The provider behind the UK’s biggest apprenticeship programme has defended handing over taxpayers’ cash to the firm whose staff it trains.

Elmfield Training, which was allocated £41m by the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) for the current academic year, said it was “only right to share costs” of its programme with Morrisons.

The payments — understood to be £60 for every learner — began after the provider started one-day development sessions on key skills with apprentice staff at the giant supermarket chain, which last financial year had a turnover of £17bn.

“We’ve always supported Morrisons learners one-to-one with key skills, and last year we decided to add a one-day development day with groups of learners,” said a spokesperson for Elmfield, which claims to have delivered around 100,000 apprenticeships for Morrisons since October 2009.

Where additional costs are incurred to improve the quality of the programme, it is only right they are shared fairly, with ourselves as the provider.”

“The extra tuition means that we’ve been able to maintain high pass rates on both literacy and numeracy.

“For many of our learners in Morrisons, it’s the first time anyone has supported them with these skills — and obviously it’s had a very positive effect on people’s confidence, as well as their ability to perform well at work.

“Morrisons makes a huge financial contribution to the apprenticeship through all the training and support they provide learners. Where additional costs are incurred to improve the quality of the programme, it is only right they are shared fairly, with ourselves as the provider.”

Funding rules state providers “must not use apprenticeship funding provided by the SFA to pay apprenticeship wage”.

However, a Morrisons spokesperson said the company was happy that the payments from Elmfield were above board.

News of the payments system comes just a week after FE Week reported claims that Elmfield was proposing to shed a third of its 600-strong workforce.

Two out of every three of Elmfield staff were warned on October 4 that they could face redundancy, according to a worker who wanted to remain anonymous.

The Elmfield spokesperson described the redundancy figures supplied to FE Week as “inaccurate, selective and misleading”.

The proposed job losses follow a national media report that provider Pearson in Practice had also opened consultation with 300 employees in its IT apprenticeship arm.

The firm’s accounts indicate it had more than 3,000 students a year studying in its IT programme and had a turnover of £30.7m.

A Pearson spokesperson told FE Week: “No business can honestly rule out job losses 100 per cent, but there are no timescales or detailed plans and none were set in the recent business review meetings.

“Nothing has been discussed, announced or decided on redundancies, or the closure of our training centres.”

He added: “Pearson in Practice holds regular business review meetings with all its staff.

“We endeavour to hold these on a quarterly basis — neither redundancies nor centre closures were discussed.”

———————————————————————————————————————————–

Editors comment

It takes a minute to get your head around a provider paying an employer to train their staff.

Obviously, the government has introduced wage incentives to help persuade small employers to take on apprentices.

However, while providers are paid by the government to deliver training, they are banned from using SFA money to pay apprentice wages.

Former funding agency LSC even felt the need to publish a seperate document in 2009, warning of providers making ‘employer inducements’.

Costs may well be shared “fairly” with Elmfield and Morrisons, but just how much SFA money has ended up with the supermarket giant?

It is unclear what costs would need sharing, and it is a shame that this arrangement did not come out when both firms were before the BIS Select Committee in March.

It would be interesting to hear what committee members think of this arrangement.

We already knew Morrisons paid nothing for Elmfield’s services, but to learn that in fact they get paid raises serious questions about the use of public money.

Nick Linford, Editor

Forty providers are exempt from funding rules that ban introductory apprenticeships where more than 10 per cent of learners are out of work, FE Week can reveal.

The 40 were over the limit before its introduction this year and so were told to carry on — although they have been ordered to try to hit the target.

It has also emerged that the The De Vere Academy of Hospitality is the only provider given “formal approval” to keep running its access courses with more than 10 per cent unemployed.

The permission, from the Skills Funding Agency and the National Apprenticeship Service (NAS), allows the academy to bypass funding rules, which state: “Providers must not recruit more than 10 per cent of their apprenticeship starts on to the access to apprenticeship pathway without the prior agreement of their agency relationship manager.”

The agency is working with these providers to support transition and ensure new apprentices do not exceed 10 per cent,”

A spokesperson for NAS said: “The 10 per cent rule on access was introduced with the 2012/13 funding rules, published at the end of May 2012.

“Providers delivering access before the changes did not require approval to deliver above 10 per cent, as no rule applied at that time.

“We can confirm that 40 providers are legitimately exceeding 10 per cent having done so before the introduction of the new rule.

“No further providers have been given formal approval by the agency to deliver above 10 per cent.”

She said providers who exceeded the limit before May needed time to change.

“The agency is working with these providers to support transition and ensure new apprentices do not exceed 10 per cent,” she added.

De Vere was the only provider that could continue to exceed 10 per cent as it used a new model that attempted “to address a specific need identified by the sector and using a sector-led solution. As with any new developed initiative it is being closely monitored and assessed.”

The full list of the 40 providers is subject to an FE Week Freedom of Information request.

The De Vere Academy advertised two access courses on its website earlier this year. Both were to last seven weeks and included two or three “work trials”.

However, funding rules say that learners on these courses should spend most of their time “in a substantive work placement” with the same number of hours “as expected for those on a full apprenticeship”.

The De Vere Group has defended its programme saying that it had achieved “outstanding” success rates and was helping to address youth unemployment.

The SFA allocated £9.6m to the De Vere Group, known as the Alternative Hotel Group, for the 2011/12 academic year, according to government figures. It included more than £8m for apprentices aged 16 to 18.

A national training provider with nearly £2.5m of contracts last year has gone into administration with the loss of 40 jobs.

The move has affected the education of 450 learners handled by Birmingham-based Skillsfinder UK Training.

The firm, set up last year, had contracts with lead providers Total People and Remit. It also dealt with Tribal Education.

Craig Povey and Richard Toone, from national accountancy firm Chantrey Vellacott DFK, have been appointed joint administrators.

Mr Povey said: “Skillsfinder had a number of contracts to deliver training to young people between the ages of 16 and 24 that it subcontracted out to other providers.

“It appears the company’s business model failed which has, in turn, had a knock-on effect to other providers all over the country.”

He said the administrators were reviewing the company’s assets and were talking to providers to try to support the affected trainees.

According to the Skillsfinder website, the original company was created in 2007 as a “learner finder” organisation. It went on to subcontract apprenticeship training services to around 75 organisations across the UK.

It appears the company’s business model failed which has, in turn, had a knock-on effect to other providers all over the country.”

A spokesperson for Tribal Education said: “Tribal subcontracted tutor and assessor support for a cohort of learners to Skillsfinder in a number of qualification areas.
“We are now finding alternative support arrangements.

“We have contacted all our learners and their employers to explain the situation, and have reassured them we are working towards finding replacement support.

“We will be regularly updating our learners on our progress. We aim to ensure that the change won’t delay the completion of their apprenticeships.”

Remit chief operating officer Steve Yardley said: “As a national training provider we have worked with Skillsfinder to assist them in securing government funding to support their learners.

“Over the coming days and weeks we will be doing everything we can to transfer as many of their learners and appropriate staff to Remit. Our team is now making contact with all learners and is in the process of obtaining all relevant documentation to try to ensure there is minimal disruption to their apprenticeships and employment.”

Total People associate director Janice Woolley said: “We had a service level agreement with Skillsfinder for a small cohort of 16 learners linked to one employer.

“The learners still linked to Total People have achieved their level two apprenticeships and are just waiting for their full framework certificate.

“We were informed by Skillsfinder that learners had already progressed on to a level three programme through a different subcontract arrangement.”

A Skills Funding Agency spokesperson said: “We have a duty to ensure learner interests are being protected and are working with Remit and Tribal Education to ensure all learners affected by the closure are being supported in every way possible and are able continue their learning.

“Remit and Tribal have written to employers and learners to outline the support available and a dedicated helpline number and email address have been set up.

“Both Remit and Tribal are also working with learners that have been made redundant as a result of Skillsfinder going into administration to try to secure alternative employment opportunities, to ensure that apprenticeships can be completed.”

Skillsfinder’s former director, Neil Harrup, was not available for comment.

Chris Martin, Skillsfinder’s quality and development manager, was a director in Luis Michael Training, which delivered apprenticeships in sport. The provider is currently being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office, as previously reported in FE Week.

Further education leaders have told of their concerns about new proposals for industry teacher training.

A review of teacher qualifications for the FE and skills sector by the Learning and Skills Improvement Service (LSIS) includes 19 proposals aimed at creating a simpler system. It is due in place in September next year.

Among the proposals are three generic and three specialist qualifications, along with qualifications at level seven, including one for continuing professional development.

The review has been welcomed by Jill Stokoe, education policy adviser at the Association of Teachers and Lecturers.

It is particularly helpful that LSIS has recognised the role of FE teachers as both subject specialists and teachers.”

“We are pleased LSIS has reviewed teacher training qualifications for the FE and skills sector, including evaluating and responding to stakeholders’ views,” she said.

“It is particularly helpful that LSIS has recognised the role of FE teachers as both subject specialists and teachers.

“But we are concerned LSIS’s work will be wasted if FE is deregulated and the government revokes the requirement for FE staff to have teaching qualifications.

“We firmly believe that they should have these qualifications so will vigorously argue the case for them to be retained.”

The University and College Union (UCU) is planning to canvass opinion on the proposals with its own three-hour consultation at its head office in London’s Carlow Street from 11.30am on October 31.

Its general secretary, Sally Hunt, said: “We agree there is a need to review the training qualifications . . . as our members have complained of unnecessary duplication of material within the three existing qualifications.

“We have some concerns about potential changes to the balance of the three elements of the course — content, teaching practice and observation of teaching.”

The proposals within the review, carried out on behalf of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), were drawn up between July and September when LSIS met with stakeholders and teacher educators.

LSIS chief executive Rob Wye said: “The importance of this review goes beyond the FE and skills sector.

“The teachers and trainers of tomorrow will help to shape the workforce of tomorrow, so it is vital we hear from everyone who is involved with these qualifications.”

The proposals will be the focus of a host of open events across the country, the first of which took place in Birmingham on October 18. London hosts the second event on  November 8, before another one in Taunton on November 13, then Leeds on November 15 and London again five days later.

The deadline for feedback is Friday, November 26.  Visit www.lsis.org.uk to give feedback on the proposals.

Toni Fazaeli, chief executive at the Institute for Learning, goes into detail on the
proposals in an expert piece here.

Government measures to help colleges respond to local employment and skills needs have lost the “spirit” of the report that called for their introduction, it has been claimed.

The Innovation Code, available for use from April this year, was a key element of recommendations that emerged from the Colleges in their Communities Inquiry last year.

It was chaired by Lady Sharp, the Liberal Democrats’ education spokesperson in the House of Lords.

She described the code as “a funding formula that, subject to proper audit procedures, would allow up to 25 per cent of the adult skills budget to be used to meet local priorities”.
However, Lady Sharp has spoken of her “disappointment” at the way the code has been interpreted by the Skills Funding Agency (SFA).

“We should have read the small print more carefully . . . what is being proposed, which has now been further developed in the guidance recently issued by the SFA, provides only limited flexibility,” she said in a Lords grand committee debate this month.

The SFA has said it plans to issue fresh guidance on the code.

But frustration over its use in practice is shared at the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE) and Association of Colleges (AoC), whose director of education policy, Joy Mercer said: “We endorse Lady Sharp’s comments.

“The purpose of her report was to support colleges in responding to the specific requirements of communities — for example, in meeting the needs of tenants’ associations.

We should have read the small print more carefully . . . what is being proposed, which has now been further developed in the guidance recently issued by the SFA, provides only limited flexibility,”

“Its implementation as an instrument to help colleges develop qualifications with employers runs against this grain. There is such a plethora of qualifications already available that it is rare not to find one that can be of use.
“That is why take-up has been slow. We would urge BIS and the SFA to return to the original spirit of the Sharp report.”

She added: “We have flagged this as an issue with SFA and are seeking to discuss how the code might be re-balanced in its promotion to ensure Lady Sharp’s vision can be better recognised — as much as is possible within SFA’s remit.”

NIACE director of policy and impact Mark Ravenhall, said: “The code as written in the final report was much more expansive and inclusive than what has been developed since.

“Our challenge to colleges and to government was to create a system where providers were more accountable to local communities than to government, and had the flexibility to meet community needs.

“The way the code has been developed doesn’t quite achieve that, but it’s still early days.”

The SFA and BIS issued a joint statement on the code. “The development of innovative provision is in the hands of the sector,” it said. “There is no process of approval; it is for FE professionals, working with employers to design and develop the provision that will become the qualifications of tomorrow.

“In the coming weeks, as planned, the agency will issue updated information on how the use of the code can be maximised, which will help share best practice across the sector.”

Nearly three months after the Skills Funding Agency was challenged over “mysterious” changes to college performance tables, it has told FE Week they will be reversed.

In July, the Association of Colleges (AoC) alerted its members that “high grades” would no longer include a C at GCSE on the success rate data managed by the Information Authority. In the briefing, leaked to FE Week, the AoC said the impact on colleges was “significant,” in some cases “halving” their high grade profile.

Ofsted has not used the new grade definition when inspecting colleges, re-issuing success rate reports in line with the original classification — A* to C not A* to B.
The Skills Funding Agency (SFA), which published the data, said this month it would re-issue this year’s reports to include the original definition.

Although a grade C is not a high grade, in the context of further education, a learner who achieves a GCSE A* to C grade is considered to have achieved a positive outcome,”

A spokesperson said: “The agency, from this year, will align the publication of high grade definitions with Ofsted’s requirements so that colleges can produce self-assessment reports using the same definition that inspectors will use.

“The SFA is currently seeking clarification from Ofsted around the definitions to be used in current and future inspection rounds.”

Ofsted said inspectors were “required to interpret published data to inform inspection judgments” during college inspections.

“Although a grade C is not a high grade, in the context of further education, a learner who achieves a GCSE A* to C grade is considered to have achieved a positive outcome,” said a spokesperson. “Inspectors will also use a wide range of other sources of evidence, including the provider’s own in-year performance data, the provider’s self-assessment report, previous inspection findings, observations of teaching, training and assessment, and the views of staff, learners and employers.”

In the their internal briefing, the AoC said that the grade definitions of national diploma level three qualifications had also been changed, as they “now seem to need at least one distinction” to count as a high grade. “Three merits used to count as high grades but don’t seem to any more,” the briefing explained.

The AoC told members in July that the “mysterious” changes had been made “without consultation” and called on the Information Authority to investigate.

A two-month investigation by the SFA at the request of FE Week, found the changes were made on the “recommendation” of the Data Harmonisation Group.

The Information Authority report said the group was originally established to assist Ofsted and the Learning and Skills Council to have a similar basis for calculating success rates.

“Having proved its usefulness the group has continued to meet, but its remit and lines of accountability need to be clarified,” the report said. The report said the chair of the investigation was “concerned” the information authority was not fulfilling its “full remit”.

“Because of the need to focus on delivering the Individualised Learner Record specification at a time of substantial change from the Department of Business Innovation and Skills and the Department for Education, and their agencies, there is insufficient resource to offer authoritative guidance on the use of data.

“So much is collected and yet there are not ready to hand analyses of what is going on in the sector. It has to be acknowledged that in the absence of such analysis Ofsted has filled the vacuum and become an excellent repository of analytics.

The LSIS Observatory is another potential source of expertise and the secretariat has been exploring potential links with it.

“In the new era it also falls to the sector to take ownership of and accountability for its data,” said the report.