boost social mobility.

Exclusive FE Week research from August 19 found that the government’s proposed funding for 16 to 18 year-old apprentices will result in current rates to colleges and training providers being cut by around 30 per cent, rising to over half for those apprentices living in the most deprived areas of central London.

In comparison, the funding for many learners aged 24 and over will go up, particularly those living in affluent areas outside the South East and working for large employers.

The analysis was based on new proposed new ‘upper limit’ funding levels and a £1,000 16 to 18 incentive paid to the provider, for apprenticeship framework starts from May 1, 2017, published by the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) on August 12.

As a result of current factors such as additional funding for 16 to 18 apprentices and a ‘disadvantage uplift’ for apprentices living in a deprived area, the highest funding levels at present go to 16 to 18 apprentices living and working in Tottenham.

The cuts to 16 to 18 in deprived areas and rises to adults in wealthy areas come as result of the SFA seeking ‘simplification’. It proposes removing many of the long standing variables within the current funding methodology.

These changes will mean Tottenham and other central London areas will be hit the hardest by a reduction in funding for this age group.

Shadow skills minister Gordon Marsden echoed the concerns of David Lammy in his own response to FE Week’s research, describing the government’s decision as “a major strategic blunder by the department and its funding agency”.

He said: “If you had designed something deliberately to produce perverse incentives in the apprenticeship programme, you couldn’t have done it more brilliantly.

“There’s clearly been no thought given to the equality implications or indeed the crucial issues in terms of getting more small employers to take on young people in this age range.”

Considering the impact on his own constituency, Mr Marsden added: “For somewhere like Blackpool, where I would love to see many of my smaller employers taking on apprenticeships, this is going to be a huge disincentive.

“I would suggest that they [the government] need urgently to re-examine the impact of this — they should have had proper impact assessment and the minster, Robert Halfon, who probably has had little oversight of this, needs to address the disastrous and presumably unintended consequences of this urgently.”

FE Week contacted the Department for Education (DfE) to enquire whether an Apprenticeships Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) had in fact been carried out.

A spokesperson confirmed that the relevant EIA had been completed, but added the DfE was unable to say when it will be published.

FE Week also spoke with the Association of Colleges (AoC), which appears to be calling for more consultation on the proposed rates.

Julian Gravatt, assistant chief executive for the AoC, said: “The proposals put forward by the SFA relating to the apprenticeship funding suggest that they are trying to simplify a complicated system, but under an impossible timeline.

“Usually when the government is changing a funding formula, it takes its time and works through all the options and we would ask them to do that on this occasion.

“We urge all colleges to get involved with this consultation to ensure their voice is well represented.”

The analysis was also previously shared with Mark Dawe, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, who again recommended that providers and their employers respond to the government consultation.

He said: “Feedback suggests that large numbers of providers will withdraw provision altogether because the rates will not be viable not only in terms of basic delivery but for offering a good quality programme for the employer and the apprentice. 

“All the good work in establishing the apprenticeship brand will quickly become undone.”

He added: “The apparent removal of the location element [disadvantage uplift] is particularly alarming – again, hardly helpful for the social mobility agenda.  

“Providers are working very hard for example to encourage employers to take on more apprentices from BME backgrounds who are underrepresented on the programme and they will find it very difficult to maintain this effort if the rates are not revised.”

A damning inadequate Ofsted rating has been handed out to a not-for-profit organisation that subcontracts out all its Education Funding Agency provision.

The report on Greater Merseyside Learning Providers’ Federation returned grade four ratings in all headline fields.

The organisation, which subcontracts its provision to 15 EFA-funded work-based learning providers that deliver traineeships and study programmes on its behalf, was previously rated good-overall by the inspectorate in May 2013.

The first of Ofsted’s key findings was that the federation’s “safeguarding is ineffective — managers do not require subcontractors to report safeguarding incidents to them promptly and systematically”.

The board was also criticised for failing to “focus closely enough” on monitoring the quality of subcontractors’ provision.

The report, published yesterday (Thursday), added: “Several directors are employed by subcontractors which results in a lack of impartiality and objectivity.”

Inspectors also found that managers at the federation, which had an EFA allocation of almost £2.1m in 2015/16, failed to “set individual performance targets for subcontractors relating to the quality of teaching, learning and assessment”, or “achievement of learning goals”.

While managers had “invested significantly in activities to improve the provision”, inspectors found the impact of these activities had not been properly checked.

Concerns over learners’ achievements, attendance and progression were also highlighted.

Inspectors complained that “too many” were not achieving their qualifications.

“Learners are unable to improve their work because teachers do not provide sufficient constructive feedback on its accuracy and quality,” the report added.

English and maths attainment was further criticised, with Ofsted noting that “managers place too little importance on the need for learners to improve” in these areas.

But inspectors praised its commitment to “recruiting young people who are not in education, employment or training”, and for the support it gave to “enable learners to overcome barriers to learning”.

The subcontractors, all based within the Liverpool City Region, include Alder Training, Alt Valley Community Trust, Jelli Studios, JM Education, Joint Learning Partnership, Mactac Training, and Maritime and Engineering College North West, and Mode Training Limited.

The others listed in the report are North West Community Services Training, Progress Sports Limited, Riverside Learning and Education Centre, Street League, Training Plus (Merseyside) Limited, Ellesmere Port-based TTE Training Limited, and Young Persons Opportunities Project.

James Glendenning, chief executive of the federation which employs seven full-time members of staff, told FE Week: “We are of course extremely disappointed with the Ofsted report and post-inspection we have taken swift and immediate action and put a robust improvement plan in place.”

The Department for Education was still unable to confirm ahead of publication whether or not the EFA would be terminating its contracts with the federation, following the inadequate rating, despite the enquiry being lodged yesterday morning.

The National Audit Office (NAO) has revealed to FE Week that it will release its latest report on apprenticeships when parliament returns in the the week commencing September 5.

The findings of this new study will coincide with the close of the government’s fourth consultation into the reforms, while the Public Accounts Committee will also scrutinise apprenticeships as part of its early autumn programme of work this year.

According to the NAO website, its latest research aims to “examine the management of the apprenticeship programme by Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS)”, particularly in light of the government’s plans to improve productivity and introduce 3m new apprenticeships by 2020.

It will also assess whether BIS has effectively facilitated the delivery of high quality skills training to meet the needs of businesses, employees and the economy.

The study exploring quality concerns around government management of apprenticeship reforms was initially announced in November 2015.

At the time, Stewart Segal, then chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, told FE Week: “Given the NAO’s previous findings about the programme’s excellent return on the government’s investment, it’s important that the reforms both for funding and standards build on what has worked well.”

At the Association of Colleges, Teresa Frith, senior skills policy manager, said: “Apprenticeships are an essential part of post-16 education and training as they provide a dual learning, both on and off the job.

“We hope the NAO will have a good look at the management of reform and the growth of the programme.”

The NAO published its previous report on the topic in February 2012 , focusing on ‘Adult Apprenticeships’ and looking into “whether the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) is obtaining value for money from the Apprenticeships programme”.

FE Week drew out conclusions from the report, such as the findings that adult apprenticeships offer good value for money, but there was a need for the government to focus its resources on industries which offer the best economic returns.

It criticised both BIS and the National Apprenticeship Service (NAS) for not targeting the qualifications, frameworks or age groups that have the biggest impact on the economy.

The NAO found through the study that the funding rates used to pay training providers for delivering an apprenticeship was not based on robust information, and the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) and NAS had set tariffs without “reliable evidence” to support estimated training costs.

The NAO said both the SFA and NAS were unable to judge the extent to which providers were generating profits or losses as a result of inaccurate rates.

It also reported that BIS had failed to assess the level of additionality (the extent to which public funding results in training that would not otherwise have occurred) being delivered by the apprenticeship programme.

Finally, it found that a growing number of adult apprenticeships were being delivered in under half a year.

If the upcoming NAO report into apprenticeship reforms criticises the speed of change, it will add weight to the Confederation of British Industry’s (CBI) call for a delay to the implementation of the levy. 

In an exclusive article for FE Week earlier this month, Neil Carberry, the CBI’s director for employment and skills, said the only way to create a system that delivers “three million opportunities – not just three million starts” was by delaying its introduction.

Mr Carberry said: “Enough people within government know what a project timeline in trouble looks like – and the levy system is one of those.

“On the digital service, cross-border issues with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and many more concerns.

“In truth, it is highly unlikely that the structures and rules necessary to make the system work on day one can be delivered effectively on the current timelines,” he said.

Exclusive FE Week research into the apprenticeship reforms revealed on August 19 that proposed funding for 16 to 18 year-old apprentices will result in current rates to colleges and training providers being cut by around 30 per cent, rising to over half for those apprentices living in the most deprived areas of central London.