Dress to impress or dress to de-stress?

Former House of Commons EducationSelect Committee specialist  Ben Nicholls is head of policy and communications at London’s Newham College. He writes exclusively for FE Week every month.

A little while ago, an acquaintance of mine — a rather dapper management consultant — confessed that he’d been asked to change the way he dressed in the workplace.

He’d been at a well-regarded media organisation, and, trying to impress, turned up in a sharp suit, crisp shirt, polished shoes — the works.

After a few days, colleagues gently suggested he was dressing “too smartly”.

Clearly, trainers, hoodies and jeans were the order of the day — his traditional tailoring was apparently making people feel tense and unproductive.

The days when everyone wore suits, uniforms or overalls to work are firmly over.

Organisations now operate every dress code imaginable, from the trendy office where my consultant chum got reprimanded to a city law firm which reportedly warned short-skirted women (“generally looking like we’re going clubbing instead of to the office”) to prepare for “uncomfortable discussions” with HR.

And it seems as if schools and colleges are just as varied too.

Perhaps there’s a case for lots of us, students and staff, donning a sharper suit a little more often

In the four places I was educated (and that itself was some time ago), the dress codes varied from prescription grey suit and school tie, through to whatever we wanted.

And, while it might be assumed that young people preferred the latter, it doesn’t seem quite that simple.

At that school — a huge public elementary in East Coast USA — there was real pressure around clothes to constantly be as trendy and up-to-date as your peers, many of whom came from wildly differing economic backgrounds.

There were times when I longed for the red jumpers and black trousers of my primary school back across the pond, and I suspect my parents felt the same.

And in colleges like those most of us work in, dress codes are rare.

Our students wear whatever they want, and certainly at Newham this contributes to a sense of youthfulness and diversity across the campuses.

Many of our students have, of course, had less than optimal experiences of previous education, and sometimes this is because they weren’t sufficiently treated like adults – something I’ve advocated in this column before, and which I know many colleagues across the country feel strongly about, too.

Not wearing uniform can be a really important way of nurturing that independence, maturity and self-responsibility.

But there’s another argument which suggests that a lack of any dress code achieves completely the opposite.

Adults, in reality, have to conform to all sorts of dress codes, whether they’re required for practical reasons — hairnets for caterers, branded t-shirts for retail staff — or for vaguer notions of officewear, as in the media and law firms mentioned earlier.

There are rules and guidelines for parties, for weddings, for travel, for meetings, and for any number of religious and cultural settings.

Given that employability skills and preparation for later life are such an important part of colleges’ teaching, there’s a real argument that some form of ‘business casual’ dress code in college could work to students’ advantage when it comes to interview time — and at the same time it could, perhaps, make them feel more trusted and respected than a ‘free-for-all’ dress policy.

Of course, many learners already wear uniform of one sort or another, engineers, for example, and construction trainees, and extending that idea might foster a sense of fairness across a college community.

Such discussions are active and alive at Newham College, and thoughts or opinions from other institutions would be really welcome.

The discussions thrive elsewhere, too, and there is research suggesting that, in fact, the impact of wearing uniform is more positive on achievement in older students than younger.

But similarly, much research is inconclusive, including that examining the influence of adults’ dress on workplace productivity.

As someone who hates wearing a tie, I have my own views on that, but perhaps there’s a case for lots of us, students and staff, donning a sharper suit a little more often.

Unless, of course, we’re planning to work for a large media firm, in which case crack out the Converse.

New loans being used for leisure

The government’s £232m pot of cash for FE loans could be going on courses not aimed at getting people into a job or higher education, FE Week has learned.

The cash was set aside by the Skills Funding Agency to fund provider “loan facilities” as part of the new 24+ advanced learning loans system, launched two months ago.

But FE Week has found loans being used to fund leisure-focussed courses, despite apprenticeship loan applications failing to take off.

Shadow Skills Minister Gordon Marsden has told of his concerns the loans may not be getting directed towards “retraining” and “reskilling”.

“I will be asking the agency to look into the information FE Week has brought to light,” he said.

It comes amid a government review of adult qualifications by Nigel Whitehead, BAE Systems group managing director of programmes and support.

Skills Minister Matthew Hancock told FE Week: “One of my goals in reviewing qualifications has always been to ensure they have a clear line of sight to work.”

He added: “We plan to deliver that through traineeships and there’s no reason that adult qualifications should be any different.”

Among the leisure-focussed courses being advertised with the loan offer is a level three Royal Horticultural Society certificate in horticulture. It covers “practical skills” such as planting and pruning.
It is run at, among others, Bicton College, in Devon, where it is taught on a Monday afternoon.

The college has promoted its 24+ loans courses on Twitter with the hashtag #itsnevertoolate, and also advertises an NCFE certificate in creative craft, for learners to “explore and develop your latent creative potential” every Monday morning.

A 24+ government loan of £940 is needed to enrol, while the horticulture course is £750.

Jenny Tyrrell, head of marketing at Bicton College, said: “The college’s focus is always on enabling individuals to upskill in order to secure employment or move into higher education and we only offer approved courses to our learners.

“Those who have completed courses, whether in agriculture, horticulture, or in numerous other areas, at Bicton College have gone on to build their own businesses, gain employment or achieve career change ambitions.”

She said there was a “very clear skills shortage in areas such as horticulture, and the vast majority of our students leave college into careers or higher education courses of their choice”.
Loans are used to pay course fees for those aged 24+ studying at levels three or four.

Course costs used to be halved between the learner and the government, but are now, in theory, paid in full by the learner.

However, to ensure such courses are free at the point of entry, the government pays fees up-front in the form of a loan for 100 per cent of the costs — in effect doubling the initial outlay from the public purse.
There is no suggestion Bicton, which has a loans facility and bursary allocation of £102,409, has broken any loans rules because there is no official stipulation that loans must be used on courses aimed at getting people jobs or into higher education.

But with more than 3,000 loan applications having been submitted for level three certificates, there is concern providers’ finite loan facilities could be heading away from job-focussed programmes, such as advanced and higher-level apprenticeships.

These have seen a total of just 77 loan applications — compared to an expected figure for 2013/14 of around 25,000.

Mr Marsden said: “The details FE Week has uncovered are indeed worrying, even if they prove to be isolated examples.

“If they are part of a trend in which funding for 24+ loans is not helping to progress reskilling and retraining, then that would be of even more concern.”

A joint statement from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the agency said: “The value, rigour and relevance of qualifications is currently the subject of a major review being led by Nigel Whitehead as part of government’s drive to make the further education system responsive to the needs of employers and the wider economy.”

————————————————————–

Editorial: Loans not meant for leisure

Should limited public funding be used for level three gardening and creative craft courses that are taught for half a day a week — even if the funding is paid back?

You might think yes, but what if the loan funding (or “facilities”) runs out?

This could mean there is nothing left for those wanting to study access to higher education courses or become apprentices.

The stats already indicate that there have been more applications for leisure courses than for apprenticeships.

And with more than 35,000 applications by the end of August — and September likely to be the busiest month for applications — it seems likely the loan funding will indeed be exhausted soon.

But if, like me and seemingly the Skills Minister, too, you think loans should be prioritised for adults wanting to go to university, into work or to do an apprenticeship, then this needs looking into.

The first thing the government should do is provide more detail on who and what loan applications are for.

Providers are screaming out for market analysis as to what is popular, and it would also help establish how significant the leisure course issue is.

From there the sector should come together to look at whether these loans should be directed at specific programmes.

Only then can we ensure funding ends up where it is most needed.

Nick Linford, editor

 

Minister boosts traineeships with £20m – but only for 19 to 23s

An extra £20m funding will be available for over 19 traineeships, but there is no new cash for 16 to 18-year-olds despite a “pressing” need.

The funding, announced by Skills Minister Matthew Hancock on Thursday, is for the government’s flagship scheme which offers learners work experience alongside English, maths and employability training.
The cash has been welcomed by the sector, but some people have expressed concerns that it will be restricted to the programme for 19 to 23-year-olds.

We are continuing to push the agency to ensure funds are available for colleges where needed.”

A Department for Business, Innovation and Skills spokesperson said the money was “additional funding, re-prioritised from existing budgets outside of the adult skills budget,” but was unable to comment more specifically on where the funding had come from.

“The additional funding has been made available by the Skills Funding Agency for provision to those aged 19 and over,” he added.

“This funding will be available to eligible providers of all types including colleges and private training organisations.”

At least one college has turned down the opportunity to provide traineeships for 16 to 18-year-olds since the scheme started in August, citing a lack of government funding as reported by FE Week last month.
ASCL general secretary Brian Lightman (pictured) said: “We are very disappointed to hear this funding is only available for post 19-year-olds, when the pressing need is for younger students to have access to this important route into apprenticeships and higher level training.”

Dr Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, said: “It seems bizarre not to fund traineeships for all under-24s because all unemployed young people need help to get a job.
“This is another illustration of the government’s disjointed policy-making on the hoof.”

She added: “It may grab the headlines, but it won’t work in practice.”

Traineeships were originally announced in January and initially were only for 16 to 18-year-olds.

The extension of the scheme to 19 to 23-year-olds was announced in late June and assistant chief executive of the Association of Colleges Julian Gravatt told FE Week this had caused “uncertainty” and “had an effect on numbers” on the programme.

He said: “The decision to allocate £20m to support employers and independent training providers will help to drive up numbers, but it is important the government does not overlook the way in which colleges can make a difference in helping young adults from all backgrounds move out of unemployment and into work.

“We are continuing to push the agency to ensure funds are available for colleges where needed.”

Elmfield director Ged Syddall walks during Newsnight probe — but remains majority shareholder

Former Elmfield Training Ltd chief executive Ged Syddall (pictured) has quit as the firm’s director — but remains its majority shareholder — during a BBC investigation into alleged malpractice.

A Newsnight probe, supported with information uncovered by FE Week, was due to be aired tomorrow night (Friday October 4), focussing on Elmfield’s dealings with workers at supermarket giant Morrisons. 

The Newsnight investigation was carried out by BBC presenter Shelley Joffre (pictured)

Newsnight will allege that Elmfield received public money for courses that employees had declined to take.

A spokesperson for Elmfield made a statement to Newsnight, seen by FE Week, which claims investigations had already been carried out and had uncovered “no evidence of malpractice”.

Nevertheless, he told Newsnight: “The board and management of Elmfield take the view that the alleged behaviour described in the selection of emails obtained by Newsnight is unacceptable.

“Accordingly, we have asked an independent firm to carry out a further review.

“This will identify key learning points of how the Morrisons contract was operated and provide recommendations to us as a new board, to ensure that similar mistakes don’t happen again.”

He added: “Elmfield is announcing changes to its board of directors in order to serve the best interests of its learners, clients and funding partners.

“The majority shareholder, Ged Syddall, has ceased to be a director of Elmfield as of September 27.”

The Skills Funding Agency valued Elmfield’s delivery of Morrison’s apprenticeship contract at £64m from August 2009 to April this year, an FE Week Freedom of Information request to the agency uncovered. Including its Morrison provision and non-apprenticeship programmes, Elmfield delivered £108m-worth of provision to its 379 client businesses for the same period.

An agency spokesperson said: “We have received allegations regarding Elmfield.

“We take any allegation against an organisation involved in the delivery of skills extremely seriously.

“We are currently investigating the credibility of these claims and we are not able to comment on specific details during a live investigation.”

She added: “Should any whistleblower have information of irregularity in relation to public funds provided by the agency, we would encourage them to contact us directly and their evidence will then be considered in line with our investigations procedure.”

Mr Syddall resigned as chief executive in July after Ofsted inspectors gave Elmfield a grade four inspection result the previous month having come across “unacceptably low” results.

After ten years in post, and having founded the Cheshire-based independent training provider, he said he took “full responsibility” for the grade.

He said: “Despite many positive findings the business has received low grades and ultimately as chief executive I take full responsibility for that.

“I have therefore resigned as chief executive with immediate effect.”

The grading also saw the agency issue the firm with a notice of serious breach.

A condition of the notice is that Elmfield cannot start any new learners with either new or existing employers or apply for growth.

“Success rates in the apprenticeship programmes experienced a considerable decline last year and a high proportion of learners within the Morrisons’ contract did not complete the full framework,” said the Ofsted report.

“Furthermore, the number of learners who completed their apprenticeship in the planned time fell to an unacceptably low level of 33 per cent.”

The inspection report came just months after FE Week reported how Elmfield’s success rates showed just 47.5 per cent of its 13,420 leavers in the retail and wholesale sector, aged 25+, walked away with an apprenticeship certificate in 2011/12.

Morrisons stopped contracting with Elmfield in August, when NCG (formerly Newcastle College Group) took over the apprenticeship training contract. Neither Morrisons nor NCG are accused of any wrongdoing.

Ofsted inspectors will return to Elmfield in the autumn to see if it has improved.

In April 2012, Mr Sydall gave evidence to the House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee.

He told MPs that Elmfield’s entire income of £30m in 2011/12 came from public funds and he defended his £3m dividend.

In the same month, Elmfield appeared as part of a Panorama investigation called The Great Apprentice Scandal.

Hundreds ‘fail’ to comply with wage rule

High street fast food business Subway was among hundreds of employers on the National Apprenticeship Service (NAS) website advertising jobs that paid less than the national minimum wage, FE Week has discovered.

The legally-required amount that employers must pay apprentices went up 3p to £2.68 on October 1.

But many jobs — with start dates well into the month — were being advertised on the website at the old rate.

 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.”

Two such posts were with Subway and were for “customer service apprentice/sandwich artist” in Newcastle Upon Tyne.

The one-year apprenticeships would have paid £79.50 for 30 hours’ work — which equates to £2.65 an-hour.

A Subway spokesperson told FE Week the advert had been produced from out-of-date records. It has since been amended to £80.40 a-week — which equates to £2.68 an-hour.

She said: “All our stores are independently owned and operated by franchisees. As part of their franchise agreement, franchisees are responsible for all employment matters.

“Franchisees are required to comply with employment law when recruiting, contracting and in all dealings with employees.”

A NAS spokesperson said: “Training organisations, employers and apprentices have been made aware of the [minimum wage] increase.”

However, on the day the minimum wage went up there were more than 600 NAS website adverts, some with multiple apprentice posts, where employers would break the law.
Possible start dates for the underpaying posts ran right up to October 28.

Joe Vinson, National Union of Students vice president for FE, said: “It is scandalous that companies offering apprenticeships may be offering below a wage that is already incredibly low.

“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.”

Just over a month ago the government announced it would be making it easier to name-and-shame underpaying apprentice bosses.

The clampdown, which applies to non-apprentices too, came into effect this month. It comes in addition to financial penalties, of up to £5,000, employers face if they fail to pay adequately.

Frances O’Grady, TUC general secretary, told FE Week: “The significant minority of employers who dodge the minimum wage have not only ripped off young apprentices, they are also tarnishing the apprenticeship brand that government, unions and employers have so worked so hard to revitalise in the last decade.”

According to the Low Pay Commission annual report this year, data suggests that more than 27 per cent of apprentices were paid less than their minimum wage last year, compared with 20 per cent in 2011.

Non-compliance, it added, appeared most prevalent among employers of young apprentices — 40 per cent of all 16 to 17-year-old apprentices were thought to be paid less than £2.65 an-hour, and 25 per cent of all 18 to 20-year-old apprentices were thought to be on less than £2.65 an-hour.

Meanwhile, the government’s apprentice pay survey for 2012 is yet to be published. A spokesperson at the Department for Business, Innovations and Skills said: “The survey has no set date and will be published in due course.”

Apprenticeship tax credits

Download your free copy of the FE Week 16-page special report on the PAYE proposal in the government’s apprenticeship funding consultation, sponsored by Pearson.

Click here to download (10mb)

——————————————————————————————–

Introduction

Time has been called on a consultation into the most radical reform proposals for apprenticeship funding in generations.

The government have confirmed around 350 responses from across the FE skills sector have entered the ring, contributing their views on three possible models for future funding arrangements, which the government hopes will attract more employers to the apprenticeships programme.

The first was a model of direct payment to the employer, the second would allow employers to claim back spending on apprentices through tax credits, and the third would leave funding in the hands of training providers.

Allowing firms to claim back costs through the Pay As You Earn (PAYE) system was always going to be the most divisive option.

It was clear from the moment this was proposed through former Dragon’s Den investor Doug Richard’s review, in December last year, that we might have a split decision.

That is why we decided to focus this week’s 16 page hard-hitting supplement on the fight of the 21st century — at least

in the FE world — over tax credits proposals.

It’s the option FE Week understands has the support of Skills Minister Matthew Hancock, although he was unable to comment while the results of the consultation, which closed on Tuesday, October 1, were still being compiled.

But acting as referee, FE Week has drawn together here some ‘fors’ and ‘againsts’ in debate over use of the PAYE system.

So, seconds out, round one — and in the “red” anti-PAYE corner we have training providers worried about losing control of finances, and organisations representing small businesses, who fear it will put small and medium-sized enterprises off taking on trainees, because of possible added paperwork.

However, there are also several big hitters in the “green” pro-tax credits corner, including the Confederation of British Industry, which insists the simplicity and familiarity of PAYE would attract more businesses to apprenticeships.

The funding model the government eventually settles on will be a key factor influencing the fate of cross-party efforts to drive apprenticeships to new heights.

Foundation rejects non-competitive bids

The Education and Training Foundation is binning contract bids it received under its old non-competitive tendering process.

Foundation interim chief executive Peter Davies told FE Week last month that contracts would have to be awarded through a competitive process in future.

And now, because of this, a number of bids already submitted for a share of the foundation’s £18m government funding, to carry out research and development, are being binned.

We have always been keen to be an open and transparent organisation and these values underpin the way we want to commission delivery.”

The announcement was made in a letter published on Thursday on the foundation’s website and was the result of a board meeting on Friday, September 27.

“We will not be able to proceed with the majority of the bids for work the foundation has received from across the sector, some of which we initially asked for, which were more speculative in nature,” it said in the letter, co-signed by Mr Davies and foundation interim chair David Hughes.

It follows £75,000-worth of contracts being awarded to member organisations such as the Association of Colleges and the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education through a non-competitive process. It is understood these contracts will remain in place.

But, it said in the letter: “We have always been keen to be an open and transparent organisation and these values underpin the way we want to commission delivery.”

To achieve this, non-competitive processes with only a single bid would only happen “in exceptional circumstances”.

The letter continued: “All other work will be subject to competition, either through separate open tenders or framework agreements.”

It went on to say the foundation, the FE and skills sector’s self-improvement body, would not commission work based on speculative bids from organisations.

However, such bids may be used to generate tenders “if the proposal fits with our objectives and agreed overall plans”.

“Accordingly, It added that, to avoid disruption, the foundation would be looking at some limited “continuation programmes and pump priming activities” for which it would offer three to nine-month contracts. These contracts could then be extended through a competitive tendering process.

“In this way, we can balance the need to keep work happening, with the need to be open and fair in our commissioning,” the letter said.

Areas eligible for these short contracts would be programmes of work which had previously been funded by the Learning and Skills Improvement Service, the Skills Funding Agency, and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS).

Other eligible projects included those in line with the foundation’s “mission” and key priorities or where the body of work was finished but “needs some further limited activity to ensure it is available to the foundation or the sector”.

It was acknowledged that time would have been wasted putting together bids that are binned, but certain organisations had submitted proposals the foundation still wanted to pursue.

These could end up composing documents explaining their ideas and inviting other bodies to bid for contracts to turn them into reality.

They would be free to enter the bidding process, but the letter warned there would be no bias towards them winning the contracts.

Contracts that could be put up for tender in the near future cover Teach Too, traineeship and apprenticeship support programmes, National Occupational Standards for teachers and practitioner-led research projects.

Government funding for the foundation, excluding VAT, is £18.8m for August to April next year, and the same figure again for 2014-15.

Why create a barrier to apprenticeships?

Teresa Frith compares different visions for the future of apprenticeships.

The Husbands Review of apprenticeships is, at first glance, wife of the Richard Review.

It also takes what, by all measures, is a successful government-supported initiative and seeks to introduce radical change.

It would be a brave person who claimed there is nothing wrong with the current apprenticeship system.

But equally, it would be unfair to say that there are not quite a few babies in this particular bathwater.

It appears the Government and Her Majesty’s Opposition are united in their belief apprenticeships are very important, and in their desire for radical change.

The recommendation to call only programmes at level three and above apprenticeships clearly deals with the wish to seek parity with A-levels and higher study, as well as the need to have a system that compares favourably with our European neighbours.

As with the Richard recommendations, doesn’t this just further expand choice for the academically able?”

But, as with the Richard recommendations, doesn’t this just further expand choice for the academically able?

If at 16, a young person is capable of study at level three, they may well look more favourably on a route that takes them straight into employment.

But what of those who are aged 16 to 24 and not ready to study at this level? They will be unable to access an apprenticeship and need to take what could be perceived as an inferior route towards their goal. Will employers view these young people, who need extra time and support to become job-ready, as equally worthy of their efforts?

If we want to smarten up the apprenticeship brand, there needs to be a comprehensive, funded offer that ensures young people have a range of access routes that feed directly into the apprenticeship, without fear of additional stigma.

The development of employer-led bodies that genuinely represent the needs of businesses and young people across a sector would be a fantastic achievement for any administration.

Those of you who have been around a while can probably remember numerous attempts by past ministers to achieve this with limited degrees of success.

Husbands and Richard both agree on a key role for employers in the design of apprenticeships and giving them a strong say in funding.  The basic design would be undertaken by “sector employers” in both visions. Richard favours more “company-specific” input, but there is little to choose between them.

So what about the money? Again both agree that a significant shift is needed here.

Employers need to become embroiled in the funding process in the Richard vision; Husbands favours the employer-led institutions, or similar.

So we can create more than 150,000 funded bodies (Richard) or a bunch of sector-led mini-skills funding agencies, as suitable replacements for the existing single structure — well “single” if we just consider apprenticeship funding, all of which comes via the Skills Funding Agency.

If all £1.5bn is transferred from the existing system to support employers in either vision to deliver the beefed-up apprenticeships, I’m struggling to see how we will fund the level one and two provision that will be needed to help young people to progress to an apprenticeship.

Like the current apprenticeship system, there is much to be applauded in both the Husbands and Richard reviews and maybe, just maybe, we might get what we seek if we take some serious time to test and evaluate what is being suggested, recognise the need for partnership rather than control and try to keep our eyes on the prize, rather than the cash flow.

Teresa Frith, senior skills policy manager, Association of Colleges

 

Nine make it through in sale of troubled K College

Nine organisations have been asked to develop their bids to take over provision at the troubled K College, FE Week can reveal.

They have been whittled down from 30 organisations, including colleges and private firms, who sent the Skills Funding Agency a total of 87 expressions of interest (EIs).

They want to take on elements of the Kent-based college (pictured above, with former principal Bill Fearon), which is being broken up following a failed merger, from August next year.

An agency spokesperson told FE Week: “Working with the Education Funding Agency and the Higher Education Funding Council for England, we have now reviewed the EIs submitted for the education and skills provision in South and West Kent, currently delivered by K College, the first stage in the competition process.

“We now move to the second stage of the competition process and have invited nine organisations to prepare and submit full tenders to us, to demonstrate how they will fully meet the needs of the area and deliver high quality provision from August 1, 2014, while maintaining continuity for existing learners.”

The college was formed following a merger between West Kent College and South Kent College in 2010, but ran up at least £15m in debt to the agency, which has issued it with a notice of concern.

Phil Frier, who became interim principal of the college in January following the resignation of former principal Mr Fearon, has conceded the merger failed.

But the college now looks likely to be broken up, depending on the nature of the winning bid or bids.

Seven parts of the college’s provision are on offer, including 16 to 19 provision in Dover, Folkestone or Ashford, Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells grouped together and 19+ provision in these three areas.
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) directly-funded provision at Ashford and Tonbridge is also up for grabs.

The first, EI, stage of the tendering process was initially supposed to have been completed in August.

But it was delayed by the agency “in order to allow organisations to better prepare their tenders” as many organisations would be closed over the summer, according to an email sent to interested bodies.

That resulted in the second stage of the process, where invitations to tender (ITT) were due to be sent out by the agency between July and September, being pushed back to this month.

However, the delay should not prevent contracts from being awarded on time, an agency spokesperson told FE Week in July. They said: “Contracts will continue to be awarded in line with the indicative timetable we have set out.”

The nine short-listed organisations, who have made through to the ITT stage, are due give presentations and attend interviews on their bids later this month, with contracts being awarded the following two months.

The agency spokesperson said: “K College will continue to deliver provision to new and existing learners throughout this process.”

The agency is refusing to disclose any details with regard to applications while the procurement is running. It has also declined to say whether college debts would be transferred to the winning bidder.

However, K College revealed that the nine parties which had been given invitations to tender included a range of colleges, private and not-for-profit providers.

The names announced by the college were:

  • Canterbury College
  • East Kent College
  • Hadlow College
  • Highbury College
  • Mid Kent College
  • Newcastle College Group
  • SEETEC Business Technology Centre Ltd
  • Ixion Group Contracts Ltd

FE Week believes the ninth organisation invited to tender has pulled out.