A Dorset college that was wrongly labelled as under-performing in official statistics has won an apology.

Kingston Maurward College, in Dorchester, was ordered to improve in May having apparently fallen below the Education Funding Agency’s (EFA) new minimum standards for key stage five.

The land-based college, according to the Department for Education (DfE), failed to get at least 40 per cent of students to achieve an average point score per entry higher than 194 for academic qualifications or 172 for vocational qualifications in the 2011/12 academic year.

Figures, now known to have been incorrect and since removed, indicated the 4,000-learner college hit a figure of just 12 per cent of learners — 18 out of 153 of those eligible.

The problem with the figures came to light after they had been reported, in good faith and based on official information, in FE Week.

“We were very shocked to see our college mentioned in the report as this bore no resemblance to our own data sets,” said a spokesperson for the college, which has a £4.6m EFA allocation for the current academic year along with one of £2.1m from the Skills Funding Agency.

“We have now received an update and an apology from the DfE confirming that there was a major error in the data published on its website.”

The error came from data supplied to the DfE by City & Guilds, where a spokesperson said: “In 2012 we supplied some incomplete candidate performance data for Kingston Maurward to the processing company for the DfE performance tables.

“Although we alerted the relevant department and processing organisation prior to the publication of performance tables, it was too late to correct the data.

“While this has not impacted any learners, this error has made it seem as if Kingston Maurward has not met the Education Funding Agency’s minimum standards for key stage five.

“As a global leader in skills education, we are committed to providing the highest quality of services to our customers.

“Unfortunately, on this occasion we haven’t met our own high standards and we are working with DfE and Ofsted to put things right.

“We remain committed to continually improving our processes and working with our customers to check their data to avoid this sort of situation in the future.”

A DfE spokesperson said: “As soon as we were aware of this error, we immediately removed the minimum standards measure from the college and have written to them to apologise for any distress caused.

“As a matter of course we do offer all schools and colleges a two-week period to check our results data before publication.

“All schools then have a further six weeks, once the results are published, to make any amendments. We would always encourage schools to use this opportunity to check this data and alert us to any errors.”

Kingston Maurward assistant principal Andy Daw (pictured above) said: “We are very pleased that the success of our students has now been recognised. The DfE has confirmed that our entry on the minimum standards table was inaccurate.

“We understand that all merit, distinction and distinction star grades of our level three students had been incorrectly registered as pass grades, therefore not recognising their achievements and considerably lowering the college’s overall position.

“Although City & Guilds has now supplied the correct data, the DfE will not be publishing this on its website, so there will be no entry for Kingston Maurward College for 2011/12.”

Moves to tackle poor provision by Elmfield were ordered personally by Skills Minister Matthew Hancock before its inadequate grading from Ofsted had even been published, FE Week can reveal.

The minister is understood to have been furious with the provider following success rates, as reported in FE Week two months ago, showing just 47.5 per cent of Elmfield’s 13,420 leavers in the retail and wholesale sector, aged 25+, walked away with an apprenticeship certificate in 2011/12.

He wanted action to protect learners, which resulted in the Skills Funding Agency issuing a notice of serious breach this month after the Ofsted report, and stopping Elmfield taking on new learners.

Ofsted found outcomes for learners were inadequate and the majority of apprentices did not complete their framework within the planned time.

A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: “We decided to invoke the right to impose additional conditions of funding within the breach notice and stopped Elmfield taking on any more learners.

“This underlines our tough approach to protect students and root out poor performance wherever it occurs.”

An agency spokesperson confirmed action against Elmfield, which delivers training for more than 11,000 learners, including apprentices at Barclays, UK Mail and Eon, had been agreed before the publication of the Ofsted report and discussed with the provider.

“Prior to the report being published and due to the serious nature of the concerns, the agency decided in advance to invoke its right to impose additional conditions of funding within the breach notice,” she said.

The Ofsted grading also resulted in the resignation of Elmfield founder and chief executive Ged Syddall, although he is believed to remain its majority shareholder.

The agency spokesperson added: “We have instructed Elmfield that while under a notice of serious breach it will not take on any new learners, work with any new employers or be awarded growth, until we can be assured provision has improved to an acceptable standard.

“Failure to make satisfactory progress may lead to termination of the contract. An inadequate re-inspection would lead to contract termination.”

Despite the grading blow, Ofsted acknowledged Elmfield’s success rates in newer areas of provision, accounting for around 20 per cent of its delivery and including banking, were good, although some elements required improvement.

Barclays said it was standing by Elmfield, even though it would be unable to take on new apprentices.

A Barclays spokesperson said: “While these Ofsted results predate our programme, the Ofsted report itself is highly complimentary of the success rates Elmfield has achieved for Barclays.

“We therefore look forward to demonstrating the strong results that our programme is delivering in future inspections.”

UK Mail and Eon declined to comment.

A spokesperson for Elmfield, which has 413 staff, said: “Elmfield is continuing to work closely with the Skills Funding Agency and can confirm our contract allocation for 2013/14 is currently under review.

“This is due to our contract with Morrisons coming to an end later this month. A revision of our contract arrangements for the forthcoming year is expected shortly.”

An Essex-based charity is understood to be in talks to become the first independent training provider to be legally reclassified as a college.

Prospects Learning Foundation, which has two centres in Basildon, one in Southend-on-Sea and one in Canvey Island, is thought to be looking at the move.

The charity, which has around 250 staff, 2,000 students and a turnover of £11m, already calls itself Prospects College and has a current Skills Funding Agency (SFA) adult skills budget allocation of £200,650, a contract for 16 to 18 apprenticeships of £2,461,731 and an Education Funding Agency (EFA) allocation of £490,000.

News of the possible move towards college status comes after Skills Minister Matthew Hancock revealed last month, in an unrelated FE Week special report on college mergers, that his officials at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) were considering promoting the attainment of incorporated status.

“As part of encouraging greater diversity and innovation, the government is always keen to explore how new entrants might enter markets,” he wrote in FE Week.

“The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is currently looking at whether there is a case for encouraging different types of provider to secure incorporated status in FE.”

However, Prospects chief executive Neil Bates declined to comment.

Colleges were incorporated in April 1993 primarily to remove funding from local government and keep down council tax bills while refocusing public-funded education on employer needs.

Joanna Forbes, senior associate solicitor in SGH Martineau’s education team, said it would “mean the provider would be eligible to be funded by the SFA/EFA on a directly-funded basis as a college, rather than as a private provider.”

“This would give access to more flexible recurrent funding, although recent funding reforms have reduced the impact of this, as well as to capital funding available to directly funded FE colleges,” she said.

“It would also provide greater stability of funding, which might be viewed more favourably by lenders and potential partners.

“On the downside, new colleges would be caught by legislation applicable to public bodies, such as the Freedom of Information Act, Human Rights Act and general equality duty, all of which will impact on its day-to-day operations.”

A spokesperson for the Association of Employment and Learning Providers said: “Independent training providers will make their own decisions on whether or not to incorporate, but incorporation should be an open and transparent process.

“In any event, all providers should be treated in line with common principles applied to all such as contracting and access to capital.”

A spokesperson for the Association of Colleges said: “FE and sixth form colleges are the most successful part of the education sector and so, where they meet new demonstrable demand, we would be delighted to see new colleges being established.

“Where new institutions are being considered it’s important that there is full and transparent consultation.

“Our membership is open to any college established under the Further & Higher Education Act 1992 therefore any new institution that meets the criteria would be welcome to join, just as Rochdale and Lowestoft sixth form colleges did in recent years.”

A BIS spokesperson said: “As the minister wrote in June, as part of encouraging greater diversity and innovation, the government is always keen to explore how new
entrants might enter markets. At this stage the work is purely exploratory.”

A “radical” overhaul of apprenticeship funding has been outlined by the government in response to a review by former Dragons’ Den investor Doug Richard.

Three funding ‘models’ have been proposed by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in A Consultation on Funding Reform for Apprenticeship in England, around nine months after the Richard Review of Apprenticeships came out.

Mr Richard was tasked with looking at how apprenticeships in England could meet the needs of the economy. He said the National Insurance or tax credit system should be used to give employers breaks as payment for training and said such changes should be “at the heart” of apprenticeship reform.

The suggestion figures among those going out to a ten-week consultation (see table below).

The first of the proposals is for a direct payment model where businesses register apprentices claim government funding online.

The second is for a PAYE payment model in which businesses register apprentices online and then recover government funding through their PAYE return.

The third option, although all could be amended as part of the consultation, is a provider payment model where government funding continues to be paid to training providers, but it can only be drawn down when the employer’s financial contribution towards training has been received.

Business Secretary Vince Cable said: “Employers are the best people to judge what training is worth investing in. These radical reforms will mean just that.

“It gives them the power to train their staff to make sure their skills are relevant to the company, instead of having to rely on what courses are available in the local area.”

The government also revealed it was looking at funding 16 to 18s “more generously”.

“We must recognise that younger apprentices have less labour market experience, which means the costs of getting them to the industry standard are potentially higher,” it says in the consultation document.

The first two models would both need the “time-consuming” construction of a new online system, but could be in place by 2016 “at the earliest”.

However, common to each of the models is for “the employer and provider negotiating the content and price of eligible apprenticeship training”. It would replace a system of government-set national funding rates.

Skills Minister Matthew Hancock said: “By radically reforming the funding system we will allow employers to agree with training providers the content and price of training ensuring greater competition both on quality and on price.”

The proposal to use the tax system follows calls for reform from the UK Commission for Employment and Skills.

Its chief executive, Michael Davis, welcomed the consultation.

“The commission’s perspective is that we must return apprenticeships to their founding principle — a contract between the apprentice and the employer, valued and funded as such,” he said.

It sits alongside a review launched by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg into the employment, education and training of 16 to 24-year-olds announced at a Confederation of British Industry dinner on Monday, July 15. The review is due out in the autumn.

However, the Association of Employment and Learning Providers’ chief executive, Stewart Segal, warned against the apprenticeship funding consultation’s PAYE model.

“We have considerable doubts over whether the PAYE proposal would actually bring more employers into the apprenticeship programme,” he said.

“In fact, it might put smaller businesses off. The co-funding option [model 3] might have merit if it properly recognises the contributions which employers make towards an apprentice’s framework achievement.”

Responses to the consultation should be sent to apprenticeships.consultation@bis.gsi.gov.uk by October 1. Visit www.gov.uk/government/news/government-sets-out-radical-plans-to-shake-up-apprenticeship-funding for further details.

———————————————————————————

Editorial: Making employers pay

The truly ‘radical’ element of the government’s apprenticeships consultation is not, as it might first appear, in the different funding mechanisms of the three suggested models.

Nor is it that the employer would ‘own’ the delivery.

What is radical is that, in each of proposals, the employer would have to make a cash contribution.

Public co-investment already stands at 50 per cent of full funding, yet anecdotal evidence is that few employers currently put their hand in their pocket at all.

This lack of a cash employer investment must restrict the quality of delivery, which in turn does little to encourage employers to invest.

It is a cycle of underinvestment that has seen the Skills Funding Agency battle declining quality evidenced by short programmes and Train to Gain-type assessment-only delivery models.

So I applaud the government for considering a funding system that requires employers, and I hope particularly large ones, to make a cash contribution.

However, the policy makers would be wise to dust off the Banks Review of Fees — an independent review commissioned by the previous government and published in July 2010.

Within the daunting 110-page document, Chris Banks’ first and central recommendation was for the government to “match co-investment contributions received from employers up to a published maximum contribution”.

Sound familiar?

It’s a policy calling for the employer’s cash contribution that is long overdue and, using the third proposed funding model set out today, it could be fairly easy to implement for 2014/15 using current systems and rates.

In many ways it could operate like loan fees for the 24+ Advanced Learning Loans, where providers are currently charging the Student Loans Company up to a published maximum.

There are however three extra questions I would like to see in the consultation.

1. How would the government avoid over-spending the limited funding pot?

2. Should the apprenticeship minimum duration policy continue to be applied?

3. Can you avoid setting national funding rates where 100 per cent government-funded (e.g. 16 to 18-year-olds)?

Nick Linford, editor