Keeping the industry in mind on apprenticeships

As employers take greater ownership of the skills agenda, it’s important to remember the qualifications of apprentices remain relevant to the sector — not just their boss’s immediate workplace needs, says Scott Waddington.

Privately-educated pupils have been warned by Girls’ School Association president Hilary French they can no longer afford to be ‘sniffy’ about apprenticeships, while MI5 and MI6 are set to recruit up to 100 apprentices in the coming year.

Chancellor George Osborne also declared recently that 20,000 new apprenticeships were to be funded over the course of the next year, and as a whole the public perception of apprenticeships has been cast in a whole new light.

At government level there has never been a greater focus on increasing the number, range and quality of apprenticeships on offer, and young talent in the UK is becoming increasingly attracted to vocational.

So as its popularity continues to rise, can the apprenticeship truly begin to rival its academic counterparts?

Industry chiefs have long maintained vocational qualifications can help address those challenges currently faced by the UK economy, and we do seem to be witnessing the first shift in perceptions required to make this a reality.

Ever more employers and educationalists are recognising the merits vocational qualifications can bring to both the organisation and the individual, while statements like those from Girls’ School Association President Ms French would support the notion that this is beginning to play out at grass roots level too.

Might this restrict the scope of the training and in turn the ability of the trainee to work elsewhere in their field, should they wish to?

As more and more prestigious organisations including GCHQ look to vocational pathways to fulfil their own skills gaps, both now and in the future, the profile of apprenticeships is no doubt set to rise further in 2014 and beyond as a result.

This is partly due to the ongoing drive to create greater investment incentives in apprenticeship training from the employer’s perspective, and MI5 will surely be great ambassadors in encouraging others to engage in similar schemes.

But there is another factor that must be taken into account during the transition, and that is the need for ongoing collaboration between employers and government to ensure the quality of training is maintained throughout this process.

Employers and training providers alike must make sure qualifications remain rigorous and comprehensive in relation to the learner’s chosen field, and are not there simply to meet the particular requirements of a candidate’s employer.

As the popularity of alternative apprenticeship formats increases, this must not get lost in the transition.

If the sole focus is on the company involved, might this restrict the scope of the training and in turn the ability of the trainee to work elsewhere in their field, should they wish to?

Apprenticeships must indeed be held in higher esteem and preserving their quality and scope will prove essential if we are to build on the prestige created in association with the likes of GCHQ.

A balanced and continuous exchange between employer and training provider can only support the rising profile of apprenticeships further and support parity of regard between vocational and academic qualifications moving forward.

In Wales, this is achieved through the stringent regulation of providers operating collaboratively to ensure qualifications available are both industry relevant, and provide young people with as comprehensive and wide a skillset as possible.

The UK Commission’s 2012 Employer Perspectives Survey shows us that employers in Wales have the highest uptake of vocational qualifications out of all the four home nations, but there is no room for complacency yet.

The expansion of opportunities for employers to recruit young people through apprenticeships is indeed transforming the way in which businesses are acquiring and developing the skills they need.

This must, however, be supported by a collaborative approach and a unified mindset — both from the employer’s and the learner’s perspective.

Scott Waddington, Wales commissioner for UK Commission for Employment and Skills, and chief executive of SA Brain

 

 

Governors called to account for ‘weak’ learning provision

The spotlight of Ofsted attention shone for the first time on prison education with the watchdog’s latest annual report — and it didn’t make for positive reading. Alexandra Marks looks at what’s going wrong behind locked doors.

It was a challenging year for prison education that saw the new Offender Learning and Skills Service contract (OLASS 4) affect key skills, arts and distance learning.

Regime changes within many prisons in 2013 also caused many prisoners to spend less time doing activities, and the government announced proposals for new types of institutions such as resettlement and super prisons.

In its annual speech, Ofsted cast its eye over prison education for the first time. Matthew Coffey, the education watchdog’s director of FE and skills, said that only 35 per cent of prison education departments were judged to be “good”, which would cause a “national outcry” had the figures applied to schools.

After prison inspection results showed that the quality and quantity of purposeful activity in prisons was the worst for six years, Ofsted’s annual report, revealed that prison learning came bottom in the whole FE sector.

Accountability for the quality of learning provision is weak, but can be addressed by greater leadership from prison governors and senior staff

Is that surprising, you might think? After all, why should prisoners receive a standard of learning better or equivalent to that in the community?

The answer is that this issue affects us all. Reoffending rates are currently 58.5 per cent for people serving sentences of less than a year, the annual cost of the crime committed by former prisoners is up to £13bn, yet £37,648 per year per prisoner has been spent on their custody. The Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Chief Inspector of Probation said only last month that efforts to stop reoffending are not working.

The Prisoner Learning Alliance (PLA), formed by 17 expert member organisations to improve learning in prison. The group was established by the charity Prisoners Education Trust in November 2012 and members include the Black Training and Enterprise Group (BTEG), the Institute for Learning, Prison Radio Association, the Association of Employment and Learning Providers and Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations (OCR).

The PLA’s new report, Smart Rehabilitation, evidences its vision of putting learning at the heart of rehabilitation in prisons, and includes recommendations for achieving it.

Accountability for the quality of learning provision is weak, but can be addressed by greater leadership from prison governors and senior staff to prioritise a wide range of learning, encompassing everything from relationship skills to higher education.

As insufficient numbers of prisoners are actually undertaking any form of education, we would like to see a prison culture that engages people with interesting, personalised and inclusive learning plans.

Once a prisoner begins learning, mechanisms in prison must enable them to progress and achieve their true potential. Communal areas, such as education departments, can be hotspots for tension in a prison and therefore staff must be supported in behaviour management to make classrooms safer for teachers and learners alike.

Beyond this, teachers should be supported to develop professionally. Achieving excellence requires a commitment from prison staff, education providers and volunteers.

We are concerned that the Ministry of Justice’s plans for transforming rehabilitation in 2014 will not work unless prisoners are supported to use their time constructively to develop the attitudes, skills and knowledge that will enable them to play a positive role in society.

Our report offers practical guidance for both prisons and the UK Government’s efforts to become more joined up, ensuring that prisoners have a successful learning journey throughout their time in custody and after release and thus, in turn, reducing reoffending.

Alexandra Marks, Prisoner Learning Alliance chair

 

 

Providers underpaid on ASB by £61.8m

Just over half of all providers in England were not paid for all the work they carried out last academic year, leaving some providers “very disappointed”.

The Funding Year Values released by the Skills Funding Agency last month showed 51 per cent (514) of the 1015 providers included were paid less than the value of their total 2012/13 adult skills budget (ASB) delivery.

We are very disappointed that our over delivery will not be funded.”

It is the second year that the Funding Year Values have been published, revealing a total underpayment of £61.8m — a stark contrast to the £91m total overpayment to providers last year, as reported at the time in FE Week.

However, the agency insisted it had provided funding according to its allocation this year.

London’s City Lit was paid £2.2m less than the £8.7m-worth of learning it delivered.

Meanwhile, Derby College went unfunded for 10 per cent (£1.8m) of its £18.5m-worth of provision

Derby College chief executive Mandie Stravino told FE Week: “We are very disappointed that our over delivery will not be funded.

“We have met the needs of our local businesses and our wider community… and feel strongly that this should be recognised financially, as in previous years.”

She added although the “agency’s departure from funding over-delivery” was not expected to cause job losses, it would result in reduced adult delivery and impact upon learners with additional learning support needs.

The same figures reveal 10 per cent of providers (104) received more cash than the value of training they delivered.

An agency spokesperson said: “We have funded all delivery up to the allocation awarded to colleges for 2012/13 and in addition we have funded all adult apprenticeship delivery.

“Instances where funding has been paid in excess of the allocation is due to the agency paying additional funds for learner support and adult apprenticeships.”

No one from the agency was available to clarify why such “additional learner support and adult apprenticeships” provision was not included in the providers’ delivery figures.

The most striking example of overpayment was LeSoCo, which was paid more than £3.3m (15 per cent) over what it delivered.

It comes in addition to the £2.2m in 2011/12 reported by FE Week in January last year, making a total over-payment of £5.6m in the last two years.

An agency spokesperson said: “To ensure the interests of learners and employers were protected, the agency at the time agreed to remove the college from the normal year end rules [during merger of Lewisham College and Southwark College]. This was for the academic years 2011/12 and 2012/13.”

A college spokesperson said the arrangement was “in recognition that it would be very difficult to achieve the funding targets in the first year after the merger”.

A City Lit spokesperson said the agency had paid the college’s full allocation, adding: “We don’t expect to be paid for over performance on classroom-based learning unless they have an underspend issue nationally.”

A spokesperson for Learndirect, which was underfunded by £1,437,766, said: “Due to the economic circumstances in 12/13 we saw high demand for our services which exceeded our allocated funding.”

A small number of providers were excluded from the figures as the agency was “still finalising their final 2012/13 position”.

Cash queries over maths qual

The government unveiled plans for a new level three qualification to keep young people studying maths until 18, but sector bodies have expressed concerns over funding.

The Association of Colleges (AoC) and the Sixth Form Colleges Association (SFCA) welcomed the aims of government proposals published last week to introduce a “core maths” qualification targeted at the 200,000 students a year who achieve C or above at GCSE but who do not take maths A-level.

However, SFCA deputy chief executive James Kewin (pictured top) challenged the government to “match its ambition for curriculum reform with the funding required to deliver it”.

Core maths would sit alongside students’ main 16 to 18 study, according to the Department for Education (DfE) policy statement.

It is expected to be half the size of an A-level, preparing students for employment and study where maths is not the sole focus, but a basic level of numeracy is required.

The DfE document said: “One of the main reasons for introducing new qualifications is to address the 16 to 18 ‘maths gap’, whereby students often forget the maths they have learnt previously.”

The announcement comes just four months after an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report found England was the only country where older generations had higher proficiency in numeracy than young adults.

Mr Kewin said: “We share the government’s ambition for more young people to study maths to an advanced level. But if the stated ambition for introducing these new qualifications is to address the 16 to 18 ‘maths gap’, the government would be well advised to first address the 16 to 18 ‘funding gap’ — the plans for these new qualifications were unveiled shortly after the third cut to sixth form funding in three years.”

He said cuts had already led to fewer sixth form colleges offering further maths.

Joy Mercer (pictured below), AoC policy director, said the move toward’s new maths qualification was “welcome”.

But, she added: “Sixth form and FE colleges will need to employ more teachers to meet demand for these courses.

“The DfE identified earlier this year that 1,200 additional teachers are necessary to teach GCSE level after the age of 16. Colleges tell us they are struggling to recruit and when this higher level maths qualification is introduced it will be even more difficult.”

The DfE proposal added that new performance measures could recognise the proportion of students gaining level three maths qualifications.

Ms Mercer said: “AoC cannot understand why this would be a separate accountability measure in performance tables as take-up will be affected by how well it is received by employers and higher education, not by performance tables.”

The qualification technical guidance is due to be published in March, with the qualifications widely available from September 2015.

Leading London college tumbles to inadequate

One of London’s largest FE colleges, and a former outstanding one, has crashed to a grade four Ofsted rating.

LeSoCo, a 17,600-learner college in South London, has been graded inadequate after its latest inspection, less than two months ago.

While we fully accept the need for improvements in some areas of our teaching and learning provision, we do not recognise the grading of the college as inadequate and will appeal,”

The education watchdog’s report criticised poor teaching in engineering and foundation English and maths, as well failing to get enough apprentices through their training on time.

Among the criticisms was that the “teaching of functional skills is inadequate. In most subject areas teachers do not use the results from the initial assessment to inform the planning of learning”.

It is not yet known if the outcome is bad enough to prompt a visit from FE Commissioner David Collins, however, the college, which has a current Skills Funding Agency allocation of £26.2m, could be facing the boot from high-performing colleges’ body, the 157 Group.

Principal Maxine Room told FE Week she “did not” recognise the grading and would appeal. “While we fully accept the need for improvements in some areas of our teaching and learning provision, we do not recognise the grading of the college as inadequate and will appeal,” she said.

The college was formed of a merger in 2012 between Lewisham College — rated outstanding in 2006, before dropping to satisfactory (a grade three and now termed ‘requires improvement’) in 2012 — and Southwark College, which was graded inadequate in December 2011.

However, Ofsted said the college management of the merger had been a strength, but it nevertheless got a grade four result overall and also in the teaching, learning and assessment headline field. It was deemed to require improvement on outcomes for learners and leadership and management.

The Ofsted report said: “Staff do not set learning targets for learners or track their progress effectively. Tutorials are often unproductive [and] many learners cannot

recall when they last received a tutorial, when they were given individual targets relating to their qualification, or when they had a discussion about issues such as attendance.”

Ms Room said she was “devastated” by the outcome of the inspection and criticised the way the report appeared to let poor performance in English and maths bring down the college’s overall rating. “If you look at the proportionality of the grading, 80 per cent of the provision was grade two, and 20 per cent was grade three and four,” she said.

“The weighting on English and maths has overweighed the rest of the provision, and that is what we think is unfair.” Ms Room also said the college had a post-inspection action plan in place and that a number of visiting tutors had been removed in the past year because of poor performance.

But, she said, it was “not the time to talk about blame” and she had “no intention” of resigning. Nevertheless, she also criticised Ofsted for failing to keep the college informed about the outcome of the inspection.

Ofsted said it took complaints seriously, but would not comment on individual cases.

Lynne Sedgmore, 157 Group executive director, said it was too early to comment on LeSoCo’s future membership of the group, but said she was “surprised and disappointed” by the report.

A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills declined to comment on whether the FE Commissioner, who was appointed as a troubleshooter for failing colleges, would be sent into LeSoCo.

————————————————————————————————————————–

Another week, another college crashes to a grade four inspection result.

It would be wrong to ignore the fact we’re seeing more outstanding colleges, but worryingly we’re also seeing former grade ones falling to inadequate.

We’ve seen Liverpool and Stockport stumble, and Bristol became a grade four having previously been good. Now we have LeSoCo, too.

Is there a trend? It’s certainly the case that in each college Ofsted saw extreme shortcomings on teaching, learning and assessment.

Perhaps this is the truly shocking part of all this — that any college should get an inadequate grading on what is essentially a bread-and-butter task.

But what exactly has been changing at these colleges? An obvious question surrounds size — are they too big? Or maybe there are growing challenges presented by the city environment?

Certainly London has an issue, as Ofsted conceded in FE Week last year, and the LeSoCo result adds further fuel to that fire.

It would be unfair to say Skills Minister Matthew Hancock is reluctant to act having created the office of the FE Commissioner (although to learn there’s even a possibility David Collins may not be sent in to LeSoCo seems somewhat a dereliction of duty).

Investigation is needed to get under the bonnet to find out if there is a common, and hopefully rectifiable, denominator in all or just a few of these crashing colleges.

Chris Henwood, editor

Hancock faces MPs’ wrath over DfE cut

Members of the Education Select Committee could probe controversial government plans to cut funding for full-time education for 18-year-olds.

Committee member Pat Glass said she would be calling for an inquiry into proposals to fund 18–year-olds by 17.5 per cent less than 16 and 17-year-olds.

It comes as she and fellow committee members await an impact assessment on the funding rate cut that was promised in mid-December by Education Secretary Michael Gove.

And House of Commons education questions on Monday, January 6, saw Skills Minister Matthew Hancock come in for tough questioning on the matter — and the issue of the impact assessment was raised.

Ms Glass told FE Week: “The 18+ funding was the main topic of conversation, raised by loads of Labour MPs, me included, and the impact assessment was promised but no date given.

“I intend to talk to Graham Stuart [Education Select Committee chair] and suggest the committee does a short inquiry just into cuts to 18+ funding — keeping it short and limited.”

Labour’s Clive Eltham was one of the MPs to question Mr Hancock in the Commons, saying: “The Association of Colleges has said that young people from disadvantaged areas and black and minority ethnic groups will be hardest hit by the cut of 17.5 per cent in the funding for 18-year-olds.

“That is borne out by the assessment that has been carried out by my local college, Greenwich Community College. Why have the government not issued an impact assessment on this proposal, given the severe impact that it will have on disadvantaged groups?”

Mr Hancock told MPs that he had seen the impact assessment and that its findings would provide reassurance about the funding rate cut.

He said: “This is a difficult decision and not one that we will take lightly, but the alternatives are also difficult, and 18-year-olds have already had two years of study post 16 and, indeed, they often study for fewer hours than 16 to 17-year-olds.”

He added: “We will publish the impact assessment very soon.”

But Eddie Playfair, principal of Newham Sixth Form College in East London, told FE Week that he remained sceptical.

He said the proposals as they stand would affect 550 of his learners in 2014/15, creating a financial impact of just over £500,000, around 3 per cent of the college’s £16m budget.

Mr Playfair said: “We are all looking forward to reading the impact assessment because evidence suggests that disadvantaged students will be hit harder.
“In a sense the very fact that it will be third year students who will be hit is worrying because they are more disadvantaged as low achievers.

“The second point Mr Hancock made about these students needing fewer hours is something I just do not understand. They are doing exactly the same courses, sitting in exactly the same classes. They are exactly the same as their peers so this is just a funding cut.”

Meanwhile, in response to a written question from Shadow Junior Education Minister Rushanara Ali about a lack of consultation on the funding rate cut, Mr Hancock said: “We wanted to inform colleges and schools of the decision as soon as possible, to support planning for the 2014/15 academic year.
“It has been standard practice under various governments not to consult on funding rates.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Education said there was no date for the release of the impact assessment, but said it would be put online after the select committee had seen it.

Action on minimum wage ‘ridiculously late’

The National Apprenticeship Service (NAS) has acted to ensure all jobs on its vacancy matching website conform to the National Minimum Wage (NMW) — more than three months after it rose three pence to £2.68.

Companies had been advertising for apprenticeships that, according to the adverts, would have paid below the NMW.

It was scandalous that companies offering apprenticeships were advertising below the NMW.”

But last month NAS announced a change in the way its website works, eventually banning organisations from reopening and simply extending vacancies. They will now have to check new adverts before posting.

An FE Week investigation could not find any companies currently advertising apprenticeships below the minimum wage through the site, and the improvement has been welcomed.

But the delay in action from NAS has been criticised.

Joe Vinson, National Union of Students’ vice president for FE, said: “These changes are certainly welcome, but it is ridiculous that it took three months for the government to clamp down.”
The Skills Funding Agency (SFA), which runs NAS, said it had been in contact with employers regularly since the rise in the NMW went ahead.

An SFA spokesperson said: “Since the increase in NMW on October 1, 2013, we have been working with employers and providers to ensure that all vacancies posted after this date to Apprenticeship vacancies (Av) reflect the new rate.

“We also communicated this change to providers before and after the increase came into force, and continue to issue reminders, to ensure that all providers are aware of the changes.
“We also implemented a change to our Av system to ensure vacancies can only be posted at the NMW or above.”

In October, FE Week revealed how some adverts on the government’s apprenticeship vacancies (Av) website — including positions with sandwich shop Subway and other large firms — had not been adjusted to offer the new minimum rate for apprentices, which rose at the start of the month.

In many cases the previous minimum wage amount of £2.65 per hour was offered because at the time companies were able to simply extend or replicate existing vacancies advertised instead of creating new ones.

The problem had persisted despite a letter to advertisers in November asking them to be clearer about the wage and weekly working hours they were offering to make it easier for the service to check adverts.

Mr Vinson said: “It was scandalous that companies offering apprenticeships were advertising below the NMW.

“Apprenticeships should offer an opportunity to gain valuable skills and an insight into the reality of the workplace, as well as enabling you to study for qualifications to further your future.
“However, there needs to be some serious thought about how people will be attracted to taking up an apprenticeship when wages are just £2.68 an-hour.”

TUC general secretary Frances O’Grady said: “Changes in the way that apprentice jobs can be advertised may go part of the way towards solving problems with illegal non-payment of the minimum wage, but the move is not enough on its own.

“In the coming year there needs to be a strong focus on improving the quality of apprenticeships, and that must include ensuring they are properly paid.”

But in a message to users sent on December 18, the SFA said: “Since October, there have been ongoing issues with apprenticeship vacancies advertised below the current NMW of £2.68 per hour.
“Because of this, we have made changes to the way Av operates. From Friday, December 13, providers are no longer able to reopen or extend vacancies; instead, they must clone and check the vacancy before submitting for approval.”

Huge under-delivery on 16 to 18 apprenticeships

More than 520 providers under-delivered on their August 2012 16 to 18 apprenticeship allocations by a total of £241.5m.

Research by FE Week into figures released by the Education Funding Agency, shows 769 colleges and independent learning providers (ILPs) were initially going to be funded with £826.9m for the programme.

In spite of these difficulties we revised our plans at the end of the first quarter, when we had a better indication of market conditions, and delivered at a similar level to the previous year.”

But 524 providers delivered less than their initial allocation by a total of £241.5m come the end of last academic year. And, while the funding allocation for all providers’ under-19 apprenticeships delivery had been revised down to £663.8m by July last year, the Skills Funding Agency still paid out £46.1m less than this.

It comes after FE Week reported in June last year how Simon Judge, the Department for Education’s finance and commercial director, wrote to the Education Select Committee to explain why the budget for under-19 apprenticeships in the current financial year had fallen nearly 20 per cent to £684.3m.

He said the removal of poor quality provision explained some of the under-spend, but increased competition from applicants aged 19-plus, funded by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, was also a factor.

And figures published before Christmas, in the statistical first release, showed the number of under-19 apprenticeship starts fell from 129,900 in 2011/12, to 114,500 in 2012/13. However, across the sector, 245 providers over-delivered on their August allocation by a total of £32.3m.

Nevertheless, the largest under-delivery was by Pearson in Practice Technology Limited, which was allocated £46.5m in August 2012 but was given £1.4m. A spokesperson said Pearson in Practice “closed down” a year ago, but declined to comment further.

The second largest under-delivery was by JTL, another ILP, which was allocated £17.4m for under-19 apprenticeships, but given £11.1m.

A spokesperson for JTL said: “Increased employer contributions [towards the cost of apprenticeships] in a sector that is only just starting to recover from economy-wide setbacks has meant that many employers have been reluctant to take on a four year commitment.”

Newcastle College Group was originally allocated £7.3m, but received £4m — the biggest drop among colleges.

Chris Payne, group director of planning and performance, said: “Employers were not keen to take on younger apprentices due to the economic climate.

“In spite of these difficulties we revised our plans at the end of the first quarter, when we had a better indication of market conditions, and delivered at a similar level to the previous year.”

A government spokesperson said: “We are radically reforming apprenticeships so that they are more rigorous and responsive to the needs of employers. The small decline in 16 to 18 apprenticeship starts is due to quality improvement measures.”

A number of providers were omitted from FE Week research where they appeared solely in government figures for either August allocations or final funding levels.