The Sunday Times Festival of Education has confirmed FE Week and FE Week as a 2015 media partner.

The annual festival will be taking place on June 18 and 19 at Berkshire-based Wellington College and more than 100 speakers from across the world of education and training and beyond have already been confirmed.

After being confirmed as a 2015 media partner, managing director of FE Week and FE Week publishers, Lsect, Shane Mann said he planned to ensure that this year’s event would be more FE and skills orientated than ever before.

He said: “I am delighted that both FE Week and FE Week will play a key role in the development of content this year.

“Last year was the first year that the festival had organised a large FE and skills section to the agenda.

“There was lots of great content and well attended sessions thanks to the efforts of the festival organisers and partners the Association of Colleges. My hope is that with FE Week’s involvement, we can help to ensure that there is even more FE and skills content this year.

“The festival is a fantastic opportunity for all involved in the FE and Skills sector to come together, share and learn. This will be my third festival and it is an event which astounds me every year, so to be part of its development is very exciting.”

The festival is one of the largest, most respected forums for thought leadership, innovations and developments in the field of education, attracting education’s most forward thinking innovators, influencers, practitioners of change, politicians, journalists, business leaders and policy makers.

Speakers at this year’s festival will include professor of psychology at Stanford University and author Carol Dweck, associate professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and a leading advocate of character-based learning Angela Duckworth, and FE Week editor and respected education blogger Laura McInerney.

Director general of MI5 from 1992 to 1996 Stella Rimington, writer, philosopher and television presenter Alain de Botton, gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, and rock musician, author and historian Julian Cope will also be speaking.

Louise Hunter, co-director of the festival, said: “This partnership places FE Week and FE Week in a key position to work with us to develop the content for this year’s festival and we are excited to be working with Shane [Mann] and the team. 

“The response to the festival year-on-year has been fantastic and we are committed to continuing to develop and grow the festival as a rich source of continuing professional development, innovation, inspiration and growth for everyone in education.”

Information on special festival rates for FE Week and FE Week subscribers will be announced soon.

Visit www.festivalofeducation.com or follow @EducationFest for further information on the festival.

UPDATE – Monday, January 19, 2015

A drawn-out strike could be averted and one of the most long running FE employment disputes in recent memory brought to a close as union members consider an offer made by Lambeth College.

University and College Union (UCU) members at the London college walked out indefinitely today, but the row over contracts for new staff members could be over by the end of the week.

Members are due to meet on Wednesday at 4pm and UCU has urged them to vote to accept new proposals put forward by the college.

The row centres on contracts for new staff, which unions say would leave them with longer working hours, fewer holidays and lower sick pay.

In discussions last week the college offered to guarantee that existing staff would not be made to change to the new contract, even if they wanted to change their hours, as well as improving sick pay for the first year.

If UCU members accept the vote, they will return to work on Thursday.

UCU regional official Una O’Brien said: “Nobody wants to be on strike, but our members have been clear from the outset at how unhappy they were with the original contracts.

“We are pleased that there have been further improvements and we are recommending that members vote to accept the new deal when they meet on Wednesday.”

Today’s strike is the culmination of a series of escalating strikes throughout December and January.

It is the second indefinite strike in less than a year after UCU members walked out for five weeks in June, returning just before the summer holidays.

Lambeth principal Mark Silverman: “We welcome the recommendation from the regional team that the proposals should be accepted and the dispute ended.

“We have always been open to a reasonable resolution to the dispute which supports the improvement of teaching and learning, and assures our financial position. That is what the ‘new’ contract has always aimed to achieve.

“The college remains open to all learners and staff, with lessons continuing, and hopefully we can resolve this dispute imminently.”

______________________________________________________

Lambeth College staff look set for their second indefinite strike over new contracts in less than a year — this time with the backing of a group of MPs who accused college management of “provoking” the dispute.

University and College Union (UCU) members at the college have taken part in a series of escalating strikes since early last month, due to culminate today (January 19) with open-ended industrial action.

Staff had walked out for five weeks in June, calling off their indefinite strike just before the start of the summer holidays.

They claim new contracts will leave colleagues with longer working hours and less annual leave and sick pay.

And they have won the support of Labour MPs who put their name to an Early Day Motion (EDM) in the House of Commons that claims college management “provoked” the dispute with the new terms.

Principal Mark Silverman has said the new contract, introduced from April 1, was “in line with sector norms”. He said they were part of the college’s recovery plan following financial deficits of £4.1m in 2012/13 and £3.5m last year.

However, the cause of the striking staff has drawn support from Labour MP John McDonnell, whose EDM calls on the college to “resolve” the dispute to “avoid jeopardising its current Ofsted status”. At the time of going to press, four other Labour MPs had signed the EDM.

“Staff are adamant they will not accept the management’s disgraceful attack on staffing provisions and their employment conditions,” he told FE Week.

However, the college said it had put a proposal to resolve to dispute to the union and Mr Silverman — who described the EDM as a “very one-sided view” — said the college and the union had been in discussions.

“In these meetings we did discuss a proposal for resolving this dispute,” he said.

“If existing staff want to reduce their hours a bit, without going on to the new contract,  in order to resolve this dispute we could allow that as well, and minor changes to the first year of sick pay.”

UCU regional official, Una O’Brien, said: “We remain committed to resolving the dispute. However, as things stand, we are still set for indefinite walkout.”

Mr Silverman said the college had managed to stay “up and running” during the recent strikes and would “remain open for students”.

“We will continue making sure that learners are not damaged and hopefully we can resolve this dispute — which has been and is very distracting — soon,” he said.

“I hope UCU will recognise it is in everybody’s interest to draw a line under this and try to move on.”

Gazelle chief executive Fintan Donohue has said that it’s for to colleges to decide if his organisation delivered value for money as he unveiled an impact report containing no assessment of how it had spent £3.5m-plus of public funds.

The former North Hertfordshire College principal spoke exclusively to FE Week about the positive Gazelle-commissioned report and said colleges’ ongoing membership showed they thought there was sufficient return on their taxpayers’ investment.

In a frank interview that touched upon his future plans for the organisation, he sought to address the report’s omissions of public spending issues and also Ofsted grades as he conceded that there wasn’t a “direct correlation between an Ofsted grade and Gazelle membership”.

However, the report has already been attacked by the University and College Union (UCU), which said it “fails to detail how a college might benefit from being a member and there is no proper evidence of why being a Gazelle member might represent good value for money”.

The Policy Consortium, which helped to conduct and analyse an FE Week FE & Skills survey last year, was commissioned by Gazelle to produce the 24-page Gazelle Impact Report: December 2014.

It concludes that Gazelle has “had a significantly positive impact on its member colleges and on the wider sector,” having assessed the organisation under the five themes of impact on the sector, on colleges, on learners, structure, and communications.

The organisation claims to “develop innovative new learning models and new partnerships with business to deliver an improved outcome for students, their communities and the economy” — but the report does not consider whether that impact was worth the £3.5m-plus it collected in public finances from colleges through set-up, membership and other fees since 2012.

“The difficulty with the concept of saying Gazelle has had this money is to suggest that there is an organisation that gets this money and does what it likes with it,” said Mr Donohue.

“The Gazelle membership group determines its priorities, it determines its expenditure, it evaluates its own impact, it decides what it wants to spend that money on, and it determines whether it has been a value for money return or not.”

The report covers the issue of the five colleges to have left Gazelle — the most recent of which was Lewisham Southwark College — saying that former members remained “positive about the value provided by Gazelle”.

It says that the departures were “not a criticism of their experience to date but a recognition that, in the present economic climate, a £30K investment requires tougher scrutiny and an appraisal of alternative returns on that investment.”

Mr Donohue said: “The report seems to suggest that, in terms of the sector as a whole and across the college members, Gazelle has had a significant impact.

“Our judgement would be similar to that of the Gazelle impact report — that we have been honest in our endeavour; we have set out to do something very positive, our absolute total commitment is to continue to do that, and it’s up to others to make their judgement as to whether they think Gazelle has delivered a good enough return or not.

“And I, having lived with it for three or four years, have got to stand by and ask if I have put enough energy and effort into doing the best possible job with it, and I believe I have.”

Criticism of Gazelle and the amount of public money it has received emerged last year after an FE Week investigation found that its five founding colleges dished out more than £530,000 each to Gazelle, according to figures obtained from Freedom of Information Act.

More than 20 current and former member colleges were asked what they had spent on the organisation, with standard annual membership priced at £35,000.

“I don’t think you can set out to say what did this penny buy, what did this penny buy and what did this penny buy, what you do get in this impact report was that here’s a group of colleges who chose to share investment they would have made in those activities in any case, and the evidence would suggest it’s had a positive impact, both for the colleges and for the sector as a whole by doing it that way, “said Mr Donohue.

“And I’m fairly certain that the Gazelle Impact Report suggests that, by spending it collaboratively, we have had more impact.”

However, the Policy Consortium report also makes no mention of Ofsted grades of which, taking into account most recent inspection reports versus those immediately prior to membership, four resulted in no change to grades. A further four did result in overall grades going up, and by a total of four grades — but four also resulted in overall grades going down, and by a total of eight grades. The picture for teaching and learning was largely the same [click here for FE Week analysis of Ofsted grades and Gazelle membership].

Gazelle, looking at colleges inspected while members and taking into consideration recent departures, has been left with five colleges rated overall as good and four as ‘requires improvement’.

Nevertheless, the impact report says: “The Policy Consortium’s overall conclusion is that Gazelle has a good story to tell and individual Gazelle colleges have some solid achievements that deserve more widespread recognition.

“These include the development of new and exciting approaches to teaching and learning in individual institutions, and an increase in the reputation of the sector nationally in relation to an emerging policy focus on enterprise and entrepreneurship.

“Gazelle also deserves credit for demonstrating a sector-led approach to curriculum and leadership development.”

However, UCU head of FE Andrew Harden attacked the report. He said: “If this report is supposed to be a defence of the Gazelle Group, its work and its value then it fails to make a convincing case.”

He added: “It fails to detail how a college might benefit from being a member and there is no proper evidence of why being a Gazelle member might represent good value for money.

“There is no evidence Gazelle membership enhances Ofsted or exam results, nor is there any way of determining if the thousands spent on Gazelle membership is good for the college.”

Mr Donohue said: “A number of Gazelle colleges, in their Ofsted reports, have been highly commended for some of the stuff that Gazelle is doing, and I wouldn’t want that to get lost in the fact that there isn’t a direct correlation between an Ofsted grade and Gazelle membership.

“What it isn’t fair to say is, for example, that all the stuff that we’re doing with Gazelle hasn’t impacted on students, on staff and teaching and learning, and that that’s not reflected in a number of the Ofsted reports.”

He added: “It would be a very serious mistake to suggest that being part of Gazelle hasn’t improved teaching and learning, or hasn’t actually enhanced student experience, or doesn’t lead to a more positive Ofsted report, because many of the colleges that have excellent Ofsted reports would actually say it has, and the Ofsted reports would be very clear on that in terms of their comment.

“If you want to say there isn’t a consistent impact of Gazelle membership across the board on teaching and learning, across all the colleges, I would say that’s absolutely right.”

 

Gazelle chief executive Fintan Donohue speaks to FE Week editor Chris Henwood

What do you take from the impact report? 

It reinforces the impact that Gazelle has had on the sector as a whole and on the colleges that we’ve been working with over the last three years. Gazelle colleges themselves who have received the report view it very positively. I think it makes it very clear that we have made significant in-roads to innovation in the sector. We have I think created a significant agenda around enterprise and entrepreneurship that didn’t exist before we started.

Is the report telling you anything that you didn’t already know?

It highlights areas around our communication, our structure, our clarity that we need to improve, and it also highlights the fact that our sector is changing, and with it, we need to be ever more relevant to that sector, particularly with its funding crisis and so on. That’s very helpful as well because it tells us we can’t stand still, we need to continue to evolve — and I think that is an important message for us to take on board.

Given there’s no mention of Ofsted or value for money in relation to membership of Gazelle, how would you answer the criticism that this report is just glossy marketing? 

This report is a very clear statement from Gazelle that it is very open to investigative research done by a wholly independent organisation into its impact, its approach, its value for members. It’s directly the opposite to glossy production. It’s fairly balanced. It’s very clear about the areas we need to improve upon.

How much did the report cost to commission?

That’s a commercial and confidential issue for the people who provided the report. It’s not something that I can give, but what I can say is that I think that it was necessary, having done an impact report ourselves in the previous year, to commission an independent report that could provide a higher level of objectivity about what Gazelle has been about.

How do you feel about the fact Gazelle recently lost five of its 23 member colleges?

That is a function particularly of financial/funding issues, and I think it’s a function of the fact that the discretionary spend of colleges is becoming more contracted, and our colleges have got to think very clearly about what they can spend and how they can spend it.

And I believe that, if we go the way we want to go, which is to become essentially an organisation which helps colleges to grow new income, to develop new products, to distinguish their curriculum offer, other colleges will want to join with us in different ways, but I wouldn’t rule out the fact that in these times, and in these difficulties, colleges will have to make those decisions.

Are you looking to expand Gazelle?

Colleges need to be very clear that their strategy is consistent with what Gazelle is trying to achieve. If a college came to Gazelle now and said, “We think that we very much want to embrace a strategic approach to putting enterprise and entrepreneurship more centrally as a plan for development in our college,” we would be very open to talking to them.

We have never sought, we have never recruited colleges, we have no expansion plans – we never have had. I’ve never actually gone out at any point ever and looked for college members.

Exclusive online additional content…

The report outlines areas for improvement — things that weren’t right on your watch. Do you therefore have any plans to step aside?

The indications from the members of Gazelle, both the founder members and the wider membership, are they appear to place significant value on my membership. I, certainly in relation to the FE sector and Gazelle colleges, believe I’ve still got significant experience and value to offer in trying to help colleges cope with what I think is going to be a very difficult period.

But I am very clear that remit would be focused wholly on the FE colleges side, and I wouldn’t have an involvement in the commercial side of the organisation as it develops, I am much more on the not-for-profit further education improvement side, and I would expect to continue to have a leadership role, and that should be for the next few years.

How would you answer the criticism that Gazelle language, in terms of the phraseology in its reports, such as ecosystems and T-shaped learners can be alienating?

Frequently, the language around entrepreneurship doesn’t connect well enough with the student, and maybe even the teacher, and we have got to simplify that, and make it much more accessible to students and to teachers, and we need to do that. We have to do that. We have to take that on board and we have to try to reach all areas by adapting and changing language, and perhaps more importantly getting students and teachers to help to write and work with us to get that right.

Gazelle’s founder colleges were hoping it would have a commercial arm eventually, with a view to getting a return of their investment. What is happening with that?

We took a very sanguine view, which was if we can develop some good things — it could be around leadership, it could be around design, it could be around curriculum — wouldn’t it be great if we could essentially develop those and sell them on so that we could actually get money back in and reinvest. And that’s still very much an aspiration. It’s very much an aspiration to say, “How could we do that professionally?”

I think what the Gazelle Impact Report makes clear – which we fully accept and recommend – is that those two strands need to be wholly separate. You cannot really miss the two, and that’s why essentially we are very clear that I work on the not-for-profit Gazelle College Group agenda, and any future commercial development of those products and services actually becomes very distinctive and very clear.

Do you think you might be bringing the £35k fee down?

I don’t think that’s what the vast majority of members want. What you’ve got to ask is, “What value can you deliver?” You know, you can’t research, develop and connect as well if you’ve got fewer resources. You can’t do as much with the students, or you can’t maybe run as many training and development events for your staff.

 

Report claims it’s ‘too early to tell’ if Gazelle is worth it

The Gazelle impact report assesses the organisation under five themes — the impact on the sector, its member colleges and learners, structure of Gazelle and communications.

Further sections offer an executive summary conclusions and recommendations, bibliography and organisations interviewed.

While it contains much praise for Gazelle, it does also criticise the organisation, identifying “issues concerning the structure, strategy and purpose of Gazelle”.

However, it does not consider whether Gazelle has delivered value for public money nor the effect of membership on Ofsted grades, claiming “there is a valid ‘too early to tell’ argument”.

It adds that member colleges are “all at different stages on the journey and are moving at different speeds”.

It has led to criticism from University and College Union head of FE Andrew Harden that, ‘”the report simply lists excuses why Gazelle cannot and should not be properly judged”.

He said: “Saying Gazelle is a young organisation is no excuse. Five colleges have already decided to end their “journey”.

“The remaining Gazelle colleges need to explain why they continue to pump thousands of pounds of public funds into a group that opts for buzzwords and excuses ahead of any kind of proper audit.”

Mick Fletcher, a member of the Policy Consortium, which published the report, said: “An overall value for money analysis would not be valid, nor practicable, since different funders have put differing amounts in and got different things out each case would need to be treated separately.

“Many things affect Ofsted gradings and separating out the impact of Gazelle membership from everything else going on in individual colleges would be a very big piece of work beyond the scope of this study.”

 

An online conman who sold fake City & Guilds and OCR certificates from his Darlington cul-de-sac home has been sentenced 80 hours of unpaid work.

Edexcel, AQA and Ofqual logos were also used by Martin Bowman as he produced the counterfeit paperwork.

However, Darlington Magistrates’ Court heard that most of his customers asked for refunds because the certificates were of such poor quality.

The 26-year-old, who has moved to Gosforth since the crimes, was sentenced at Darlington Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday (January 14) to 80 hours of unpaid work and ordered to pay costs of £567.97, including a £60 victim surcharge. He had, at an earlier hearing, admitted two counts of selling goods with a sign which was likely to be mistaken for a registered trademark.

Andrew Swan, defending, said there was a statement on the website that the certificates were for novelty use.

Most of the certificates were for GCSEs and A-levels, and an Ofqual spokesperson said it acted after discovering Bowman’s website, www.fakequalifications.co.uk. She said: “Ofqual discovered this website and investigated. We monitored conversations online and purchased a number of certificates. We also discovered the address linked to the website and referred the matter to Trading Standards officers at Darlington Council.”

Michelle Meadows, executive director for strategy, risk and research at Ofqual, said: “Fake certificates for qualifications will not be tolerated and we have ensured that the website no longer provides these. We want people to feel secure in the knowledge that a qualification accredited by Ofqual is valid.”

Alison Lewis, AQA’s director of quality and customer standards, said: “Selling or using fake certificates is unacceptable. Students work hard to gain their qualifications and we want them to feel secure that their certificates will be highly valued by universities and employers.

“There are security features on all AQA certificates and if any employer has a concern about an AQA certificate they can phone us to check it is valid.”

City & Guilds PR officer Wendy Anstead said: “City & Guilds was aware of the qualification forgery, and we’ve been assisting the investigation.”

A spokesperson Pearson, which owns Edexcel, said: “The integrity of our qualifications is of paramount importance to us and we welcome the news that this issue has now been brought to a close. We take the security of our qualification certificates very seriously and have measures in place to protect against fraud. For example, our certificates are printed on customised, tamper-proof paper with inbuilt security features both visible and invisible to the naked eye.”

Chris McEwan, Darlington Council’s cabinet member for economy and regeneration, said: “The jobs market is tough and it may be tempting to make false claims but anyone using a fake qualification certificate to get a job will be found out and ruin their employment chances.” He added: “Qualification claims should always be verified.”

OCR declined to comment.

A third general FE college is set to take over a school whose academy chain sponsor has been hit with two financial notices to improve (FNTI) by the Education Funding Agency (EFA) since 2013.

South Gloucestershire and Stroud College (SGS) has announced it will become the new sponsor of Forest Academy, formerly Heywood Community School, in Cinderford in the Forest of Dean from March.

The school, given a grade three “requires improvement” rating by Ofsted following inspection in May 2013, is currently sponsored by E-Act (formerly EduTrust Academies Charitable Trust), which controlled more than 30 schools before the Department for Education asked it to scale down last year after Ofsted inspectors raised concerns about the performance of a number of the chain’s academies.

The school, which converted to academy status in 2012, is the ninth to be given up by E-Act in response and the fourth taken on by a general FE college — Lincoln College Academy Trust took on Trent Valley Academy in May and renamed it The Gainsborough Academy, and three months later Leeds East Academy and Leeds West Academy were both transferred to the White Rose Academies Trust, which was set up by Leeds City College.

E-Act will be left with just over 20 academies under its sponsorship following Forest Academy’s move to SGS, whose principal, Kevin Hamblin, said: ‘The town of Cinderford needs a strong, successful and vibrant secondary school. Currently, the school faces challenges to improve the academic performance at GCSE level and also to capitalise on the growth opportunities available.

“SGS will be able to provide considerable support to the school and we will be working with staff, parents and pupils to relaunch the school from September 2015.

“We are developing a brand new enhanced curriculum with an extensive vocational offer and with immediate effect we will provide additional classroom support for all students and a comprehensive enrichment programme.

“We want to provide an environment that inspires learners and we have already submitted a bid for £4m of new investment to build a state-of-the-art teaching block and put investment in the quality of the existing teaching facilities.

“The outcome of this bid will be known in May 2015. SGS Governors will meet to formally review the due diligence report in late January, prior to a formal transfer on March 1st. Until then, E-ACT have agreed that SGS can operate as the sponsor under licence from the date of ministerial approval.”

The school is reported to have known about the possibility of the transfer since February last year, when its headteacher Tanya Prosser confirmed to The Guardian that she had been contacted by E-Act about the future of its dealings with SGS.

Neill Ricketts, chair of Forest Academy, said: “Forest Academy is excited about the prospect of working with SGS. It has the capacity and expertise to really transform the school. A local sponsor will be able to work a lot closer with the school, and our pupils can access learning resources, expert teaching and support staff.”

The move comes after Bedford College was asked by former Education Secretary Michael Gove last year to step in and take over the inadequate-rated Central Bedfordshire UTC, and after The Manchester College took on London’s £17m prison education contract following the withdrawal of welfare-to-work firm A4e.

In September last year, FE Week sister newspaper FE Week reported how a second FNTI letter has been sent to E-Act. The second FNTI required E-ACT to pay back an undisclosed advance of funding that the trust received from the government in May. It also required E-ACT to complete “satisfactory resolution of all outstanding redundancy claims”, and a number of previously set conditions.

It had first been put on FNTI by the EFA in March 2013 after “significant weaknesses” in financial management were identified.

At the time a spokesperson for E-Act said: “E-Act continues to work closely with the EFA to address the points raised in it initial report. The significant changes we have made to our governance, operations and financial management have positioned E-Act to fulfil our goal of transforming the lives of each of the 14,500 young people in our care. We look forward to receiving a clean bill of health from the EFA.”

The DfE is yet to comment.

Skills Funding Agency (SFA) director Keith Smith (pictured) has apologised to providers about a shock clawback warning that caused “sleepless nights” among sector staff, FE Week can reveal.

More than 700 providers were contacted by Una Bennett, deputy director for funding systems for the SFA, before Christmas with warning that they would have to repay against “provision that has been incorrectly claimed”.

It provoked an outraged response on the SFA’s Feconnect online forum, where a number of users complained that the correspondence was sent after the SFA’s own auditors signed-off provider accounts last autumn and did not specify how much needed to be repaid.

But an emailed apology to providers from funding and programmes director Mr Smith has since been sent and, like the original email, leaked to FE Week.

It stated: “We are sorry that within this [Ms Bennett’s] letter, issued so close to the Christmas break, the issue of recovery of funds was raised. This was premature since the main issue we wanted to highlight was the importance of accurate data.

“We were not clear that this is about establishing if your data was accurate and not about recovery of funds.

“The letter was intended to give you advance notice of the possible data coding errors.”

The email also identified mistakes that could have been made with ILRs, including the minimum length of 16 to 18 and 19+ apprenticeships and eligibility for 24+ advanced learning loans.

It asked providers to take these into account when double-checking their ILR data and to tell the SFA themselves before the end of January if they needed to make any repayments.

The latest email saw the SFA come under fire once more on Feconnect, where one user complained that she had suffered “sleepless nights” by the initial email over what was likely to turn out to be just a £150 discrepancy on her original ILR claim.

Julian Gravatt, assistant chief executive at the Association of Colleges, said: “It’s important that data errors are corrected but it was wrong to introduce a new over-claim process five months after the year end.

“It is good that the SFA has adjusted its approach and is providing colleges with a chance to discuss the evidence so that a sensible decision can be reached about the final funding amount.”

Stewart Segal, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said: “We recognise that error reports through the year should have picked up issues to be addressed but equally in our view, there have been data collection problems and therefore it’s right that individual providers should have the opportunity to discuss matters fully with the SFA.”

Dr Lynne Sedgmore, 157 Group executive director, said: “We are pleased the SFA has acted swiftly in contacting providers and allaying some of the fears the original communication will no doubt have provoked.

“We will be looking to address some of the lessons to be learned from this episode with the SFA over the coming weeks and it is a good sign that they are now seeking active provider engagement in resolving any outstanding issues.”

The SFA declined to comment.

Do you know how much you have to pay back? Email news@feweek.co.uk to tell an FE Week reporter.

The Prime Minister reached new heights when he visited a Nottingham provider to find out more about apprenticeships, writes Rebecca Cooney.

David Cameron took a tour of Skills Funding Agency-registered East Midlands Roofing College and tried roofing for himself.

And he wasn’t slated for his efforts either — 26-year-old former apprentice Linden Blackwood said: “He was actually quite good, so I told him he could start on Monday. He said it was nice to know he had options.”

Mr Blackwood said Mr Cameron had been keen to hear about his experience. “I told him how, without an apprenticeship, I’d either still be hunched over a book studying something I hate or in a dead-end job,” he said.

Main Pic: former roofing apprentice Linden Blackwood shows Prime Minister David Cameron how to lay a roof.  

Skills Minister Nick Boles denied apprenticeship reforms had been “kicked into the long grass” after the government went back to the drawing board with plans to route funding through employers.

Mr Boles was quizzed by MPs on the House of Commons Education Select Committee on Wednesday (January 14) — the day after the government said more research was needed on its proposals to route apprenticeship funding via employers either through the PAYE system or a credit account.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said it would be holding “discussions and workshops with key stakeholders” rather than a third formal consultation on reforms.

And, although Mr Boles admitted this would mean a delay until after the election, he denied the reforms were indefinitely on hold.

“You will be aware that we are running into the buffers somewhat in terms of the election. It is definitely not long grass,” he told MPs

“My personal ambition is to make it as short grass as possible but I make no promises about whether we’ll be able to make the chair’s [Graham Stuart] request of getting a solution announced by May 8.”

He also claimed the initial proposals, drawn by predecessor Matthew Hancock, had not been fully formed.

He said: “You’ll understand if we do more homework. Bluntly, we don’t want to go off half-cock [sic] again, because frankly it’s not been ideal to come forward with two proposals and then decide not to go ahead with either of them.”

His concession came after a three-month technical consultation on the proposals from March attracted 1,459 responses, and an earlier consultation that uncovered wide-spread opposition to employer-routed funding in 2013.

However, Mr Boles emphasised that he still wanted employers to contribute to training costs.

Teresa Frith, AoC senior skills policy manager, said: “We are pleased to hear the Minister has reiterated the message from his consultation response earlier this week that he plans to take his time and get these reforms right. There are big changes ahead for apprenticeships and these need to be made in a controlled way.”

Stewart Segal, Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) chief executive said: “We are very pleased that Mr Boles has listened to our submissions, and his honest admission to MPs about the weakness of the original funding reform models confirms our view that policy was not constructed on evidence properly gathered from employers of all sizes and learners.”

The pushing back of the reform agenda was further welcomed by organisations across the FE and business sectors, including the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (Niace), Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and Federation of Small Businesses (FSB).

Niace chief executive David Hughes said: “It is complex to get this right though and I am pleased with the caution about how quickly a simple system can be established.”

Neil Carberry, CBI director for employment and skills, said: “Government and businesses need to get their heads together to hammer out how the system will work. We need as many companies as possible to be offering apprenticeships, but that can only happen if the system is simple and flexible enough to meet the needs of smaller businesses.”

Mike Cherry, FSB policy chairman, said: “Successful businesses spend money on training and recognise that apprenticeships are a smart investment. But to feel confident in that outlay, businesses must have trust in the apprenticeship framework. This is why we are pleased that the government is taking the time to get this right, including the decision not to adopt a PAYE-based funding model.”

College finance directors have been targeted in a bailiff scam involving a chilling “long series” of phonecalls with the con artists themselves.

Staff in 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 this month.

So far, FE Week understands, no college has fallen for the scam.

However, it is thought that the fraudsters are employing 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 is meant to be owed.

A man calling himself Brian Hall contacts the college, claiming he was a bailiff coming to collect £7,000 — £3,995 of which the college owes to fictional company Studio Media and £3,000 owed in court costs over the debt.

When the college says it has no idea about the case, the man offers to help them gain a temporary court order while the issue is resolved, giving a phone number he claims is for Northampton County Court’s bailiff department.

Stewart Cross, vice principal for finance at College of Haringey, Enfield and North East London, which was targeted on January 6, said: “He was very plausible. He put a lot of pressure on and it was quite a long series of conversations.”

Michael Johnson, vice principal for finance at City of Southampton College, which was contacted on the same day, said: “He bombarded us with calls suggesting he was getting closer and closer to the college — but he was very pleasant. He tells you he’s giving you a direct number that’s not on the website to help you avoid getting stuck in a queue.”

The person who answers the phone, introducing himself as Simon, says he can grant a temporary order — if the college transfers the original £3,995 debt to a holding account while the case was be re-examined.

The Association of Colleges (AoC) and also Action Fraud — a national fraud helpline operated by the City Of London Police force — have issued warnings.

An AoC spokesperson said: “We are aware that eight college finance directors have received a phone call from the same person about the same debt at Northampton County Court. Colleges have reported the matter to the police which is the right thing to do if there is any suspicion of fraud.”

Pauline Smith, head of Action Fraud, said colleges should phone Action Fraud on 0300 123 2040 if they are targeted.