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.

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.

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.

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.

The days of a job-for-life are no more and workplace training initiatives need to be suited to today’s more fluid employment trends, says City and Guilds chief executive and director general Chris Jones.

I watched with interest last month as the first successful employer bids were announced as part of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills’ employer ownership pilot.

This sentiment was echoed at the Labour Party conference, where a commitment to empowering employers to deliver more training was announced.

While I wholeheartedly support government efforts to hand control back to employers to develop training appropriate to them, it strikes me as alarmingly shortsighted — for both businesses and learners — that there is no stipulation this funding be used for training.

Such training should provide learners with formal recognition of achieving set outcomes, providing a viable means of progression.

Workplace training is by its very nature specific to individual businesses and is essential for workers to progress within their chosen career, so employers should be given more say in how it is designed and delivered.

However, gone are the days when an employee stays with one company for the course of their career so it is wrong that such a high level of investment — £250 million over the next two years — will go towards giving employees a learning experience with just one company.

Instead, vocational training needs to provide recognition of competence for the individual and help them move up or progress through to higher education in the longer term.

In an increasingly fluid job market with high levels of youth unemployment, the value of providing workers with externally-recognised and portable skills should not be underestimated.

The employer ownership pilot leans too far towards supporting a limited number of businesses“

This system provides the flexibility for employers, working with others, to accredit bite-sized learning and well-designed programmes that validate individual learning and furnishes transferable skills.

If the employer ownership pilot is to provide real, tangible benefits to the economy, businesses, and learners, then it must prioritise this type of accredited learning.

I welcome news that the pilot will create 11,000 apprenticeships and the commitment from Labour to deliver more apprenticeships, should they come to power.

As the UK’s leading apprenticeship provider, City and Guilds is hugely supportive of this means of training, which is of great value to the learner, businesses and the wider economy.

Our February research paper, The Economic Value of Apprenticeships, highlights how essential apprenticeships are to the UK economy, with businesses set to benefit from a £4.37bn boost by 2020 if one million extra apprenticeships are created by 2013.

As part of this, apprenticeships help to tackle youth unemployment levels and ensure that businesses have the skills they need for increased productivity and growth.

However, again, if learners and the wider economy are to feel the true benefits of these, apprenticeships must be formally accredited and provide learners with skills which are transferable — benefiting themselves alongside current and future employers.

I agree with the core aims of the employer ownership pilot — employers and workers know what training is best for them and employers should be given the space to step up and own the skills agenda. However, my principal concern is that these aims are not being underscored by the right structure.

As it stands, the employer ownership pilot leans too far towards supporting the needs of a limited number of businesses rather than
helping to develop a suitably skilled workforce with the transferable skills that will help to drive the UK economy forwards.

Whether this is achieved through gaining qualifications or by some other means of evidencing competence, my message remains clear — the engagement of employers is important, as is on-the-job learning for employees, but we must ensure we are simultaneously providing the kind of structured and externally-recognised vocational learning that equally benefits all parties in the longer term.