A 33-day timescale for research into a new payments regime for adult learning has been branded “ridiculous” by an FE consultant.

Fourteen contractors were invited to bid for the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) project , but not one went for it.

Ian Nash, a member of The Policy Consortium, said the timescale was “inadequate. The people who set these deadlines ought to try to do what they ask.”

The agency has now revealed that after “helpful feedback”, the job would be put back out to tender with “revised” specifications and a new deadline of December.

The timeframe was ridiculous. Has anyone in SFA tried to get hold of people for interview in 33 days?”

“Following the recent tender exercise and the helpful feedback received from two of the 14 providers within the framework for contractors in category two – economic and econometric forecasting analysis – we are reviewing the tender specification,” said an agency spokesperson.

“We plan to issue a revised specification with a completion deadline of December.”

The initial tender for research into a single rate for English and maths called for at least 70 interviews.

Industry insiders, including college heads and teachers and stakeholder organisations, were to be quizzed and the report was to include conclusions and recommendations.

Mr Nash said: “We have been in contact with organisations that would have considered bidding. The reasons they did not is clear.

“First, the timeframe was ridiculous. Has anyone in SFA tried to get hold of people for interview in 33 days?

“That sounds a long time, but in practice, as such organisations repeatedly tell us, it’s inadequate to set up and carry out interviews from cold, especially where senior managers are concerned. Their diaries are usually committed far in advance.

“Second, employers, teachers and managers are busy; they are not sitting around
waiting to be interviewed.

“And third, they tell us that when they do get the time, other more important things get in their way – like running their business and teaching their students.

“Moreover, to try to achieve this at the beginning of an academic year when staff are frantically appraising, enrolling and inducting learners suggests these people have much to learn about in the world of education and training.”

He said there was also scepticism that “too much of such work related to ministerial whims and departmental world views, rather than finding real evidence”.

The move to commission the report came three months after the agency announced the changed payment rate following an investigation with the Funding External Technical Advisory Group.

It said that English and maths would be funded at a base rate of £336, with a 1.3 weighting factor boosting that to £437 for entry level maths.

However, an agency spokesperson said at the time that their published figures could be “revisited,” after concerns about the data used for its calculations.

Paul Warner, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP), said: “Timelines are now very tight and the agency can’t afford to hang around.

“Therefore AELP and our members are very willing to work with the agency to compile the required information.”

He added: “Despite the lack of interest in the tender, we felt it was right for the agency to commission this research because it is our understanding that previous cost calculations were based on a limited cohort that was centred on classroom delivery.

“A better assessment of the true costs in a work-based learning environment is needed to avoid training providers taking a major hit on rectifying the failings of 11 years of statutory schooling in a short period.”

A new Ofsted website measuring student satisfaction has entered the market, prompting concerns of a clash with the Skills Funding Agency’s £30m FE Choices site.

Learner View, which went live in time for Ofsted’s 2012/13 inspections, draws together the opinions of students about their courses and comes up with provider ratings.

Students are faced with statements such as ‘my course/programme meets my needs’ and ‘I receive the support I need to help me progress’. It then offers responses ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’.

The public will be able to see the results once there has been “sufficient” response.

The agency’s FE Choices, formerly Developing Framework for Excellence, also produces provider ratings, but based on the findings of a research company that carries out its own interviews.

But it is understood that at last week’s Association of Colleges’ conference on Ofsted inspections questions were asked about the similarities of the two sites.

Learner View represents an opportunity for the learner voice to become properly embedded into inspection processes”

However, an Ofsted spokesperson pointed to a number of differences between it and FE Choices. “Our website is targeted at inspections – that’s the major difference. We’ve both got different ends” she said.

“FE Choices is more about pitting provider against provider and giving prospective students information that will help them to make a decision about where they want to go.

“Learner View is to do with students already enrolled and getting their views and inputting them into what we do.”

Delegates at the conference heard how Learner View questionnaires were open all year round, but providers would be requested to tell learners about the site by the end of the second day of inspection.

They also heard how the results would feed into annual risk assessments, alongside other evidence, to help decide which providers were inspected and when.

Plus, inspectors could view and analyse the latest results during the inspection.

Toni Pearce, National Union of Students vice president with responsibility for FE, welcomed Learner View.

“We are pleased that Ofsted has recognised the need to review its methods for consulting learners,” she said.

“Learner View represents an opportunity for the learner voice to become properly embedded into inspection processes, which is particularly important as we move towards more ‘light touch’ inspections, and where continuous audit of provision will be crucial in ensuring that learners get a fair deal.

“It is particularly welcome that it will be open continuously to contributions from learners, whether or not their college or learning provider is being inspected and whatever age they happen to be, and that live view data will be made available.

“These are important steps towards protecting all learners against poor provision.”

Learner View is due to be launched officially later this month.

A Twitter ban at Sir Michael Wilshaw’s Ofsted conference was defended by organisers as a “courtesy to the press”.

The clampdown on live information escaping Prospero House had already seen journalists  barred from the event.

The behind-closed-doors ruling was justified by Association of Colleges (AoC) communications director Ben Verinder as allowing contributors an “open and frank” dialogue.

“Traditional and social media coverage of the relationship between colleges and Ofsted is essential to a healthy debate,” he said.

“However, there are occasions when members need and deserve to be able to talk directly to Ofsted without media presence, in order to have an open and frank dialogue.

“The audience was asked not to tweet during the proceedings as a courtesy to media that had asked to attend.

“It would not be fair or reasonable to expect a media outlet not to attend, while the content of the discussions was entering the public domain at the same moment.”

Joy Mercer, AoC policy director, added that press were not normally allowed at their events, which can cost up to £468 a-head.

“We don’t normally have any media at these conferences,” she said. “We want people to be able to be unattributable. It gives people that freedom to have that dialogue.

“Any review of this policy would have to be carried out by Ben Verinder and our chief executive Martin Doel. But at the moment we feel it [press ban] is exactly what our members want.”

A dying breed of business link-ups offering their own apprenticeships could hold the key to bridging the country’s skills gap, an inquiry has concluded.

Group Training Associations (GTAs) came under the spotlight of an independent commission headed by Professor Lorna Unwin, from the Institute of Education.

Her report has called for more use to be made of GTAs, almost 50 years after the not-for-profit organisations were introduced.

At their height there were around 150 associations, but that figure has fallen more than 70 per cent with historic contractions of the manufacturing sector. Those remaining are mainly in the north of England and the Midlands.

“These associations should be central to the Government’s plans for economic growth, rebalancing the economy, increasing the stocks of technician and higher level skills, and the expansion and improvement of apprenticeships,” said Prof Unwin.

“They play a strategic role . . . by monitoring and meeting the challenge posed by skills gaps and shortages.

“Their focus on specific areas of skill means that they have a great depth of knowledge and capacity to develop occupational expertise.”

Mark Maudsley, chief executive of umbrella group GTA England, welcomed the report and said: “Our board fully endorses the commission’s report and its recommendations were accepted by GTA England members at a members’ day meeting in July.”

The associations deliver intermediate and advanced apprenticeships with a high level of technical content, typically lasting two to four years and involving substantial off-the-job training.

They also deliver other forms of high quality training at level three and above.

Prof Unwin further recommended that GTAs should move into sectors that have not previously benefited from their involvement.

However, the commission’s report also noted that associations and GTA England  would need government support. They operate within a “fiercely competitive marketplace”, the report said, where they did not have access to the capital funds available to FE colleges.

It also noted some colleges that subcontract the delivery of vocational education to GTAs hold back between 15 and 40 per cent of the funds they received from the Skills Funding Agency as a management fee.

A fairer funding system would enable GTAs to deliver vocational qualifications – outside apprenticeships – up to and including Higher National Diplomas, she said.

She added: “It would also provide capital funding to sustain and upgrade GTA facilities and equipment.”

In many cases, some associations set up centres to meet the need for such training, while some have collaborated with FE colleges and other training providers.

Other members of the commission included figures from the Prospects Learning Foundation, Wider Healthcare Teams Education, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Rolls-Royce, TUC, Edge Foundation and ATG Training.