The shame of an appearance at the local Magistrates’ Court along with a fine would be the future for ‘apprenticeship’ providers who do not have the official seal of approval, under government proposals revealed today.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) has launched its three-week consultation aimed at outlawing use of the term ‘apprenticeship’ or ‘apprentice’ for any course or training in England other than a government-funded apprenticeship.

And the consultation’s accompanying 13-page document (see below right) outlines how punishment for using the term outside of a government-funded apprenticeship was still up for discussion, but it states: “The government expects that the overwhelming majority of training providers will want to comply with new legislation and thus we envisage a light touch approach to enforcement activity.

“However, a deterrent is necessary in case of non-compliance. We propose that the maximum penalty would be a fine following prosecution in the Magistrates’ Court.”

The consultation has already been welcomed within the FE and skills sector by the likes of the Association of Colleges and the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, where a spokesperson said: “The consultation will be welcome and worthwhile if it leads to improvements in the quality of non-regulated provision.”

Courses can currently be marketed as apprenticeships despite either not being funded by the government, or being government-funded under a different programme. Such courses do not have to meet strict rules that apply to government-funded apprenticeships, like a 12-month minimum duration — but the government wants to put an end to this.

BIS has previously given examples of poor provision labelled an apprenticeship despite not being publicly-funded as such. These included where the provider never even visited the learner’s workplace or where the provider refused to hand over candidate applications to employers when they tried to look for an alternative provider.

It is hoped the results of the consultation, which asks for examples of poor fake apprenticeship practice and ends on August 19, will add to the government’s case to give apprenticeships the same legal protection as a degree in the Enterprise Bill — due to come before Parliament in the autumn.

“Government’s high profile commitment to achieve 3m more apprenticeship starts in the Parliament will continue to increase the status and focus on apprenticeships, and the quality that they offer,” it says in the consultation document.

“However, this also increases the risk that a small number of training providers could use the term ‘apprenticeship’ to refer to a course of learning which does not meet these strict quality measures.

“Employers, parents and prospective apprentices could therefore be misled into thinking they were being offered a high quality government-funded apprenticeship, when this is not the case.

“Further, the rights and reputations of training providers who do offer statutory apprenticeships could be undermined.”

The consultation document, entitled Consultation on preventing misuse of the term ‘apprenticeships’ in relation to unauthorised training, goes on to pose four key questions, in addition to providing a further comments section.

The questions are, firstly, are you aware of any instances of the term ‘apprenticeship’ being used to advertise courses other than apprenticeships eligible for government funding? and secondly, if ‘yes’, please provide any additional detail of such instances that might be relevant, particularly if it can help to indicate the scale of the issue.

The third question asks whether there any unintended consequences that may arise as a result of the proposal, while the fourth asks if ‘yes’, please provide details of what unintended consequences there may be.

A government response to the consultation is due within three months of it closing, on August 19. Click here to take part or for more details email apprenticeshipslegislation@bis.gsi.gov.uk or phone 0207 215 1777.

UPDATE: 8.17AM Wednesday, July 29 (see foot of story)

The Skills Funding Agency (SFA) said it has “no timescale” for the return of its monthly provider payment system which this morning remained shut following the end of a planned five-day closure.

The Hub closed on Thursday (July 23) and was due to reopen at 9am today, while the system switched to a new supplier.

But the online data uploading system, which allows providers to submit their Individualised Learner Record data to the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) in order to process payment, was still down this morning as the August 6 deadline for the twelfth monthly data return (RO12) for 2014/15 move ever nearer.

An SFA spokesperson said there were “no timescales yet” as to when the Hub was likely to be up and running again, but that it would post updates on the @sfadata Twitter account and on the SFA-run FE Connect forum.

Normally, providers would have 10 working days to submit their data, but with the closure for maintenance they were due to have seven days.

However, an update posted on FE Connect help forum for providers at 8.09am today revealed plans had been derailed.

The post said: “Following essential maintenance work this weekend, we have been working hard to get all systems back online.”

But, it added, the data collections facility on the Hub, as well as the contracts and finance section and the apprenticeship vacancy website were “currently unavailable” — and the SFA’s data Twitter account @sfadata, revealed the delay was due to testing.

The FE Connect post said: “The testing teams have prioritised data collections so as to minimise the effect on providers, and we still expect this to be the first system to be made live.”The Hub’s closure has already created problems for providers offering the new employer-designed Trailblazer apprenticeships, which had to return their data for the earlier deadline of July 27 — when the Hub was due to be closed, effectively bringing the deadline forward by four days.

---

 

*UPDATE: 8.17AM Wednesday, July 29

A Skills Funding Agency official posted on FE Connect (see below) that the data collections facility in the Hub was operational and that ILR R12 data could therefore be submitted.

The contracts and finance tab and also the apprenticeship vacancies system remain down, however, with still “no ETA,” he later posted, for their return.

“We prioritised the data collections system so as to minimise impact on providers,” wrote the official.

“We are still working on the contracts and finance tab on the Hub and also on the apprenticeship vacancies system.”

At around the same time @sfadata posted a similar message on Twitter (see below), while on the Hub itself an additional message read: “CDS will be also emailing any updated funding statements for 2015 to 2016 to those providers affected”.

 

The House of Lords Committee on Social Mobility wants to hear young people’s experiences of moving between school and employment and has issued a questionnaire to find out more.

The group of peers, chaired by Lady Corston (pictured above — and click here for her exclusive FE Week expert piece), is urging providers to alert learners aged between 14 and 24 to the 18-question survey on their experience of leaving school and the advice and support they were given.

The committee is investigating the transition between school and work and its impact on social mobility.

The questionnaire, launched today, will be open until October 1, is aimed at young people who did not sit A-levels or attend university and is available here.

A House of Lords spokesperson said: “If you are under 16, we want to find out what you are thinking about your future options and the choices you have to prepare for life after school. We want to know what support and advice you have, what guidance you have been given and what you think you need to succeed.

“If you are aged between 16 and 24, we want to know about your experiences in deciding what steps to take after leaving school and how you came to make those decisions.”

The committee is due to report its findings by March 23.

In its third evidence session on Wednesday last week, it heard that the welfare system does not help to get young people back training to improve their skills.

Spencer Thompson, associate director at the Institute for Public Policy Research, told the committee that where many young people tend to get lost in the system in moving from school to work was when they did not claim benefits when they were not in employment, education or training (Neet).

“Around 40 percent of young Neets are not claiming any out of work benefit,” said Mr Thompson.

“That’s not necessarily a problem but it does mean they are not linked in with the systems of support that come with claiming jobseekers’ allowance.”

He argued that more young Neets needed to be brought into the system where they had more access to opportunities for traineeships, apprenticeships, other qualifications or employment.

However, he added: “The current system is not well designed to do that task because it is very much focused on getting someone into a job as quickly as possible.

“It needs to take more of a holistic view of each young person and what they need to move into work, into sustained work — whether that’s basic qualifications or a qualification that is very much linked to a particular career path.”

And Ralph Scott, senior researcher at Demos, warned that their opportunities for receiving training (and therefore progressing in work and being socially mobile) did not always improve once they got a job.

“In terms of short cycle, professional training for adults aged 18 to 65, for post-secondary vocational which can be provided by outside providers, the UK has 7 per cent engaged in this kind of training, the US has 26 per cent and France and Germany have 20 per cent,” he said.

“There’s a well-known phenomenon in the UK — those who are the most skilled within the labour market are those who are improving their skills while those with the least skills are not receiving any training whatsoever.”

To combat this, said Mr Scott, skills needed to improve at a younger age.

One of his key recommendations to the panel was that destination data from schools should really be used “to uphold accountability — as soon as you have something that’s useable and doesn’t unduly punish schools for their context”.

He added:  “The need for non-academic skills to be developed in schools is made evident by how important they are for later life outcomes — not just employability and the labour market but in terms of wellbeing and in terms of mental health.”

Schools should be monitored for the amount of extra-curricular activity — including work experience and contact with employers — they offered students, he said.

Fellow panellist, Centre for Social Justice director of policy Alex Burqhart, said the most important recommendation he had for the panel was “to improve the standard of literacy and numeracy”.

“You have got huge disadvantage, huge underachievement of the poorest,” he said.

“We do know that you can get a job if you have poor literacy and numeracy but your chances of promotion are very much worse  — about 60 or 70 per cent of adults who have poor literacy and numeracy have never been offered a promotion.

“The very best things that could be done is early intervention in this area.”

Mr Thompson on the other hand, recommended action to protect the later stages of the education system.

“The 16 to 19 Department for Education budget should be protected, either along the same lines as the schools’ budget which is being protected in per pupil cash terms, or ideally it would be protected against inflation,” he said.

“I think in the context of very difficult funding environment for FE funding in particular and the importance of 16 to 19 education in employment outcomes, productivity and economic  growth, we’re very much in favour of protecting that budget in the current spending round.”

The committee is next due to meet on Wednesday, October 14, although it is not known who will be appearing to give evidence. Follow the committee on Twitter via the #HLSMC hashtag.

The Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) has warned the government to hold off introducing its apprenticeship levy for “three or fours years”, urging it to build capacity first.

Chancellor George Osborne unveiled his plans at last month’s summer budget. The revenue raised from the large employer payments will go towards funding all post-16 apprenticeships in England.

The government has said it wants to introduce the levy in this Parliament, but is set to launch a consultation on the plans before outlining further details in the Spending Review this autumn.

But the AELP, in a briefing paper published, said a potential start date of 2017/18 would be “too early”.

“We should ensure we take sufficient time to implement this effectively,” the paper read.

“We are also at the start of a challenging growth programme. We believe we should build the capacity of the system over the next three or four years before the levy is introduced.”

A Treasury report said the new scheme would “put control of funding in the hands of employers via the digital voucher scheme to ensure that it delivers the training they need”.

“Crucially, this will enable an increase in the quality of apprenticeships at the same time as an increase in quality.”

The plans have divided opinion in the sector and AELP added: “Our main policy recommendations are based on a principle that we should maximise the choice for learners and employers.

“Although the levy may be a route to raise money in these difficult economic times, there are dangers that in the long term we will create a focus on the financial aspects of the programme and we will not be able to control the quality of a programme where many employers would not have chosen to be involved.

“This is a cultural shift and we should not rush the introduction of the programme.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said they would not comment because the plans are subject to consultation with businesses.

The AELP’s four-page question and answer briefing paper aims to help its apprentice provider members plan future provision.

It states the levy will be based on a percentage of payroll costs, which it believes will be an annual charge.

It adds the current apprenticeship system relies on employers making a huge contribution to the cost of the programme, be it recruitment, induction or training materials.

“Creating a levy charge will mean that the finance directors of large employers will take a much closer interest in the cost of the programmes,” the report adds.

“This could be seen as a positive step forward but there will certainly be questions over employers contributing these essential non cash contributions.”

AELP said the levy could provide an incentive for employers to want to deliver training “in house”, moving away from the requirement to be externally inspected by Ofsted.

“It will be very important to maintain strong controls over this contracting process whilst giving employers control over the decision of who the employer uses to deliver the training.”

An Oldham training provider has rejected accusations from Ofsted that it was taking on apprentices who did not wish to be trained, but were forced onto the programme by employers.

Blue Training UK, previously rated good, was slapped with an inadequate ratings across the headline fields by the education watchdog following a visit last month, with inspectors criticising the provider over low achievement rates and poor teaching learning and assessment.

But the report also highlighted learner attendance on the service enterprise apprenticeship, saying: “A large majority of apprentices are not motivated to complete the programme because they did not have a choice about joining it.”

However, Blue Training head of training Tracy Jones said the company, which she founded along with Phillip Healey, did not accept Ofsted’s grading and said she had not taken Skills Funding Agency (SFA) cash to train learners who did not wish to take part.

She acknowledged some learners on the course had been put forward by their employers, but insisted 500-learner Blue Training had taken steps to ensure the learners weren’t being pushed into it.

“They go through a full induction process — it’s not a blanket thing,” she said.

“And as part of that process, they’re advised about the apprenticeship, they’re told what everything’s about, and we say to them, if you don’t want to do it, you don’t have to.

“This idea they have no choice is not right — there’s no point delivering training to people who don’t want to do it.”

She added apprentices who said they no longer wished to train had been removed from the course in the past.

“We will not train somebody who doesn’t want to be trained and we have pointed out to them if they don’t want to carry on we will stop them immediately,” she said.

She added that the 500-learner provider “would never have been party to” a situation where an employer forced their worker to take on an apprenticeship.

And, she said, even if some learners had told Ofsted they were not enjoying the course were not motivated, feedback from the programme had been “excellent”, and they would have been the minority.

“The word ‘majority’ which Ofsted uses isn’t accurate,” she said, adding she did not believe Ofsted had spoken to enough of the programmes’ learners to be representative.

Ms Jones said the Ofsted result had meant “devastation” for the company, which has been stripped of its £970,000 SFA contract.

“This Ofsted visit was completely different to any other Ofsted visit we’ve ever experienced,” she said. “It was like they came in with an agenda.”

She added: “We do not agree with the result.”

However, she said the company, which was set up in 2003, would not be appealing against the judgement.

“Our priority is to ensure learners have a smooth transition to another provider — that’s the most important thing to us now.”

An SFA spokesperson said the agency had notified Blue Training of its intention to terminate the contract.

“We will be working with employers and their learners to transfer those learners that wish to continue with their apprenticeship to other training providers,” she said.

“This is to ensure continuity of training for learners and employers and to minimise any disruptions.”

Ofsted declined to respond to Ms Jones’s comments.

New scorecards that rate local authorities for their performance in helping young people into employment or training and tracking their status have been welcomed amid a renewed call for careers guidance improvements.

The scorecards allows users to compare their local authority against national statistics, which show that across England, 4.7 per cent of 16 to 17-year-olds were considered as not in education, employment or training (Neet) and 91 per cent were accounted for by their local authority.

The scorecards show the percentage of 16 to 19-year-olds in the area who are not in employment, education or training (Neet), the percentage participating in education or training, and the percentage of the group whose activity was known to the local authority.

It will also show whether the percentage in each group has risen or fallen since the previous year, and how they compare to the national average.

Gill Clipson, deputy chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said: “Colleges work closely with local councils to ensure they provide places on courses for all young people, who must now stay in education and training until they are 18.

“A scorecard system would allow councils to monitor how they are progressing in tackling the issue of 16 to 18-year-olds who are Neet and inform the council of whether improvements need to be made to its work.

“We need a careers advice and guidance system, fully supported by the local council as well as others, to ensure that young people are made aware of all their options post-GCSE and are supported into choosing which one best suits them.

“If young people are selecting the right course which builds on their interests and chosen career path, they are much more likely to complete the course.”

Association of Employment and Learning Providers chief executive Stewart Segal said the scorecards, which will be published every July, would be a “valuable tool” in comparing councils’ efforts to keep 16 to 19-year-olds in education or training, or get them work.

Mr Segal said: “The benchmarking system is a valuable tool for local authorities and providers to review the reasons behind why there are more apprenticeships in some localities than others.

“It will also show how effective local authorities are in tracking their young people — this will be important as the age of participation rises this year and it will be equally important that young people are given the chance to take advantage of all available opportunities and not just staying on at school.”

The first set of data, following a six-month trial, is available from the Department for Education website now.

It comes with government data published yesterday having indicated that as of March, the percentage of 16 and 17-year-olds in education or employment in England stood at 94.4 per cent, up from 94 per cent in 2014 and 88.9 per cent in 2013.

Skills Minister Nick Boles (pictured left) said: “With recent figures showing record lows in the number of young people not in education, employment or training, it is clear that our economic plan is working.

“But we know there is more to do, and the annual Neet scorecards will prove a highly effective tool in delivering our commitment to helping young people reach their potential.

The news comes seven months after the Public Accounts Committee report found some councils were unaware of the employment status of as many as 20 per cent of their 16 to 19-year-olds.

But the Local Government Association (LGA) has warned that reduced powers for councils could mean a scorecard based on their performance might not be useful and suggested basing it on government-commissioned schemes instead.

Coun Nick Forbes, vice chair of the LGA’s children and young people board, said: “Neet scorecards, if published, would need to be broken down by government-commissioned schemes rather than by council area, if we are to see a true picture of performance.

“While councils have reduced 16 to 18-year-old disengagement over the last 15 years to 7.1 per cent, they have had their powers to carry out vital services such as careers advice, national engagement programmes and further education steadily removed, meaning that many will not necessarily be running their local area’s employment scheme.”

He pointed to an LGA survey which revealed four-fifths of councils believed greater devolution would enable them to further reduce youth disengagement and nine in ten felt they could deliver better value for money if resources went directly to local areas.

“Government has a real opportunity to build on recent successes and meet its ambition of full employment by enabling local partnerships of councils, schools, colleges, jobcentres and employers to locally coordinate a single youth offer,” added Coun Forbes.

“This would ensure that every young person is either working or learning.”

 

The Skills Funding Agency (SFA) is subject to an “efficiency and effectiveness” review that is looking at all bodies funded by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), FE Week understands.

It was this afternoon reported by the Guardian that consultancy McKinsey had been commissioned by Business Secretary Sajid Javid (pictured above) to undertake the review.

McKinsey declined to comment. A spokesperson told FE Week that it did not issue statements “on client work we do”.

It was reported that the “efficiency and effectiveness review” would affect all BIS-funded bodies — thereby including the SFA, which is yet to comment.

The Guardian article was written by James Wilsdon, professor of science and democracy in the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at the University of Sussex. He recently chaired an independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management on behalf of the Higher Education Funding Council for England and BIS.

He wrote: “This review, details of which have not been publicly announced, is clearly intended to shape BIS’s spending review submission to HM Treasury. Sajid Javid was apparently dismayed by the number of bodies that BIS is funding, so turned to McKinsey, which prides itself on a radical approach to cost cutting.”

He said BIS declined to comment for the Guardian. It is yet to respond to FE Week.