Errors have been  found in data and management information reports published by the Education Funding Agency (EFA).

The reports, which give local authorities an overview of the 16 to 19 provision in their area, incorrectly included adult learners in  further education.

A spokesperson for the EFA told FE Week that Qualification Success Rates (QSR)  should only include data for 16 to 18 year-olds. Part of the report has been affected as a result.

“We have subsequently revised our code and are in the process of producing and checking updated reports for all FE colleges, sixth-form colleges and independent private providers,” the EFA spokesperson said.

“We will delete the erroneous reports and upload corrected versions as soon as possible.”

The EFA said the issue was a “coding error” and later emphasised that it had “no concerns” with the data provided by colleges.

“In this instance our quality assurance process was not sufficiently robust and will be revisited for future releases,” the spokesperson said.

“However, there should be no impact of there being a relatively minor error in this report.”

The reports are not in the public domain, but are available both to local authorities and education providers through the information management portal.

The “coding error” was identified by members of the College Management Information Systems (CMIS) network.

One CMIS manager suggested there could be more to the problem than the inclusion of adult learner data.

“I’m not entirely sure where they’re getting the figures from for the learner numbers, Standard Learning Numbers and out-turn funding as they don’t agree with our final claim figures (which came from the Learner Information Suite from our final Individualised Learner Record),” the manager said.

“They’re clearly not including adults because they’re only out by a relatively small number, but it does mean I have no idea what to check it against.”

The inclusions of adult learner data in the EFA reports follow significant errors in other data sets published by government agencies.

The National Success Rate Tables for 2010/11 were removed last month after more than 23 per cent of qualifications were found to be showing an “unknown” level, up from 2 per cent in the earlier QSR.

Meanwhile a breach report published by the UK Statistics Authority found that FE Choices, a website that allows the public to compare the performance of providers, had 2,700 changes to “unique values”.

The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, announced today that the goverment will be piloting a new pre-apprenticeship scheme, known as a ‘traineeship’.

In his speech at the CBI Jobs Summit Mr Clegg said: “The teenagers who aren’t ready for an apprenticeship, say. These were the children most let down by the previous system.  Now, as we reform that system, we’re determined that they are not lost in transition.

I know that one idea John Hayes, the Minister for Skills, is looking at is piloting a new ‘traineeship’; a package of training and work experience to get the basic, necessary skills, with a recognised qualification at the end of it, an extra rung on the ladder to get you on your way to an apprenticeship or job. Again, that help will be targeted in the areas most in need.

And more detail will be coming soon.”

Read the speech in full here.

England is failing young people by training them for jobs that don’t exist, while not providing them with the skills for areas where there is work, according to a report from the Local Government Association (LGA).

Hidden Talents argues that there is a mismatch between the jobs that young people are qualifying for and those that are available.

Last year more than 94,000 people completed hair and beauty courses, but only 18,000 new jobs were created in the sector, the LGA’s research suggests – and of those who qualified, more than 60 per cent were aged 16 to18. Meanwhile, more than double the number of people trained to work in hospitality, sport and leisure than jobs advertised in the sector.

In contrast, the report said that fewer than 40,000 people trained to fill about 72,000 new jobs in building and engineering. The environmental industry created about 89,000 jobs last year, but only 27,000 young people were trained to take them. There was also a gap between supply and demand in textile design, accountancy and jobs in the automotive industry.

A nationally driven one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work.”

The data used in the report captured most achievements up to level 3 (equivalent to A-level), but did not capture non-accredited training on the job or degree-level training (level 4 and above).

The LGA argues that the “skills mismatch” is the result of colleges receiving funding from the government on the basis of studying and passing qualifications, rather than on job outcomes.

David Simmonds, chair of its children and young people board, said it was “indefensible” to encourage colleges to steer students on to low-prospect courses, rather than those that would help them to gain meaningful employment.

“A nationally driven one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t work. We need a shift in training priorities that prizes and rewards those that help students toward meaningful careers. It’s not right that young people trying to secure a good future are being deceived by a system that fails to look at what is best for them, or the taxpayer, and instead focuses on a bums-on-seats approach to education.”

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said it had “concerns” about the “robustness” of some of the analysis and believed the conclusions were “unwarranted”, based on the analysis done.

A spokesman said: “The authors do not appear to have taken into account variation between occupations in staff nor in vacancy reporting, which is likely to substantially alter the comparative figures.”‬

The department said it had freed providers from top-down central targets and regulation so that they could better respond to the needs of their communities. The Employer Ownership Pilot was now targeting investment at the skills that employers and the economy needed to grow. ‬

Mark Ravenhall, director of policy and impact at the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE), said he agreed with much of the report but that there was “quite a lot more to say”.

He said that he was “a bit annoyed” that there was never a debate about Latin as a subject in private schools and whether there was an oversupply of  classicists.

“No one kicks up a fuss about that,” he said.

“What about the soft skills that you gain in doing hairdressing? What about the literacy and the foundation skills you develop in doing those courses?

“If you get transferable skills from doing a classics degree or PPE at Oxford, why don’t you get transferable skills form doing a hairdressing qualification? If that’s what people want to do, let them do it.”

Mr Ravenhall said the situation was looked at “too much from the employer’s perspective and not enough from the individual’s perspective”.

The Richard Review into apprenticeships officially opened its call for evidence yesterday.

Doug Richard, who was appointed by the government to lead an independent review into apprenticeships, said he didn’t want to critique the current system, but wanted to look to the future. The entrepreneur and star of the TV series Dragon’s Den said that he would not be the “ombudsman” or “trouble shooter” of apprenticeships.

Skills Minister John Hayes said at the opening of the review that Mr Richard needed “to get under the skin” of apprenticeships and bring a “fresh” and “creative” perspective.

You can submit your evidence for the review here.

 

A spreadsheet published by the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) has revealed how much money lead providers are handing over to subcontractors.

The data shows a wide range of ‘top-slice’ amounts taken by prime contractors, ranging from 99 per cent to minus 185 per cent.

The SFA said the figures detail the costs and responsibilities taken on by a lead provider, rather than an administrative fee.

“The data collected has identified a diverse range of costs recorded and reported by lead providers,” a spokesperson for the SFA said.

“When reviewing this information it is clear that the amount retained reflects the direct costs incurred by lead providers.

“Examples include where lead providers retain responsibility for assessor support, collection and processing of data, quality assurance, and registration.

“These costs do not appear to be simply a management fee retained by the lead provider.”

The head of a subcontractor told FE Week how the management fees used by some FE colleges were a “rip off”.

It follows a 30 per cent management fee advertised by City of Bristol College for adult apprenticeships.

The spreadsheet was created using the 2011/12 Declaration of Subcontractors forms submitted by lead providers.

The SFA said they were working with the External Advisory Group, as well as the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) and Association of Colleges (AoC) to develop a more accurate way of reporting how funding is being used in the sector.

(Are  you concerned about the management fees used by some prime/lead providers? Comment on the article below, or email your thoughts to nick.summers@feweek.co.uk)