The government’s response to the Richard Review has been branded a “fudge” that fails to address the need for “reform of funding incentives”.

Shadow FE Minister Gordon Marsden spoke out as the government published its response to the review, The Future of Apprenticeships in England: Next Steps from the Richard Review.

The government’s response, which includes a 24-question consultation, comes four months after Doug Richard’s independent review of apprenticeships.

Business Secretary Vince Cable described the response and its plans to “empower employers”, as “radically changing” the way apprenticeships were delivered.

But Mr Marsden questioned ministerial commitment to employer ownership, saying: “Ministers appear to have comprehensively ducked Richard’s recommendations over ways of incentivising employers to take on apprentices via reforming funding schemes.”

Former Dragons’ Den investor Mr Richard, has insisted that tax incentives for employers through National Insurance or a tax credit system were central to his views on apprenticeship reform.

In November he told FE Week: “I feel strongly about this point and I think it’s the heart of the review.”

The Association of Employment and Learning Providers, which has rejected his tax breaks argument, said it was pleased the government had held back from “any firm commitment” to the idea. The group said it had “warned the government” that any adoption of Mr Richard’s tax credits proposal was “fraught with danger”.

But when pressed on the matter during a webinar hosted by FE Week, FE minister Matthew Hancock appeared not to have ruled out the idea.

“We are looking at all the options,” he said.

And the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, which championed tax incentives in its new report Employer Ownership of Skills Building the Momentum, further hinted the government was working towards the measure.

Michael Davis, chief executive of the commission, which has run employer ownership pilots for the government, said he didn’t believe ministers had “gone cold” on the proposal but that the tax incentives scheme required “a lot more work”.

“I see this as a work in progress,” he told FE Week.

“The minister has been very supportive . . . and the government has said as much on it at this point as it can.

“You have to take this forward in manageable pieces, and tax and direct payments take a lot of thinking. The commission’s view is that tax is a long-term proposition to hard wire vocational training into the labour market.

Maternity pay just happens in the labour market — and it works — but it took a lot of hard work first.”

He said the commission’s preferred way to fund apprenticeships would be to use National Insurance, a model that worked for all businesses, organisations and charities.

Mr Richard tweeted shortly after the response was published (see below) and told FE Week: “I continue to hope that the government will ensure that the reform takes into account the need for a change in the approach to funding. I am pleased to see that it continues to explore new approaches.”

The consultation ends on May 22.

 

 

 

 

 

———————————————————————————————————————

Editorial: Heart of the matter

In November last year, Doug Richard said he felt strongly about apprenticeship funding reform, and his preferred option was through the national insurance system or as a tax credit.

In fact he said it was “at the heart” of his “all-or-nothing” review.

Then, in December, the FE Minister Matthew Hancock announced he would be excluding apprenticeships from the Skills Funding Agency reform of adult funding for 2013/14, so he could consider Mr Richard’s proposals.

Fast-forward to March, and the government response contains neither a critique of funding apprenticeships this way, nor even any related questions in the consultation.

So an obvious question is, putting it anatomically, what’s happened to the heart?

The minister made it clear in an FE Week webinar that funding apprenticeships in the future via the tax system remained an option.

Yet, to repeat the point, the government consultation makes no proposals and asks no questions relating to the chapter on employer purchasing power.

Of course, the decision to reform apprenticeship funding in this way probably now rests with the Treasury, but would it not want to know if the sector, and more importantly employers, thought it would be a better system?

But there may be a work-around, so let me make a recommendation.

Use the ‘any further comments’ final consultation question — number 24 — to make your voice heard.

Nick Linford, FE Week editor

The first college to get a top grade from Ofsted under its new common inspection framework is expected to be revealed soon.

The news came out in the House of Lords, although the college — understood to have been inspected in the past six weeks — has not been identified and its Ofsted report is still not public.

During a short debate on vocational reform just over a fortnight ago, Conservative peer Lord Lucas said: “It has been widely acknowledged that we have a problem as a nation with the quality of the teaching of vocational subjects in further education.

“The most recent example and proof of that has been Ofsted’s refusal to grant outstanding status to any FE college, although I believe there is one going through the process now.”

The last outstanding result was achieved by Hampshire’s Eastleigh College last July, under the old framework.

The new framework, introduced from September, followed Ofsted’s Good Education For All consultation that ended in May.

It includes a reduced inspection notice period from three weeks to two days and a potential re-inspection of providers ‘requiring improvement’ within 12 to 18 months. Providers who get the grade twice in a row can be judged inadequate on their third inspection if they haven’t improved.

The first good grading under the new framework went to City College Plymouth after an inspection in October.

It followed chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw’s annual report in which he called on the government to “shine a spotlight” on the FE sector with 13 colleges having been graded as inadequate in 2011/12, compared with four the previous year.

However, FE leaders have defended the sector.

Lynne Sedgmore, 157 Group executive director, said: “Lord Lucas quoted the Ofsted annual report, adding again to the perception that all FE is of poor quality.

“The inspection framework takes something of a narrow view of a college’s work, but I am confident that, even under the current arrangements, there is much genuinely exceptional practice.

“We will all be able to celebrate that fact when a college is awarded an outstanding grade.”

Joy Mercer, Association of Colleges policy director, said: “Ofsted has said it is looking to raise the bar with the new inspection framework.

“We have expressed concerns that the particular strengths of vocational teaching across a wide range of subjects, qualifications and student starting points, was a complexity with which Ofsted struggled.

“However, we hope we are seeing a growing understanding of how colleges are preparing students for work in a very challenging economic climate, and are pleased that colleges have been recognised for their outstanding work.”

She said that “a significant number” had been rated as good in the past year, under a different framework.

“Our joint aim is to further improve the quality of vocational education in colleges that are working with the most demanding students,” added Ms Mercer.

“We have a sound basis for further work as 64 per cent of colleges are already deemed good or outstanding by Ofsted from last year’s inspections.”

Ofsted has criticised colleges for missing skills targets and failing to prepare learners for local job opportunities.

The education watchdog found that of the 17 colleges it visited for a survey on local accountability and autonomy, just three were offering a curriculum tailored to their areas.

It conducted its survey to find out how the sector was responding to the government’s New Challenges, New Chances document, introduced just over a year ago to give colleges more freedom to tailor their curricula to local needs.

But Ofsted’s research uncovered little change in the colleges it looked at.

It also criticised local enterprise partnerships for not being “fully effective in working with the colleges to ensure high-quality, coherent local planning for further education and skills in their respective areas”.

Ofsted national director of learning and skills Matthew Coffey said that only three colleges had revised their curricula to prepare learners better for local opportunities, and to meet local, regional and national skills gaps.

“More worryingly, over a third of those visited did not have sufficient labour market intelligence to help them to plan their provision,” he said.

This report indicates there is much to be done.”

“Many colleges were able to clearly identify common priorities within their local region, such as poverty and deprivation, rising unemployment and a mismatch of skills. However, there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate how successful they were in supporting progression to further training or employment.”

The report challenged college governors to hold their institutions to account for the quality of provision and outcomes for learners. It also urged them to provide comprehensive monitoring and evaluation of their college’s response to changing local economic and social priorities.

Joy Mercer, the Association of Colleges director of policy, said: “This report indicates there is much to be done. These efforts are to be made across the board — in partnerships by including colleges at the highest levels, in colleges to learn from the best, in government to support the challenges of raising the participation age. All parties also must agree data that would help governors and leaders judge their impact on growth and unemployment

“We are pleased therefore that Ofsted recognises and commends the progress in many colleges and the exceptional practice in some.

“There are many recommendations with which we agree. For example, it encourages partnership between schools and colleges to make sure young people are directed to the most appropriate provision.

“Currently this is difficult to achieve, as competition for students with school sixth forms means colleges are routinely prevented from advising pupils on their curriculum range.”

She said it did not “hurt” for a critical eye to be cast over partnerships and the inconsistency in their relationships with colleges.

“Colleges are making determined efforts to engage with their local enterprise partnerships. These efforts need to be reciprocated if the full potential of colleges acting in support of their local communities and businesses is to be realised,” added Ms Mercer.

The new principal of a debt-ridden college has admitted that a merger three years ago has failed — and that FE minister Matthew Hancock has approved plans for it to break up.

West Kent College and South Kent College became K College after a KPMG report in 2008 recommended merger.

The colleges won approval from the Learning and Skills Council, predecessor to the Skills Funding Agency (SFA), after they carried out due diligence, including a consultation with stakeholders and the local community.

But crippling debts of more than £6m have since resulted in job losses and a SFA notice of concern.

Phil Frier, who became K College principal in January following the resignation of Bill Fearon, has now conceded that the merger, which drew together five campuses, had not been a success.

His proposal to split the college into two separate geographical areas — Dover and Folkestone, and Ashford, Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells — has got the green light.

Mr Frier said: “The merger has not worked. FE colleges should be responsive to the needs of local employers and learners, and the corporation believes the proposal going forward to the minister is the best way forward.

“Preparations are underway for an open and competitive process to secure new college structures by September 2014.”

The break-up plan follows an independent review that identified and appraised the specific needs of the geographic regions that K College serves.

Mr Hancock has agreed that the SFA will run a competitive tender exercise.”

In Ashford, Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells, the corporation proposes either a new provider or a new governance team for a ‘standalone’ college.

A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: “Along with the SFA and the Education Funding Agency (EFA), we have reviewed K College’s structure and prospects appraisal.

“Mr Hancock has agreed that the SFA will run a competitive tender exercise for its provision and the EFA’s provision currently delivered by the college.

“Proposals submitted through the competitive tender exercise will need to demonstrate how they will meet the needs of local people and businesses. More information will be available — including how providers can express their interest — on the SFA website in the next few weeks.

“The college will now concentrate on ensuring that continuity of learning is maintained. We expect to have secured the delivery of replacement provision . . .by early 2014.”

K College, which was given a grade three by Ofsted last year, will continue to recruit for the next academic year, starting in September. Courses offered will remain in line with the college plan until July next year, subject to learner numbers.

“We will continue the excellent work completed over the last year,” said Mr Frier.

“Securing an above-benchmark figure for long [full-time] programmes in 2011/12 was a fantastic achievement. We must build on this for 2012/13.

“Last term we congratulated nearly 100 members of staff who achieved a grade one for their teaching, and we look forward to many more throughout the year.

“Students can know that their future education is secure and improving throughout this difficult time for staff and managers.”

Bosses are looking for a loophole in the new FE loans system to make apprentices pay part of their employers’ share of training costs, a TUC official has claimed.

With just a month until applications for 24+ Advanced Learning Loans open, Tom Wilson, director of TUC learning and skills branch Unionlearn, warned that apprentices were in for “the worst of all possible worlds”.

“Some employers are talking about making their employees take out an FE loan to offload the cost the employer previously carried, even for apprentices,” he said at a seminar during the Education Innovation conference in Manchester.

“So if we have a system where apprentices are being made to take out a loan for their own apprenticeship training that was previously paid for by their employer, that seems to me the worst of all possible worlds.”

Also on the seminar panel was National Apprenticeship Service chief executive David Way, who said employers should pay towards apprentice training under the new system.

“The employer is expected to make a contribution — it’s a partnership between the employer and the individual, as opposed to the employer and the government.”

The panel, chaired by FE Week editor Nick Linford, was completed by National Institute of Adult Continuing Education chief executive David Hughes, Association of Teachers and Lecturers education policy adviser Jill Stokoe and Association of Colleges chief executive Martin Doel.

Mr Doel said: “From my previous life in the armed forces, I find it a bit perverse that a soldier who would be trained to use military equipment … would be paying for his own training on that equipment as a 25-plus apprentice. There seem to be manifest illogicalities around this.”

The government currently pays 50 per cent of tuition fees for most FE students aged 25 and over who want to study at level three (or above), but from August anyone aged 24 or more will lose this financial contribution.The National Union of Students has been among the system’s fiercest critics. Its vice president and spokesperson on FE, Toni Pearce, said: “It is apprentices who will get the worst deal . . . those aged over 24 will be taking out a loan of up to several thousand pounds to effectively work.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: “Market research shows that the terms and conditions of 24+ Advanced Learning Loans are positively received. It also shows that the quality of the course and the future benefits to the individual are the most important factors when deciding to invest in training.”

The government has today published their response to the Richard Review in a “plan to redefine apprenticeships”, starting with a formal consultation.

The document, The Future of Apprenticeships in England: Next Steps from the Richard Review, comes four months after Doug Richard’s independent review of apprenticeships, and asks 24 questions.

Business Secretary Vince Cable said: “These plans will radically change the way we deliver Apprenticeships. They will put employers in the driving seat so they can develop the workforce they need to grow their business.”

The government plans include:

• “Employers putting recognised and meaningful industry standards at the heart of every apprenticeship.
• Every apprenticeship should be targeted at a skilled job, involving substantial new learning that will provide the foundations for a career and a springboard for progression
• Training and accreditation of existing workers who are already fully competent in their jobs should be delivered separately
• Apprenticeships should be focused on the outcome: clearly setting out what Apprentices should know and be able to do at the end of their apprenticeship
• Apprenticeships will move to a final holistic test which has the full confidence of employers
• All apprentices will work towards a level 2 qualification either through GCSEs or functional skills in English and maths, from August 2014, if they have not already achieved this.”

FE Minister Matthew Hancock said: “We firmly agree with Doug Richard’s assessment of the challenges and opportunities ahead for apprenticeships, and his recommendations to reform the programme in pursuit of rigour and responsiveness.”

But the response made little mention of funding apprenticeships through a National Insurance or tax credit system, which Mr Richard had insisted should be “at the heart” of apprenticeship reform.

A spokesperson for the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) told FE Week they had “warned the government that any adoption of Doug Richard’s tax credits proposal to fund employers’ apprenticeships provision is fraught with danger.

“Having previously expressed deep concerns about the likely impact on small business take-up of the programme, the AELP is therefore pleased that the new consultation document on the future of apprenticeships has held back from a firm ministerial commitment to the idea.”

Mr Hancock added: “Now we’ve set out our plans, we want to hear from employers, educators, apprentices and others in the further education and skills sector to help us design and implement these changes.”

The consultation will run until May 22 and you can respond online,  or via the apprenticeships.consultation@bis.gsi.gov.uk  email address.

—————————————————————————————————————————

Register to join an FE Week ministerial webinar about the response to the Richard Review at 1pm today: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/644393913

————————————————————————————————————————-

The 24 consultation questions in full

Question 1: How can we ensure that every Apprenticeship delivers substantial new skills?

Question 2: How should we invite and enable employers to come together to design new standards for Apprenticeships?

Question 3: What are your views on the proposed criteria for Apprenticeship standards as set out above?

Question 4: Should there be only one standard per Apprentice occupation/job role?

Question 5: Should there be only one qualification per standard?

Question 6: How should we manage the transition from the current system of Apprenticeship frameworks to a new system of employer-designed Apprenticeship standards and qualifications?

Question 7: How can we make sure that the new standards stay relevant to employers, and are not compromised over time?

Question 8: How can we ensure that employers are better engaged with the development and oversight of the assessment in Apprenticeships?

Question 9: How could employers best be involved in the practical delivery of assessment?

Question 10: How can the independence and consistency of assessment in Apprenticeships be further improved?

Question 11: How should we implement end point assessment for Apprenticeships?

Question 12: How should we implement grading for Apprenticeship qualifications?

Question 13: What are the specific obstacles to all Apprentices achieving level 2 English and maths as part of their Apprenticeship, and how could these be overcome?

Question 14: How would a requirement to have all Apprentices achieve level 2 in English and maths impact on employers, providers and potential learners? What are the risks and potential solutions?

Question 15: What further steps, by Government or others, could encourage greater diversity and innovation in training delivery to help Apprentices reach the standards that employers have set?

Question 16: What approach would work best to ensure Apprentices benefit from time to train and reflect away from their day to day workplace?

Question 17: Should off-site learning be made mandatory?

Question 18: How can the process for approving training providers be improved, to help employers find high quality, relevant training?

Question 19: Do you believe that a kitemarking scheme for your sector or profession would add value and be supported?

Question 20: What more can government do to facilitate effective third party/external use of its data to better inform individuals and employers about Apprenticeships?

Question 21: What approaches are effective to inform young people and their parents about the opportunities provided by an Apprenticeship?

Question 22: How can we support employers to engage with learners of all ages to provide information about Apprenticeship opportunities?

Question 23: Do you consider that the proposals set out in this document would have a positive or negative impact on any group, including those with protected characteristics?  Please provide any comments or evidence you have for your answer and set out which aspects of the reforms will impact and how these impacts might be managed.

Question 24: Do you have any further comments on the issues in this consultation?