A troubled provider which has been struggling to get courses certificated has been approved by a new awarding body to support 500 of the more than 30,000 paying learners affected.

As reported last week, the awarding organisation (AO) NCFE stopped certificating Rotherham-based provider My Distance Learning College (MDLC) claiming it had around £20,000 of “outstanding invoices owing”.

Similarly, the Cache (Council for Awards in Care, Health and Education) AO also withdrew approved status because, it claimed, the provider had been re-selling its qualifications through other firms without permission.

But FE Week can reveal that Training Qualifications UK (TQUK) has today approved MDLC as a provider for its  level three qualification and credit framework (QCF) award and certificate in supporting teaching and learning in schools.

MDLC director Joshua Cole, who disputes the claims made by NCFE and Cache, said this meant that more than 500 students currently awaiting certification from NCFE for equivalent courses could now be certificated by TQUK for no extra charge.

An MDLC spokesperson said: “We are able to announce that we have been approved by one of the most progressive and credible awarding organisations in the UK.

“TQUK is one of only a handful of awarding organisations that have got through the updated (and, arguably, the toughest) Ofqual approval processes in the last couple of years.

“TQUK will pick up and certificate any successful learners on the supporting teaching and learning award and certificate programs that may have fallen into the gap left by NCFEs untimely withdrawal of support, and will take up any slack affected by the fallout.”

TQUK became an approved AO in September 2013 and currently has 74 qualification on the Ofqual register.

The Manchester-based awarding body announced in April that South Cheshire College had become the first FE college to become a TQUK-approved centre, after registering learners for its level three award in education and training.

This came a month after TQUK announced that Richard Dorrance (pictured), former chief executive of Cache and acting chief executive of the Schools Examination and Assessment Council (the precursor of Ofqual), had been appointed as chair of its governing board.

A spokesperson for TQUK said: “TQUK has, this morning, approved MDLC as a centre. MDLC has completed the centre approval process which all of our centres go through.

“This involves extensive checks on the processes and procedures that are in place at the centre and pays particular attention to the quality assurance arrangements.

“We are absolutely confident in the centre’s ability and commitment to providing these qualifications in line with our requirements and will continue, as we do with all of our centres, to monitor this.”

She added TQUK was fully aware of MDLC’s dispute with NCFE and Cache.

She said: “We spoke to both awarding organisations about their concerns and they confirmed to us that the issues were not around quality of provision or integrity of assessment for QCF qualifications.

“We now have arrangements in place to manage our own working relationship with the centre moving forwards.

“Most important to us is that we are able to play a part in providing certification for candidates where their hard work and dedication has earned it.”

She added the awarding body would not be endorsing any other MDLC courses.

When asked if MDLC would be legally entitled to transfer learners who had originally paid for the equivalent NCFE qualification to the TQUK course, an Ofqual spokesperson said: “Yes, another awarding organisation is allowed to certificate the work carried out by the students, but only providing it meets the requirements of their qualification.

“As part of our conditions of recognition, all awarding organisations are required to make sure that their training providers are delivering their qualifications properly, including all assessments being carried out in accordance with the requirements.”

NCFE and Cache declined to comment.

Two FE bodies have warned that the low take-up of 24+ loans shows the scheme should not be extended until more is known about their impact.

The Association of Colleges (AoC) and the National Institute for Continuing Adult Education (Niace) both said the advanced learner loan statistics, released today, should make the government reconsider proposals it has put out to consultation to extend loans to 19 to 24-year-olds and level two adult learners.

The number of applications for 24+ advanced learning loans for the next academic year remains well below figures for the same period last year.

The number of for July was 8,460, down from 10,772 for July last year, a fall of 21 per cent.

The figures also a reveal a 21 per cent drop in the total number of applications received so far for the 2014/15 academic year compared to last year — between the process opening in April and July 31, 15,080 applications were made, down from 19,096 in the same period for 2013/14.

Martin Doel, AoC chief executive, said: “Loans are still a new innovation and for many potential students, especially those on low incomes, taking out a loan is a big step.

“Variations from month to month and year to year are probably inevitable and that’s why Government should properly assess how loans are working before extending them to younger students on level two qualifications.”

Loans can be taken out to cover the cost of a level three course for learners over the age of 23 who do not already have a level three qualification.

The government’s consultation on plans to extend loans to those aged 19 to 14 and those studying level two courses closed last week, with the government response expected to be published in November.

Dr Fiona Aldridge, NIACE assistant director for development and research, said: “It is vitally important that we continue to track learner appetite for loans. It is essential for the future well-being of our economy that we have people qualified to fill skills gaps and shortages.

“We need to know the impact of loans on who is able to access learning and what learning is on offer.

“These latest figures reinforce the key message of our response to the current loans consultation — it is imperative that there is a clear understanding of the impact of the introduction of 24+ Advanced Learning Loans before any new measures are implemented to extend them.”

As reported in FE Week last month, the government defended the low figures for loan applications in July (1,270, down from 2,916 for the same period last year), saying it was expecting a late summer rush of people applying for loans, as they prepared to start courses in September.

The number of applications between June and July this year did increase from 1,270 in June to 8,460 in July, however, the rush was not enough to bring applications up to the level of last year.

 

 

The proposed expansion of the FE loans system to cover to cover level two qualifications and also younger learners could hit participation levels, the Association for Colleges (AoC) and the Association for Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) have both warned.

The associations have issued separate responses to the government’s consultation on extending the 24+ advanced learning loan system — but they harboured the same concerns that the proposals could affect learner numbers.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is looking to include qualifications at level two, as well as level three from the age of 19, and its consultation closed last week.

Loans for learners aged 24 and over at level three and above were introduced in August 2013, replacing the previous system where the government paid half the course fees, while the learner paid their half  upfront. With a loan, the learner pays all course costs, albeit over the lifetime of the loan.

But the AELP’s consultation response warned that “any reduction in eligibility for full or co-funding will reduce participation in learning.”

It continued: “For many of these groups, particularly the low skilled, people who are unemployed and prisoners, this reduction in investment will be very costly in the long term for both the state and for these individuals.

“For many of these learners taking a loan under conditions will not be a suitable alternative so this will inevitably shift resources from those who need it most to those who might be prepared to take the commitment of a loan.”

The AoC response said precautions would have to be taken to prevent potential learners from being discouraged by the loans.

Its response said: “We agree with the plan to extend the loan system by age group and level but on certain conditions.”

The conditions included allowing courses to remain free for students on benefits and for those taking courses in the lowest level qualifications and maintaining funding for high-cost courses such as science, technology, engineering and maths.

The AoC response also warned that the extension should only be “taken forward when SLC [Student Loans Company] and SFA [Skills Funding Agency] systems are ready”.

Both associations said it was difficult to predict learners’ responses to loans as the current system had only been in place for a year.

However, AoC and AELP warned that learners at level two may not benefit enough from the qualification to make it worth taking out the loan.

The AoC response said: “A larger share of economic returns for level three courses go to individuals (via higher pay) whereas many of the economic returns for level two courses go to the organisations who employ them (eg care workers do not get pay increases when they achieve statutory level two courses but their employer retains the ability to stay in business).”

Even if learners did take out a loan, AoC added, the relatively small economic benefits meant they might never hit the £21,000 earning threshold to pay it back.

The AELP response said: “The government must put sufficient controls in place to avoid problems in FE similar to those identified by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee in its recent report on loans in HE, which found that inaccurate debt forecasting and failure to collect student loans effectively threatened the continued existence of the current HE loans model because the cost of providing loans is as much if not more than the original funding.”

The consultation document also suggests that rules which prevent learners from taking out more than one loan at once should be abolished, and instead a maximum should be set for the amount of money one person can borrow in their life time.

Both AoC and AELP agreed that learners should be able to take out more than one loan, with AoC suggesting up to four loans at once. And the AoC response agreed a maximum lifetime amount should be set. However, AELP was less sure. It said: “Although setting a single maximum loan amount might appear simpler it would not be easy to establish the appropriate maximum level that should be allowed.”

The government response to the consultation is due to be published on November 13.

Local colleges are ready to take on A-level students from a school sixth form set to close because of plummeting learner numbers.

The government’s schools adjudicator David Lennard Jones confirmed today that he had approved plans to close the sixth form at Culcheth High School, in Warrington.

It is understood the school will continue educating current sixth formers in their second year of A-levels but not take on anyone for Year 12, before officially shutting down on August 31 next year.

Many Culcheth High School learners who have just completed their GCSEs will be transferring to Priestley College — which is rated as outstanding by Ofsted and already has around 1,500 A-level learners.

Matthew Grant, deputy principal of Priestley College which is just six miles from Culcheth High School, told FE Week: “This has been on the cards since Christmas so many young people in Year 11 have applied to us already.

“We take on between 70 and 90 pupils from Culcheth every year anyway and are expecting an extra 20 or 30 from there this year, which will be in a strong position to accept.”

Learners from Culcheth High School will also have the option of attending nearby Winstanley College, St Helen’s College, Carmel Sixth Form College, in St Helens, and Warrington Collegiate.

A spokesperson for Warrington Collegiate said: “Together with the other local colleges, we have been making the Culcheth students aware of alternate provision in the area.

“We have been in contact with Year 10 students there to discuss their long-term plans for where they want to move to.”

Warrington Borough Council first published plans in March to close Culcheth High School’s sixth form, which only had 58 students last year.

Its executive committee agreed to the closure in June but the final decision was deferred to the government’s schools adjudicator.

David Igoe, chief executive of the Sixth Form College Association, said: “I’m sure the local sixth form colleges will be in a good position to take on the extra students.

“Although we don’t recommend that one size fits all, there is no question from looking at all the relevant indicators that quality sixth form colleges out-perform all competitors.

“The problem with a small school sixth form is it cannot offer the breadth of A-level subjects young people need.

“The average sixth form college now has around 1,700 students, while the average school sixth form has just over 200. Economies of scale apply, so it is more expensive per pupil for them to provide sixth form provision and they end up having to subsidise from other funding streams, such as that for 11 to 16-year-olds.”

Mr Lennard Jones’s report confirmed that the school had struggled to retain sufficient learner numbers at its sixth form.

He said: “The evidence is that demand for places at the [Culcheth] sixth form is limited and that most pupils in Year 11 at the school choose to go elsewhere for sixth form provision.

“The admission number for the school for Year 7 is 230 and the school has over 200 pupils in each of Years 7 to 11, but very few in past years have then stayed at the school for the sixth form.”

Culcheth High School was unavailable for comment.

A provider that plummeted straight from Ofsted outstanding nearly a decade ago to inadequate escaped a visit from inspectors until this year despite recording success rates more than 10 percentage points below the national average in 2010/11, FE Week can reveal.

London-based Chelmer Training was given the grade four overall rating this month and was also hit with inadequate scores for every other single judgement.

The result, which comes eight years after its last inspection resulted in a grade one result, has seen the Department for Education (DfE) “take steps to withdraw Chelmer Training’s contract”.

However, FE Week has uncovered worrying evidence suggesting an inspection from Ofsted — which claims to have a “clear moderation process to identify where standards are slipping” — should have taken place three years ago.

Chelmer, which has around 130 learners all aged 16 to 18 and on study programmes, recorded success rates of 54.1 per cent in 2010/11 — the equivalent national figure for the year was 65.1 per cent.

The Ofsted FE and skills inspection handbook outlines how providers, even rated outstanding for overall effectiveness, would usually have another full inspection if there were concerns over performance or standards were dropping.

However, alarm bells might also have been ringing due to Chelmer’s growth, having quadrupled in size from the time of the 2006 inspection and 45 learners, to more than 200 learners for 2010/11.

Ofsted declined to comment on why Chelmer was not inspected until this year in light of the 2010/11 success rates, and growth, but insisted it acted where concerns were identified.

A spokesperson for the education watchdog said: “In order to effectively raise standards in the FE sector, Ofsted prioritises inspections of providers rated ‘requires improvement’ and ‘inadequate’. Providers deemed ‘outstanding’ are not regularly re-inspected.

“Ofsted also has in place a clear moderation process to identify where standards are slipping. If concerns about a provider are identified we will take quick action to inspect their performance, regardless of their previous inspection rating. We will only take action to re-inspect an outstanding provider where there is a clear basis to do so.

“In the case of Chelmer Training Ltd, concerns about performance were identified and we swiftly inspected the provider to asses these concerns. Ofsted deemed provision for the study programmes to be ‘inadequate’.”

Ofsted inspectors, who visited Chelmer around the end of June, looked at the quality of the provider’s teaching, learning and assessment for its study programme offer on employability training, and hairdressing and beauty therapy.

They were both judged inadequate, as was the effectiveness of leadership and management, despite inspectors reporting that, “leaders have established a stable team that is now in place after a period of considerable change in staffing.”

But the report on Chelmer, which has centres in Romford and Chelmsford, Essex, also said: “The proportion of learners who achieve their qualifications and successfully complete their courses is too low, particularly in English and mathematics. Not enough learners progress to further study or employment.”

It added: “The provider’s evaluation of its provision is insufficiently self-critical and lacks accuracy in its evaluation of performance.

“The leadership team does not evaluate sufficiently the limited number of actions in the quality improvement plan in order to assess their impact during the year. As a result, leaders and managers do not have a sufficiently clear picture of how much progress they are making in rectifying weaknesses.”

A DfE spokesperson told FE Week: “Following their recent Ofsted inspection, we have taken steps to withdraw Chelmer Training’s contract. Chelmer Training will ensure that all current learners complete their courses as planned and any further student recruitment has been frozen.

“We are working closely with the London Borough of Havering and Essex County Council to make sure that any gaps in provision created by the wind-down of Chelmer Training’s contract are filled by high-quality alternatives.“

Chelmer declined to comment.

A major recruitment agency has stopped re-selling courses run by troubled Rotherham-based provider My Distance Learning College (MDLC) amid concerns over the certification of more than 30,000 paying learners.

NCFE stopped certificating MDLC claiming it had around £20,000 of “outstanding invoices owing,” while the Cache (Council for Awards in Care, Health and Education) awarding organisation (AO) has also withdrawn approved status because, it claimed, the provider had been re-selling its qualifications through other firms without permission.

Both claims were disputed by MDLC director Joshua Cole (pictured right), who said the certificates of 32,000 learners had been put at risk. But now recruitment agency Reed, which had been re-selling for MDLC for the past year, has told FE Week it had removed the provider’s courses from its website.

A spokesperson for Reed said: “We partner with a number of training providers to offer the widest choice of qualifications, some of whose courses we sell on their behalf directly to our customers.’

“However, in light of issues currently ongoing between MDLC and a number of AOs, reed.co.uk has suspended sales and advertising activity relating to courses provided by MDLC or any associated organisation.

“We understand that some students may be concerned about their certification. We will maintain close contact with MDLC to ensure students who we have referred to MDLC are receiving the appropriate level of support.”

Courses re-sold on reed.co.uk until Friday (August 22) included one for a level three human resources qualification, which it said was “NCFE-approved,” for an undisclosed fee.

The AO was listed as Focus Awards, which was launched three years ago and counts MDLC’s Mr Cole as chief executive and director. But a message on the Reed website stated today that the course was “no longer available”.

And a number of MDLC courses that had been re-sold on amazon.co.uk, including a level three teaching assistant course which cost £99 and had been certificated by NCFE, now also display the message “Not available”.

But others certificated by Focus Awards, including an online certified higher level teaching assistant course costing £99, were still on offer.

Focus Awards is registered with Ofqual, but a spokesperson for the qualifications watchdog said the AO was not currently running any officially recognised qualifications, although “they do have some qualifications currently going through the accreditation process”. She added that Ofqual was aware of the dispute between MDLC and NCFE and would “continue to monitor the situation closely”.

When asked if there was a potential conflict of interest over Mr Cole’s dual roles at MDLC and Focus Awards, she said: “All recognised awarding organisations are required to meet our conditions of recognition, which includes the appropriate management of any possible conflicts of interest. Any awarding organisation that does not adhere to those conditions will be investigated and appropriate action will be taken.”

She added no investigation had been launched by Ofqual into MDLC and Focus Awards.

Mr Cole said: “We are not aware of any decision by Reed to stop working with MDLC. We are continuing to deliver an exemplary service to all our corporate partners and will continue to do so.

“I would like to make it absolutely clear that the Focus Awards accredits bespoke non-regulated courses for MDLC. We make it absolutely clear online and in our advertising that these courses are non-regulated and are bespoke courses for learners to undertake.”

An MDLC spokesperson said: “With regards to Amazon – any deals that appear to be inactive are simply deals that have ended.”

A Cache spokesperson said: “We have not authorised MDLC to engage in the so-called ‘re-selling’ of our courses and they might be breaking the law by doing so.”.

An NCFE spokesperson said: “Unfortunately, until this situation is resolved NCFE will be unable to provide external quality assurance visits and certification to MDLC and its learners.”

No one from Amazon was available for comment.

The government has been warned by FE sector leaders against making “simplistic decisions” that could limit funding to qualifications for a specific occupation — after it identified 174 qualifications in this category.

The Skills Funding Agency (SFA) yesterday listed 174 qualifications, at level two and above, facing the public spending axe unless the government is convinced otherwise through a consultation with colleges, independent learning providers, employers, learners and awarding organisations.

It came after the SFA identified 1,477 Qualification and Credit Framework (QCF) level two to four qualifications in January which it said would not be approved for 2014/15 funding.

A report accompanying the latest list of threatened qualifications said the government only planned to fund those that “support meaningful outcomes in terms of enabling entry to an apprenticeship or other work, progression through work, or progression to the next level of learning”.

It also questioned the need for Level 2 QCF units that focus on more general skills — for example preparing CVs.

The report stated: “Where a [Level 2] qualification focuses on the skills needed to research and apply for jobs, we do not intend to continue including it within the publicly funded offer.”

Learners will only be able to start on courses for the 174 qualifications up to the end of February, unless the government decides to retain any of them.

Courses facing the axe include a Pearson BTec level two diploma in WorkSkills.

But questions were asked as to whether this would simply force providers to register learners for equivalent lower-level courses (for example Pearson offers a similar BTec level one diploma in WorkSkills).

Lynne Sedgmore, chief executive of the 157 Group, said: “We are concerned at the increasing suggestion that funding should only be directed to qualifications which lead to a specific occupation.

“What we know about the labour market in the 21^st century is that people will have many jobs and will need a very broad base of skills in order to manage their own careers.

“The increased focus of much vocational qualification reform on preparing people for specific occupations seems at odds with that.

“The fact that no-one questions which specific occupation individual A-levels might prepare people for suggestions that we risk creating an unequal funding situation between those on an academic pathway and those studying vocational programmes.”

Dr Fiona Aldridge, assistant director for development and research at the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, said: “Deciding whether the courses under consideration will achieve the purpose outlined by the government will not be an easy task and we must avoid simplistic decisions.

“Before any qualifications are cut from public funding, it is vital that we have a full understanding of their value to a range of stakeholders.

“That is why we are pleased that the consultation will listen to the views of learners.”

But Stewart Segal, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said: “We welcome the fact that the SFA will be involving all of the key groups in the review of these qualifications, including training providers.

“I am sure that qualifications which are being used effectively will remain fundable as part of this review.”

A spokesperson for Pearson said: “Three of the 174 qualifications identified by the SFA are owned by Pearson. We will therefore be contributing to their discussions with stakeholders, as part of this review. We will also be seeking to explore how we can continue to help students develop the broader employability skills necessary to succeed once they’ve left education”.