Elmfield Training ‘tells 400’ staff their jobs are at risk

A training provider that helped deliver one of the UK’s biggest apprenticeship programmes at Morrisons is shedding a third of its 600-strong workforce, it has been claimed.

Two in every three of Elmfield Training staff were warned on October 4 they could be facing redundancy, according to a worker who wanted to remain anonymous.

Documents that appear to be from the company, leaked to FE Week, list jobs in business support, finance and communications, among others, as “at risk”.

Elmfield Training described the information as “inaccurate”, but failed to say whether any job losses were planned.

However, the documents supplied to FE Week highlighted how 157 of the planned job losses would be from positions on Elmfield’s bumper contract with Morrisons.

It follows a May consultation on redundancies that was reported in FE Week. However, the number of job losses on that occasion was not disclosed. And the anonymous member of Elmfield staff said there was new anger at the firm’s alleged job loss consultation branding it “unfair” on staff. They also said there were fears the cuts could affect learners.

“We’re not being treated with any consideration,” they added. “We’ve been told the consultation is going to last 30 days, but would like it to last 90 days. We think that would be fair to us and fair to our clients.

“It would be nice to have been given 90 days bearing in mind that we’ve put around 100,000 learners through for them. And learners will suffer.”
They said staff would be told whether they had one of the 196 “at risk” posts that would remain on November 4, and those that had not got a position would be given 30 days’ notice.

“Morale is the lowest I’ve ever known it,” they added. “We have gone through this before, but last time everyone was kept in the loop. We feel like we’ve all been left in the lurch. We all need the money, to pay off mortgages and stuff like that.”

A spokesperson for Elmfield, which was allocated £41m by the Skills Funding Agency for the current academic year, described the redundancy figures supplied to FE Week as “inaccurate, selective and misleading”.

“In our considered view, it is singularly unconstructive to focus on second-hand chit chat when the real investigation should be into the challenges confronting training providers and employers who want to help young people make the transition from education into work,” she said. “That’s what is most critical for the employment and skills system at the moment.”

We’ve been told the consultation is going to last 30 days, but would like it to last 90 days. We think that would be fair to us and fair to our clients.”

A spokesperson for Morrisons, which has been delivered around 100,000 apprenticeships by Elmfield since October 2009, said it had “confidence” in the scheme. “Our apprenticeship programmes have been mapped to the national apprenticeship framework,” he said.

“These standards are determined by the Sector Skills Council which in our case is SkillSmart Retail.” He added that Morrisons’ contract with Elmfield was up for review in 2013, when it was “likely to go out to tender”.

The latest alleged shake-up at Elmfield comes around eight months after its boss, Ged Syddall, was grilled by MPs on a business, innovation and skills select committee. He told the committee he had received 95 per cent of a £3 million dividend for their 2009/10 financial year.

“I set this business up from nothing and now we have 750 people,” Mr Syddall told MPs.

“The other thing we have done over the last three years, is 40 per cent of post-tax profits have gone into social impact programmes, which helped thousands of young people back into employment. From every £1 I’ve taken out in the last three or four years, I’ve put £2 back to helping other people who have not been as lucky as me.”

Ofqual indentifies issues with internal assessment of ESOL provision

Assessment malpractice, funding uncertainties, new courses and immigration rules were the hot topics of discussion at a conference on English courses for foreigners.

Ian Dexter, reform officer at Ofqual, kicked off the sold-out event with a presentation on proposals for English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL).

He told the audience at London’s Morley College how Ofqual was concerned about internal assessments and how, in 2010/11, it investigated 87 ESOL centres over fears of malpractice.

Mr Dexter further told delegates on Monday, October 8, that Ofqual was proposing a new qualification — provisionally called ESOL for Life in the UK — that would be completely externally-assessed in a bid to address assessment concerns.

He told the Lsect-organised conference that Ofqual had also been in talks with the Home Office about how to ensure the qualification would address immigration requirements.

Mr Dexter said: “The new qualification would allow awarding organisations to demonstrate more clearly how students achieving their qualifications can meet the language requirements needed for UK entry, settlement and citizenship.”

However, one delegate said the proposal was “like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut”, and that the providers of concern should be addressed individually.

Mr Dexter said Ofqual’s 2010/11 investigations, “suggested there was a deeper issue with internal assessment”.

“We should regulate to minimise incentives for malpractice,” he said.

Mr Dexter called on delegates to have their say on the ESOL proposals, by contacting Ofqual by Monday, December 3.

Chris Taylor, ESOL programme manager at NIACE, also spoke at the conference, addressing issues about new UK settlement rules for students.

She told how students who wanted to stay in the UK used to have to pass either the government’s Life in the UK test or achieve an ESOL qualification at levels one, two or three.

But new regulations, said Ms Taylor, meant the ESOL level three qualification is the minimum requirement and it has to be achieved along with the Life in the UK test.

The change meant some providers would have to cater students at three levels of ESOL qualification where they would previously have only accommodated one, she added.

“Will you be able to accommodate new enrolments on top of learners that will stay with you or will some displacement be inevitable? Some providers will be looking at twice as many enrolments as before, and this has huge implications for workforce development, staffing and curriculum planning” said Ms Taylor.

A subsequent discussion on the implications for both providers and students resulted in a stalemate on whether the new immigration rules would have a positive impact on learners’ integration into the UK, or whether they would be unachievable for those with low levels of literacy in their first language.

Additional concerns were raised about how ESOL levels one to three only tested speaking and listening ability. But learners who wanted to stay in the UK would, under the proposals, also need reading and computer literacy to pass the online Life in the UK test.

Others to address the conference included Judy Kirsh, co-chair of the National Association for Teaching English and other Community Languages to Adults, who talked about uncertainties surrounding ESOL teaching qualifications, Jennifer Turner, head of ESOL and literacy at Greenwich Community College, who advised on curriculum planning, and Nick Linford, Lsect managing director and FE Week editord, who looked at possible funding changes for 2013/14 due to published by the Skills Funding Agency in January.

Government figures reveal a ten per cent fall in 16-18 apprenticeships

The government has conceded that under 19 apprenticeships were proving a “major challenge” after official figures showed a 10 per cent fall in the number of starts.

The number of 16 to 18-year-olds who started apprenticeships in the final quarter of the last academic year dropped 5,200 from the previous year to 22,000.

The figures, from the latest statistical first release, also showed how the total number of starts last year was 126,300 — a two per cent decrease on 2010/11.It was the first dip since 2008/09, when there were 99,400 starts.

The government had hoped to hit 133,500 16 to 18 apprenticeship starts for the last financial year and for 2012/13 was aiming at 140,200, with the Education Funding Agency setting aside £833m.

However, the latest figures could still be updated, and across all apprenticeship age groups they showed a 9.9 per cent rise last year to 505,200 starts.

A joint statement from the government and the National Apprenticeship Service (NAS) said: “It is encouraging that despite being rigorous on quality and introducing tougher standards, apprenticeships are growing overall.

“Not surprisingly, raising the level of participation in apprenticeships among 16 to 18-year-olds is a major challenge within a difficult economic climate and the latest figures reflect that.”

FE Minister Matthew Hancock said: “Hitting the half-million mark is a momentous achievement for this government’s apprenticeship programme.

“It shows our passion for skills, and is a ringing endorsement from employers and apprentices alike, who are reaping the benefits of a more highly-skilled workforce.
“This rise comes despite tougher rules to make apprenticeships more rigorous.”

But the falling apprentice figures come just months after the government tried to boost numbers by allowing more businesses to ask for training grants worth £1,500.

The economic conditions are obviously a factor in terms of employers being able to offer places”

Only firms recruiting 16 to 24-year-olds with less than 250 employees could apply the Apprenticeship Grant for Employers, but the change meant employers with less than 1,000 staff could also apply. Up to 40,000 grants are being provided.

Shadow FE Minister Gordon Marsden said: “The statistics highlight the Tory-led government’s failure to achieve enough take-up of quality apprenticeships for young people crying out for these opportunities.

“The fact the number of 16 to 18 apprentices has fallen in comparison to last year also shows their failure to properly engage with businesses or to convince them to participate in taking on apprentices in the current economic climate.

“We would take action by using public procurement and government contracts to boost apprenticeship places. Ministers need to get a grip and urgently boost apprenticeship opportunities for young people, but they have refused to back our plans or acknowledge the findings of the Holt report they commissioned.

“What’s more, the fact that the numbers dropped steeply in the final quarter suggest this decline could be an accelerating trend.”

With the outcome of Doug Richard’s review of apprenticeships due out soon, an Association of Employment and Learning Providers spokesperson also called for a new pre-apprenticeship programme.

“The economic conditions are obviously a factor in terms of employers being able to offer places,” they said.

“Moreover, employers are raising the bar on entry requirements for full apprentices and this is why we feel a comprehensive pre-apprenticeship programme is now needed.”

And Association of Colleges skills policy manager Teresa Frith said: “Many young people are not being given the appropriate advice and guidance about options post-16.”

————————————————————————————————————-

Editors comment

To understand the decline in 16 to 18 apprenticeship starts, we need to consider the impact of changes to the definition of an apprenticeship.

The government blames the economic conditions, but there is nothing new there – the truth is much closer to home.

The Coalition passed legislation – drawn up by the Labour Party in power – with the effect of bringing an end to programme-led apprenticeships.

These apprenticeships were popular with thousands of unemployed 16 to 18-year-olds at training providers like Zenos (now Pearson in Practice).

Many programme-led apprenticeships continue to be delivered legitimately, but under the title access to apprenticeships with providers such as the De Vere Academy.

However, crucially, unlike the old programme-led apprenticeships, access to apprenticeships are not counted in government apprenticeship statistics until the learner has got a job.
Hidden away in the latest figures [SFR table 19.1 note 4] we find that 5,400 apprenticeships across all ages were on the access to apprenticeship scheme.

But a staggering 4,300 (80 per cent) remain unemployed. Some learners may yet become employed, but the SFA funding rules say providers should have no more than 10 per cent.

So in truth, the pre-2011/12 figures were inflated as they contained, I estimate, tens of thousands of unemployed learners.

To repeat, today these learners would not be counted as apprenticeships.

So let’s stop blaming the economy, and focus on policies that help as many 16 to 18-year-olds get the education and training they deserve.

Nick Linford, Editor

All is not well in the world of training providers

Training providers feel vulnerable, unrepresented, unsupported, unprotected, exploited and undervalued. That is the inevitable conclusion from the conversations I have had over the last few weeks with a range of providers across the country, says Peter Cobrin, who runs the Apprenticeships England Community Interest Company

This shouldn’t come as a surprise. Over the past year companies have folded, others have got close. The media, ranging from Panorama and  the Daily Telegraph through to FE Week have tried to lift the lid on practices ranging from the possibly illegal through to the ethically questionable.  What concerned me was the apparent absence of a coherent analysis, and clearly Government agrees with me, hence the various reviews and investigations.  The problem is, to adapt the joke about economists, if you laid all the conclusions of these reviews end to end, you still wouldn’t reach a conclusion!

Part of the problem is that these reviews – Holt, the BIS Select Committee and I’ll wager Richards as well – start from a flawed position. This is known as the “something must be done” syndrome.  This is compounded by the confusing and conflicting agendas of the Departments of State covering this sector.  Clearly DfE and DBIS are at odds over key areas that impact on apprenticeships — the information advice and guidance (IAG) services offered to young people, the role and value of vocational learning, embedding employability skills within the curriculum are three examples.  Holt got short shrift for his well-made comments on the crisis in IAG and was understandably angry at this.

Meanwhile, back in the world of front-line apprenticeship training, what words am I hearing? Try vulnerable, unrepresented, unsupported, unprotected, exploited and undervalued.

What words am I hearing? Try vulnerable, unrepresented, unsupported, unprotected, exploited and undervalued.”

Let’s look at each one of these:

Vulnerable: training providers sit at the end of a complex chain of legislation, government agencies and prime contractors — an environment where any change impacts directly, and immediately on its day to day activities and its very survival. Contracts for training delivery are, quoting one provider, “totally one-sided and one would have to be mad to sign one”.  Yet they are regularly and uncomplainingly signed. This was an issue raised by a very surprising source, Elmfield Training’s CEO, Ged Syddall at the Apprenticeships England Conference in Leeds.  He was very critical of the lack of transparency and one-sidedness in the contractual relationship between prime and sub-contractor.

Unrepresented:  repeatedly I was told that training providers lack a voice.  This came as a surprise to me given the role of the AELP and the existence local training provider networks.  The former was regarded, again quoting one provider, a “big boys club” and therefore unwilling or unable to intervene when problems arise, the latter purely a conduit for information “from above”.

Unsupported and unprotected: given the lack of a voice, it is hardly surprising that when things go wrong, there is no “emergency support” for a training provider?  Where is the “999” number that provides 24/7 help?  Every provider I met said that this is clearly a major issue that NAS and the SFA must address.  I had hoped that after a conversation with the SFA’s Geoff Russell at the DBIS Select Committee in May, that this issue was resolved.  I was told that he would ensure that contractual disputes were resolved at local SFA level.  However, one training provider I met with was told by the SFA that “we don’t get involved in domestic disputes” when confronted with non-payment of £300,000 from his prime.  There is clearly is a need for a mechanism for identifying and resolving such a dispute and blaming cutbacks at the SFA is of no use at all  — nor is relying on the informal good offices of, for example, Apprenticeships England, or FE Week’s investigative prowess.

More next week when I look at issues of exploitation and the undervaluing of training providers and make some recommendations.

Principal quits on day of strike

The principal of a Kent College with a £11m budget deficit has quit on the same day as a staff strike.

Bill Fearon resigned from K College on Monday night while around 150 protestors demonstrated outside a governors’ meeting on plans to cut 145 jobs.

The principal, who has been at the college 10 years, said he was “very sorry” to be leaving, but said “financial issues” still needed to be resolved.

It comes around a week after Fe Week revealed the college, which has campuses in Tonbridge, Tunbridge Wells, Folkestone, Dover and Ashford, was the first provider to get a government warning that could lead to the withdrawal of Skills Funding Agency cash.

A college spokesperson said Mr Fearon would leave at the end of term and an interim principal would be appointed to run the college until September.

Mr Fearon said: “I am obviously very sorry to be leaving under the present circumstances, but as the manager with ultimate responsibility for all that the college does and achieves, it is appropriate.

“I have been extremely proud to have been a principal at West Kent and K College, not least due to the commitment and achievements of the staff in the 10 years I have been in post.

“K College has done extremely well in its first two years in many respects, particularly with regard to student performance, and will go from strength to strength while the financial issues are resolved and beyond.

“I will be working ‘full on’ until the end of term with colleagues to ensure the New Year brings a stable position for a successful 2013.”

A week ago the college said its Folkestone campus was likely to be sold.

Common sense hopes over immigration

The accusation FE colleges are “selling immigration rather than education” has triggered a strong response from John Mountford, international director at the Association of Colleges. He questions the UK Border Agency’s knowledge of the sector, but also has hopes of a “more common sense approach” to the checking of foreign students in the UK.

The British FE sector provides a world class college skills system that attracts hard-working, bright and successful students from around the world.

These students enrich our courses and campuses, allow colleges to run programmes they wouldn’t normally be able to run, and hire staff and purchase resources that benefit the entire college community.

International students come to learn — not earn. They add great financial and educational value to our colleges and the UK needs immigration legislation that supports genuine students in their decision to study at UK colleges.

This could not be further from the accusation levelled at colleges in recent weeks that they “sell immigration”.

FE colleges take a robust, professional and serious approach to their work as sponsors and it is worrying that the UK Border Agency (UKBA) believes some FE colleges are “selling immigration rather than education”.

Bad science doesn’t make for good legislation”

It indicates a lack of understanding of the FE college mission and it begs the question, is the UKBA able to distinguish FE colleges from other training providers?

It is also an interesting insight into how UKBA views colleges and whether its decisions are made from a knowledgeable position — because the image of colleges trying to make a quick buck on the back of “selling immigration” certainly doesn’t tally with the conscientious sector that I know.

UKBA also makes reference to studies that show colleges are a higher risk than universities. It is unclear whether they are referring to FE colleges or every institution that has college in its title.

We have never been privy to the data from studies that the UKBA refers to and, as far as I know, they are not based on like-for-like studies of the different sectors.

Again the reference to these studies is worrying — bad science doesn’t make for good legislation. The consequences for students and their education from the recent revocation of London Metropolitan University’s Highly Trusted Status (HTS) clearly shows that all sectors have to work hard to meet the requirements of HTS.

It also demonstrates the unfairness of treating different sectors differently, whether this is regarding secure English language tests, internships or working rights.

There should be a level playing field — all sponsors should be treated equally and ultimately you are either HTS or you are not.

FE colleges are simply looking for fair treatment that reflects the sector’s genuine desire to meet our requirements as sponsors.

Some of the UKBA decisions on colleges’ HTS status have been disappointing and a number have been overturned after further reflection. We believe if there was more understanding and better communication between the UKBA and sponsors then these poor judgments could be resolved before the revocation stage. This would save colleges from unnecessary damage to their reputation and business.

On a more positive note, we have started to see a more understanding and flexible approach from UKBA towards FE colleges as evidenced by the overturning of some HTS revocations.

It is also encouraging to note that the UKBA is introducing a 28-day rule to help build in a review period between notification of revocation and actual revocation.

This will allow colleges an opportunity to present their case before their HTS status is revoked and it should result in a more common sense approach.

We are also now having regular meetings with the UKBA, with some positive discussions that encouragingly indicate a more partnership-driven approach that will improve the Tier 4 [foreign adult education in the UK] experience for all stakeholders.

Throughout the process our wish has been to work in partnership with the UKBA to help support genuine students successfully access our world class colleges and FE system.

Hopefully, we are now seeing a more constructive dialogue between FE colleges and the UKBA, that includes an understanding that our sector does not sell immigration.

 

Fears for maths and science with college changes afoot

Set against the backdrop of an impending FE loans system and college funding cuts, the future of FE teaching in science, technology, engineering and maths could be facing tough times ahead. Kate Green, director of business development at 157 Group, and Daniel Sandford Smith, programmes director at the Gatsby Charitable Foundation’s education team, look at what the future might hold for colleges delivering the subjects.

Changes to FE funding will make it harder for colleges to deliver advanced courses in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) and harder for individuals and employers to afford them.

Our report, The Challenges of STEM Provision for Further Education Colleges, reveals that funding pressures on colleges threaten the viability of high-quality STEM provision at levels three and above.

It also highlights how proposed changes will make things worse.

FE colleges play a vital role in delivering STEM education and ensuring employers are provided with a suitably skilled and qualified workforce.

FE offers almost 2,500 STEM-related qualifications and in 2009/10, 1.74m STEM qualifications were achieved by students aged 16 and above in the English FE and skills sector.

Setting up and delivering new STEM courses is a key way in which FE can contribute to growth.

However, offering a high-quality STEM curriculum that responds to the needs of individuals, employers, the government and the UK economy, can be resource-hungry.

It often needs to be delivered within a highly specialised and technologically rich environment; the challenges involved in offering a suitable curriculum at a time of economic constraint should not be underestimated.

Our report details the findings of a 157 Group project, undertaken with support from the Gatsby Charitable Foundation and in partnership with the Association of Colleges, which aimed to develop a better understanding of the challenges FE colleges face in offering STEM provision.

In light of the clear policy focus on promoting STEM provision, a review of current programme weightings is required.”

It looked in particular at programmes at level three and above — where the need for increased skills is greatest.

It also sought to gauge the expected impact of a number of current policy changes, such as the introduction of FE loans and reductions in overall college funding, on the demand for STEM provision in the post-16 sector.

The report notes that the additional cost of delivering many STEM subjects has been recognised in the funding arrangements for FE Colleges for many years.

A programme weighting has been given to those subjects that incur greater costs because of the need for smaller staffing ratios, technician support for practical activities and for the extra costs of materials and equipment.

Even so, these programme weightings only reflect the revenue costs of delivering these subjects, rather than the capital costs of setting them up.

The report, released today and now available on the 157 Group website, confirms current programme weightings do not fully reflect costs.

Moves to simplify funding may make this worse by reducing the differential between high and low cost subjects, for example, the Education Funding Agency will in future fund sixth-form science and humanities at the same rate.

We therefore feel, in light of the clear policy focus on promoting STEM provision, a review of current programme weightings is required.

The decision to remove public funding from provision at level three and above for those over the age of 24 may similarly undermine attempts to promote STEM.

Until now, the Skills Funding Agency has ensured the hourly fee rates for STEM subjects are no higher than those for humanities or business studies by giving extra subsidy to the former.

From next September, however, there will be no such subsidy — students will have to pay higher than average fees or take out larger than average loans if they choose to study STEM.

This is sure to have an effect on the level of demand from individuals and employers and needs to be reviewed.

We are keen to work with others to take the report recommendations forward to ensure the maintenance and development of a vibrant and responsive STEM offer in FE.

 

Why we need the Tech Bacc

Ed Miliband’s proposals for a Tech Bacc are welcome but perceptions still need to change, so that the vocational route is no longer seen as a second-class option, says David Grailey, the chief executive of NCFE.

Ed Miliband was persuasive and engaging when he focused on tackling youth unemployment and reforming the education system so that it works for all people, including the “forgotten 50 per cent” who don’t go to university.

I was especially interested in the creation of a German-style “Technical Baccalaureate”; a gold standard qualification based on a mixture of vocational training and compulsory work experience. The Labour leader is positioning this Tech Bacc as a viable alternative to Michael Gove’s more academic English Baccalaureate.

However, those achieving the qualification will still have to pass maths and English courses to ensure that they have the necessary numeracy and literacy skills.

There is certainly a lot we can learn from continental-style vocational education. Take Switzerland as an example – a country with one of the most successful apprenticeship systems in the world and a resulting youth unemployment figure of just 7.5 per cent (in contrast to 21.9 per cent in the UK).

It’s interesting to see how our European neighbours have embraced other pathways to employment; the challenge for the sector is whether the UK can replicate the model with the same success.

A lot of work has already been done in raising the status of vocational qualifications in the UK; apprenticeships continue to rise in popularity following the recent increase in university tuition fees, and there has been substantial government investment in this area. However, perceptions still need to change – the vocational route is still often seen as the second-class option compared with its academic counterpart.

Every young person is different — armed with individual talents and skills that should be nurtured and recognised.

Yes, of course students should be competent in core subjects such as English and maths, but this does not need to be to the detriment of high quality, rigorously assessed, “gold standard” practical qualifications. After all, for every budding doctor, there is an aspiring music technician or travel rep.

There is a lot we can learn from continental-style vocational education“

It is important that each young person achieves his or her potential; leaving the education system as a well-rounded individual with the motivation to succeed, and with the personal qualities and skills that employers need.

Any exam system needs to recognise a broad range of talents; not narrow teenagers’ options at a young age.

We should all be working to improve the prospects of young people as the key to economic growth. There needs to be a collective sense of responsibility between educational establishments, awarding bodies, employers, and those in government.

At NCFE, for example, we have formed a partnership with recruitment specialist, REED, to position colleges as effective recruitment centres for local businesses – as well as being places of learning. Through this kind of collaboration, we have opened doors for many young job seekers eager to find work.

Labour’s proposed Tech Bacc comes at a time when we are overwhelmed by transformations in the sector (consider the changes to 16-19 and 19-plus funding, the Richard Review, the government’s Youth Contract, the proposed changes to key stage 4 qualifications, not to mention the new Ofsted inspection framework).

However, this is one policy that looks to be a step in the right direction, ensuring that the “forgotten 50 per cent” are not forgotten but instead, are celebrated for their own achievements and   instilled with the confidence they need to progress in their post-education lives and careers.