More awarding organisations distance themselves from troubled provider

Two further awarding organisations have cut ties with Bright Assessing less than three months after NCFE told the troubled provider to stop running its qualifications.

OCR said it would not be dealing with “any new candidates” for the Warwickshire-based provider and fellow awarding body Ascentis said it had “withdrawn recognition with immediate effect”.

The dual move is understood to have left Warwickshire-based Bright without an awarding organisation.

NCFE (formerly the Northern Council
for Further Education) announced in February it had stopped certificating Bright courses after its investigation into allegations of malpractice.

The findings have not been made public, but a Bright spokesperson said it “vigorously disputes both the findings and the sanction” and lodged an appeal, which is currently in a third review stage.

A spokesperson for OCR said: “OCR is not certificating any new candidates. We will do our best to help any candidates that are currently registered with OCR.”

However, Bright was still displaying OCR’s logo on its website and also advertising teaching, assessing, back-to-work, and business-related courses as FE Week went to press.

A spokesperson for Ascentis said: “Ascentis has withdrawn recognition with immediate effect. Students registered with us will have the opportunity to be placed elsewhere.”

Bright chief executive Krissy Charles-Jones declined to comment on whether any awarding organisations were still accrediting Bright’s courses. She said: “We have terminated our agreement with OCR for all future learners…. They have not informed us that we are under any investigation.

“We terminated our agreement with Ascentis more than six months ago and only put a few learners through them.”

She added: “We are currently working to ensure all learners will be supported by an awarding body and determining which it will be. We aim to do this by May 16. Our main priority is to the learners.”

Bright was advertising the Highfield Awarding Body for Compliance (HABC) on its website until earlier this year when, according to HABC, the provider was suspended from running any HABC qualifications.

But, Ms Charles-Jones said: “We were never approved or used by Highfields and I didn’t ever sign any application or agreement to do so. They approached us to work with us but we decided not to do so. We have never done any learning or registrations through them.”

Meanwhile, an NCFE spokesperson confirmed that Bright had lost the first two stages of the awarding organisation’s appeals process.

Bright has entered the third and final NCFE appeal stage, due to conclude by the end of the month, with an Ofqual investigation the next possible stage.

“We are only going through the NCFE appeal process so we can progress our complaint about them to Ofqual,” said Ms Charles Jones.

However, an Ofqual spokesperson told FE Week in February: “NCFE kept us informed throughout its investigations into allegations of malpractice at Bright. We consider the action it has taken to be appropriate to protect the integrity of its qualifications and the interests of those taking them.”

Bright was listed on the Skills Funding Agency’s website on March 27 this year as a subcontractor for Chesterfield College, through a contract worth £1,175,000, Avant Partnership, through a £136,194 contract, and the Derbyshire Network, through a £22,000 contract.

Chesterfield College and Avant Partnership confirmed their Bright contracts had concluded and the Derbyshire Network declined to comment.

Ofqual said it was “being kept up-to-date” on the NCFE appeals process and enquiries should be made to its helpline on 0300 3033346.

Learners should email vocational.qualifications@ocr.org.uk, qualityassurance@ascentis.co.uk, or service@ncfe.org.uk for advice.

—————————————————————————–

Learners paying price

With OCR and Ascentis both distancing themselves from troubled provider Bright Assessing, and NCFE having done the same earlier this year, it’s clear something’s not right.

To her credit, Bright chief executive Krissy Charles Jones answered our initial queries as to what was going on — but the reply was one that pointed blame elsewhere.

It was Bright that terminated contracts or turned them down, she says. It was also, she told us, the last response she would be giving.

It’s a situation that’s getting more and more desperate by the hour as FE Week continues to receive pleas from apparent learners seeking advice on their missing logbooks, portfolios, qualifications and payments.

To this end, FE Week has ensured learners have the contact details of the relevant awarding organisations, and Ofqual has also provided details of a helpline.

But it remains a terrible position for learners to find themselves in and one that will damage the good name of the sector.

Chris Henwood, FE Week editor

The Department for Education (DfE) could face a financial black hole of more than £4bn by 2018/19, the Association of Colleges (AoC) has warned.

In a report by the AoC on the DfE’s financial situation, the body has warned that it could face a budget deficit of £600m in 2015, rising to £4.6bn by 2018/19.

The DfE is responsible for funding the education of 16 to 18-year-olds in general FE and sixth form colleges, and the AoC has raised concerns about the financial viability of the department.

The deficit is associated with an anticipated increase in the number of people of school age, coupled with increased teacher pay and pension contributions as well as costs associated with new policies.

The report also takes into account a planned 17 per cent real terms spending cut across all departments between 2015 and 2019, and the AoC has said the government is yet to announce whether or not the school budget, which has been ringfenced since 2010, will continue to be protected.

Julian Gravatt, AoC assistant chief executive, said: “The estimate we’ve reached is conservative because we’ve not included the fact that the extra pupils will be in more expensive secondary schools rather than primary schools, nor have we estimated the costs associated with closing schools, introducing a new national curriculum or ensuring everyone reaches the required GCSE standard in maths and English by 18.

“If DfE doesn’t tackle this issue early, or systematically, there’s a risk that ministers after the next General Election will make damaging short-term savings which will see further cuts to 16 to 18 funding, which has already borne the brunt of recent education spending cuts.

“We’re calling on the Treasury and DfE to make decisions on education spending on a rational basis, assessing relative need, rather than protecting the budget for 11 to 15-year-olds to the detriment of those aged over 16.”

FE Week is awaiting a response from the DfE.

The report is available to read here. For further analysis and comment, see edition 102 of FE Week, dated Monday, May 12.

Department for Education (DfE) ringfencing of school funding has been labelled as “unsustainable” by the Association of Colleges (AoC) as it predicted a departmental budget black hole of £4.6bn.

In a report by the AoC on the DfE’s financial situation, it warned of a budget deficit of £600m in 2015, rising to £4.6bn by 2018/19.

And with the DfE responsible for funding the education of 16 to 18-year-olds, AoC assistant chief executive Julian Gravatt raised concerns about the sustainability of a ringfence which protects schools funding — but leaves the FE sector open to cuts.

He told FE Week: “I think there needs to be a look at what spending levels need to be at each age.

“The ringfencing is only a problem if it protects 80+ per cent of the budget and all savings have to be made elsewhere. The ringfence is unsustainable given the impact it has on the areas of the budget.

“The first thing to do is persuade the DfE to be more open about its own forecasts and work with us. The second thing to say is that budgets haven’t been set for after 2015 and are still open for the next government to put more money in.

“It’s important to remember that this problem only exists if spending doesn’t increase. If pupil numbers go up the main thing is to address that.”

In its report, the AoC explains that the projected deficit is associated with an anticipated increase in the number of people of school age, coupled with increased teacher pay and pension contributions as well as costs associated with new policies.

The report also takes into account a planned 17 per cent real terms spending cut across all departments between 2015 and 2019 and the AoC has said the government is yet to announce whether the school budget, which has been ringfenced since 2010, will continue to be protected.

Mr Gravatt added: “There needs to be a discussion about what choices are available, and people will have views about where savings can be made. We are worried about this assumption that you can continue cutting 16 to 18 budgets without consequences.

“The danger for colleges is, as the main providers of 16 to 18 education which turn lots of people around who failed at 16, that they would be doing that with fewer people and wouldn’t be able to make the improvements people want them to make.

“Pay costs in colleges are about two-thirds of expenditure, whereas in schools they’re about 80 per cent. If this budget issue is not addressed, you’re either going to get fewer people or cuts in pay. Our message to the government, and to all parties, is that there is an election in a year’s time, and they need to be open about this.”

But the report has been dismissed by the DfE, described it as “speculative”.

A spokesperson said: “These speculative figures are based on analysis of a budget that does not even exist yet.

“Our budget after 2015-16 will be a matter for the government’s next Spending Review, which as usual will give full consideration to future cost pressures.

“We have received excellent settlements between 2010 and 2016, enabling us to protect school funding in real terms while the government tackles the deficit.”

Mr Gravatt said the further education and sixth form colleges represented by the AoC educated more than 900,000 14 to 19-year-olds each year and relied on funding from the DfE totalling £3.8bn.

The full report, which includes a more detailed breakdown of the projected costs, is available to download and read online at aoc.co.uk.

Colleges seeking funding for learners based outside their usual catchment areas will have to give notice of eight weeks, the government has said.

The Education Funding Agency (EFA) has claimed the guidance simply represents a clarification of existing policy, while the Association of Colleges (AoC) described the move as a “clear signal that the EFA wishes to limit distance sub-contracting”.

The guidance document says: “If the institution believes there is good reason for the EFA to fund sub-contracted provision of a whole programme to be delivered outside their normal recruitment area then the institution must seek EFA’s

agreement in principle in advance of delivery.

“EFA will consider applications made on the distance sub-contracting form available with this document from the website. This must be sent to the EFA territory email address at least eight weeks before the start of any planned delivery.”

An EFA spokesperson said: “We already expected education providers to contact us in advance before sub-contracting out provision of a course outside their normal recruitment area.

“We recently revised the guidelines to clarify our position on this and bring in consistency across the country.”

The move comes as the EFA aims to clamp down on the issue of “double funding” — where a learner is funded twice, through two different lead contractors.

The document said: “Sub-contracted provision (particularly distance provision) has had the highest number of historic ineligible double funding problems and the EFA regards such arrangements as high risk.”

Julian Gravatt, assistant chief executive at the AoC, said: “The EFA has introduced a number of new, tighter sub-contracting rules in 2014-15 including a new declaration at the start of the year.

“The school census will include a sub-contracting field in 2015 which will match the data already provided as a matter of routine by colleges via the Individual Learner Record.

“The new eight-week approval timetable should be manageable for colleges but the whole package of controls is a clear signal that the EFA wishes to limit distance sub-contracting.”

Official figures showing fewer than two applications for each traineeship vacancy have sparked concern about a “general lack of awareness” of the government’s new flagship youth unemployment scheme.

A freedom of information (FOI) request from FE Week showed just 4,160 online applications were made for 3,480 traineeship vacancies in the eight months since the programme’s launch in August last year.

And with the system only showing the number of applications — rather than applicants — it’s likely the headcount was actually lower because one person could have made more than one application.

A spokesperson for the Association of Employment and Learning Providers said: “A general lack of awareness about traineeships is part of the issue, which is why in tandem with the new statutory guidance for schools on careers advice, it’s important that more local employers and providers can get into schools to explain the benefits of the new programme.”

The traineeship figures are overshadowed by those of apprenticeships, which attracted more than 12 applications per vacancy between August and the end of October last year, according to the most recently figures from the National Apprenticeship Service.

Its report showed 461,530 applications were made online for apprenticeships during this period — which compared to 36,700 vacancies (according to the same FOI response from the Skills Funding Agency).

Teresa Frith, senior skills policy manager for the Association of Colleges, said apprenticeships were bound to attract
more applications as they were more established.

But, she said: “There has been no direct marketing [for traineeships] to potential trainees or their parents or influencers, and it may well be that the expectation of the student is that they go directly onto an apprenticeship rather than a pre-cursor programme.”

The news on applications comes six weeks after FE Week reported that there were just 3,300 traineeship starts in the six months following the scheme’s launch.

However, Skills Minister Matthew Hancock said this month that he hoped 5,000 new traineeships would be created through the employer ownership pilot scheme.

A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: “Many traineeship providers are already using the apprenticeships vacancies service to reach young people.

“However, it is not compulsory for providers or learners to use the system for traineeships, so these figures are only a part of the wider positive picture.

“Some providers will choose other routes to advertise places and some applicants will be referred directly, for example by Job Centres.”