Independent learning providers could become subject to Freedom of Information (FoI) Act “requirements” under government proposals.

Firms that “carry out public functions” figure in the plans of Justice Minister Simon Hughes (pictured), meaning that Skills Funding Agency contractors, along with Education Funding Agency contractors, could be affected.

He told MPs in the House of Commons: “We intend to publish a revised code of practice to make sure that private companies that carry out public functions have freedom of information requirements in their contracts and go further than that.”

He said the government wanted to extend the FoI Act “as soon as is practical,” but a spokesperson for the Association of Employment and Learning Providers said he did not expect “significant” change.
It was unclear whether the proposals applied to subcontractors.

Mr Hughes revealed the proposals in response to a question from Lindsay Roy MP, who asked: “What benefits have accrued to the government and citizens from the implementation of the act, and when does the minister plan to extend its scope further?”

It came on Tuesday, March 18 — just days after the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee (PAC) denounced the “veil of secrecy” around contracts awarded to large companies like G4S, which is currently an Ofsted grade four apprenticeship employer provider, and called for FoI legislation to cover government contracts.

The AELP spokesperson said: “We understand that providers won’t be made directly subject to FoI and as they already cooperate with the SFA, which is subject to requests, it doesn’t appear that we are looking at a significant change.”

The Freedom of Information Act currently requires any government or publically funded organisation to give out any information on request but does not currently include private firms.

The PAC report Contracting out public services to the private sector was published on March 14 and among its recommendations was for the Cabinet Office to “explore how the FoI regime could be extended to cover contracts with private providers, including the scope for an FoI provision to be included in standard contract terms”.

Providers will have to say how much of their courses are delivered online in their individualised learner record (ILR) data returns, the Skills Funding Agency has announced.

The rule will be in force next academic year. The news comes just weeks after the Further Education Learning Technology Action Group (Feltag), recommended that 10 per cent of all publicly-funded courses should be delivered online by 2015/16, with incentives to rise to 50 per cent by 2017/18.

An agency spokesperson told FE Week: “The Skills Funding Statement 2013-16 set out that the government wants to see ‘many more radical approaches to the use of available educational technologies’.

“The agency was tasked with working with the sector to ‘look at how we can put in place appropriate funding mechanisms to better facilitate online learning’.
“The new data will enable the agency to work collaboratively with the sector to understand how this activity can be measured.”

However, he did not say whether the move had been prompted by the Feltag report.

He added: “Recommendations from Feltag will be considered as the agency and the sector progress with this work.”

Association of Colleges technology manager Matt Dean said: “Given the Feltag recommendation, it’s a good idea to work out how to collect data via the ILR, but it’s important to check the accuracy and validity before taking significant decisions on the basis of the information.

“Colleges will also be keen to know more about how to go about developing 10 per cent of a course or programme for online delivery, the inherent cost implications… and what’s meant by ‘incentives’ to push for the 50 per cent online delivery figure by 2017/18.”

Stewart Segal, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said: “We supported many of Feltag’s recommendations but we are concerned about making online delivery a mandatory element of course content because it may not be appropriate for all learners in all programmes.

“Providers require flexibility to deliver the most appropriate programmes for their learners and employers, and we should not be making elements of those programmes mandatory.
“This can only lead to yet more measurement of inputs rather than the focus on outcomes of the learning.

“We should encourage more online learning where it works but not setting targets and measuring programmes on a learner by learner basis.”

Steve Hewitt, management information system officer at London’s Morley College, said the move was “practical in the short term, but it depends on how they define ‘delivered online’ — especially if there’s some spurious 10 per cent threshold that everyone has to meet”.

He said: “The idea of a minimum threshold of online delivery seems a pretty 20th Century way of looking at things.

“If a tutor shows the whole class something they’ve found on YouTube, is it online delivery if the tutor emails them, but not if everyone’s sat in a classroom watching it all together?

“Students will be doing almost all of their research for any given course online anyway, even things like dance and plumbing, so why would we want to reduce the practical, hands-on experience that only high quality vocational education can deliver, by setting an arbitrary threshold?”

Kirstie Donnelly, UK managing director of City & Guilds, which took part in Feltag research, had mixed feelings about the new ILR requirement.

She said: “I fully support any move to ensure that the sector recognises the valuable role online delivery can play…to me, it’s a no-brainer.”

She added: “However I still have some concerns… For this to work, providers must be given the help and support they need to become more digital.”

West Nottinghamshire College has announced plans to shut almost half of the training centres it bought under last year’s Pearson in Practice deal.

The college, which struck the deal with Pearson last spring for an undisclosed amount and now runs it under the name Vision Workforce Skills, wants to close centres in Romford, Newcastle, Bristol and Southampton.

It claims they are all losing money, along with an admin centre in Banbury, North Oxfordshire, which it also plans to shut.

The closures could mean redundancy for 21 full-time and one part-time member of staff, but college vice principal and Vision Workforce Skills managing director Graham Howe has vowed to keep the centres open until all current apprentices had completed their classroom-based training.

Mr Howe said the decision was being taken to “future-proof” the rest of the former Pearson firm, which he said was capable of turning a profit. He said: “We have found it difficult to achieve the right numbers in some of the centres. First and foremost we need to create enough opportunities with employers, and we have not created enough in each of these regions.

“Clearly in terms of our original business plan we were very ambitious. I wouldn’t say we were over-ambitious because we are aiming to keep six of the centres open, but we have to look at the fact that, for four of the centres, we have not got enough business.”

Mr Howe said the current deficit in the running of the company stood at £1.5m, which he said could be turned into a surplus of £2m on an annual turnover of £11m without the pressure from the four centres.

Pearson in Practice was previously called Zenos. The renaming, in 2012, followed criticism of the apprenticeship scheme delivered by Zenos in the Panorama programme The Great Apprentice Scandal, broadcast on BBC One.

The ICT apprenticeships delivered by Zenos, which had been acquired by Pearson in 2010 when it paid £99.3m for vocational training company Melorio, were said to be entirely classroom-based and could not guarantee learners a job at the end.

And Mr Howe said a subsequent change in government preference towards employer-led apprenticeships was a concept the original company had struggled with, and that Vision Workforce Skills had changed the format of the apprenticeships to be more employment-focused, but said this had not translated into success at all 10 of its centres.

He said: “We acquired what was a very large training provider. It had two parts. One part delivered training to employers in the workplace and that side has been very successful and will probably become bigger than it used to be under Pearson in Practice.

“The other side was the IT apprenticeships, which were programme-led and learners were not necessarily employed at the end of the apprenticeship.”

He said the 72 apprentices enrolled at the centres, along with any others recruited this month, would be able to fully complete their 12 weeks of classroom-based learning before any closures took place and would continue to be supported in the workplace.

But consultation on the future of 21 full-time jobs was ongoing.

He said: “I think it is fair to say of the situation they are in that if a reasonable alternative is not found, then it is going to mean compulsory redundancies. While redundancies are always regrettable, any action we are taking is to future-proof the business, and we are committed to ensuring all existing learners complete their training.”

Chartered status for FE providers is just months away, the chair of the new Institution for Further Education has exclusively told FE Week.

The not-for-profit limited company has been given responsibility by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) for developing and launching the quality mark.

Its chair, Lord Lingfield, confirmed to FE Week that it was awaiting royal permission before it could start granting chartered status.

He said: “The acquisition of a charter is not a swift process and many criteria have to be fulfilled.” But, he added: “We expect negotiations to be completed within months.”

The Tory peer said the institution had leased offices in Victoria Street, Westminster, and appointed senior civil servant Ed Quilty as its chief executive. Lord Lingfield confirmed he had consulted earlier this year with 80 large and small providers on plans developed by the institution, which was launched before Christmas.

He added that a “small group” had been chosen from providers who responded to the consultation to “develop and refine” the proposals, but would not reveal their identities. One of the proposals consulted on was possible subscription fees, but Lord Lingfield declined to comment on how much each provider might have to pay. However, FE Week understands fees of up to £10,000 are being considered.

The Association of Colleges declined to comment on fees, but deputy chief executive, Gill Clipson, said last year that she “looked forward” to working with Lord Lingfield in developing chartered status.

“This work will build on his recommendations in last year’s report on professionalism within FE and, in this context, we will be interested to see how the charter will relate to his other recommendations concerning the establishment of a guild [Education and Training Foundation] and the role of inspection within FE,” she said.

Stewart Segal, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, warned many smaller providers might not consider it worth their while applying for chartered status if the subscription fee was too high.
He added official approval for providers could already be achieved through Ofsted reports and financial support from the Skills Funding Agency. He said: “It is hard to see what added value chartered status would bring.”

Chartered Status was originally supposed to have been launched at the start of this year and concern had been growing over the delay.

John Hyde, executive chairman of HIT Training, said: “Hopefully the delay in introducing it is because BIS is seeking to align the responsibilities of all the relevant bodies to improve the sector with joint quality criteria.”

Concerns have been expressed after a “key aspect” of recommendations on the future of childcare qualifications was “neglected” by the government.

The Council for Awards in Care, Health and Education (Cache) has spoken out after the government said it would not implement suggestions made by Professor Cathy Nutbrown for a minimum level three qualification for early years practitioners counted in child to staff ratios.

It would have meant that practitioners would only have counted as staff in ratios if they had a level three qualification.

She wanted a minimum of 50 per cent of staff at level three by last September, increasing to 70 per cent from September 2015 and 100 per cent by 2022.

The Department for Education (DfE) has said it listened to Professor Nutbrown’s advice and had implemented some of her suggestions, but it would not adopt the minimum standard.
But a Cache spokesperson said this did not go far enough.

She said: “Any change may appear to neglect a key aspect of the Nutbrown Report.

“It is important to focus on how any real difference to early years education and care can be measured through the introduction of the early years educator level three qualification. The outcomes for babies and young children, as well as their families, are the real business of any proposed change and must remain so.

“We have responded enthusiastically to the Nutbrown recommendation concerning qualifications at level three, in order to provide those that are ‘rigorous and challenging’.

She added: “We have developed full and relevant early years qualifications in partnership with our stakeholders and through employer engagement that are much more up to date, fit for purpose and appealing.”

Professor Nutbrown also criticised the government’s decision, calling it “hugely disappointing”.

She said: “This decision denies opportunities for many babies, toddlers and young children; for their families, and for the women and men who seek a worthwhile career with enhanced status and career prospects.

“The quality of the experiences offered to the youngest children, depends greatly on the quality of the staff working with them; and robust qualifications is one way to ensure that staff are well equipped to do this important work. Level two qualifications are starting points to work with young children but this level is only an introduction.

“The decision not to opt for a workforce with a minimum level three qualification threatens the future status of the profession, limits career progression and denies some of the most vulnerable children the best that we can offer.”

A DfE spokesperson said: “We accepted many of Cathy Nutbrown’s recommendations on childcare qualifications and share her ambitions to ensure the highest standards of quality in early education and childcare.

“That’s why we have introduced the level three early years educator qualification, and early years teacher status for graduates, both of which have tougher entry requirements to ensure high quality staff are working with children and giving them the best start in life.”

In its original response to the recommendations, the Association of Colleges (AoC) said it supported Professor Nutbrown’s view “that level three qualifications must deliver the necessary depth and breadth of knowledge, be rigorous and challenging, and require high quality work experience placements”.

However, it declined to comment on the DfE’s rejection of Professor Nutbrown’s suggestions.

Further strike action at sixth form colleges could be on the cards after a walkout by staff on Thursday (March 26) over pay and conditions.

National Union of Teachers (NUT) members marched through the streets of England’s major cities in protest against government plans to implement performance-related pay, among other changes.
It is not known how many sixth form colleges were affected, or whether any were forced to close, but the NUT has warned that further strikes could happen if an agreement isn’t reached.

Sixth Form Colleges Association (SFCA) HR director Graham Baird said: “We are disappointed with NUT’s decision to press ahead with the one-day strike action.

“The impact on sixth form colleges varies across the country, but we are aware that the vast majority of sixth form colleges will have made their own arrangements for the day to ensure that wherever possible students can attend colleges and continue their studies independently, if necessary, without too much disruption.”

Christine Blower, NUT general secretary, said the strike, which also hit schools, had been “a clear demonstration that teachers are thoroughly tired of the intolerable pressures they are being put under by the coalition government”.
She added: “Despite being the only teachers’ union to be taking action, members still felt it was essential they made a stand.

“Teachers cannot and will not take any more of the diktats from government that are ruining teaching and education. We will be continuing with our campaign of engaging parents and the public and applying pressure to politicians.

“Teachers love teaching but are crushed by the long hours and stifling accountability regime. If there isn’t movement in the talks there could well be further strike action this summer.”
A Department for Education spokesperson said: “The NUT has tried to create as much disruption for pupils and parents today as possible
“Parents will struggle to understand why the NUT is striking over the government’s measures to let heads pay good teachers more.

“They called for talks to avoid industrial action, we agreed to their request, and talks have been taking place weekly.”

Staff at a college in the South West are in the dark about the future of their principal after an internal memo was sent out saying she would not be returning this term.

A new acting principal has replaced Wiltshire College’s Di Dale, but a spokesperson declined to comment on whether she would be returning.

Mrs Dale, who had been principal for more than seven years, came under fire from the University and College Union (UCU) in 2012 when it passed a vote of no confidence in college leadership.
And the latest twist comes just three weeks after an Ofsted inspection.

A college spokesperson declined to say why Mrs Dale was not at the college, nor comment on the results of the inspection.

However, vice principal Ben Allen said: “In line with good business practice when a key member of the team is out of the office for a period of time, we informed staff at the beginning of the week that the principal will not be returning to the college for the rest of this term and that Amanda Burnside will take on the role of acting principal in Di’s absence.”

Local media has reported that the memo to staff from chair of governors Helen Birchenough said: “Di Dale will not be returning to the college this term, I have asked Amanda Burnside to take on the role of acting principal.”

Mrs Burnside, who joined the college three months ago as vice principal, is a former executive director at Swindon College, which was rated outstanding by Ofsted in March last year.
Nick Varney, University and College Union (UCU) regional official for South West England, welcomed her appointment.

He said: “UCU members at Wiltshire College have been very unhappy with the current leadership and passed a vote of no confidence in July 2012.

“If the appointment of an acting principal results in a change of practice and leadership style, staff will be delighted.

“We look forward to working with the acting principal to build a strong and successful college.”

The college was twice rated as satisfactory following its previous two inspections in 2007 and 2012 and last year parted company with its fifth vice principal in five years — only one of which left for another job.