A promised list of banned subcontractors, due out last November, has no one to go on it.

In August, the Skills Funding Agency said it would produce the list “alongside the register of training organisations” to include subcontractors that the agency refused permission for lead providers to use.

“We will refresh this list each time the register of training organisations is published. Providers will remain on this list until they are listed on the register,” it said.

“If we revoke permission for a lead provider to use a subcontractor, we will add the subcontractor to the list. If we stop funding a lead provider because it is not listed on the register, we will also add it to the list.”

An agency spokesperson said: “We have not published a list as we don’t currently have any subcontractors that we have refused permission for lead providers to use.”

Peter Cobrin, founder and director of Apprenticeships England, said this week that he was surprised the list was empty.

“A quick glance of the register of training organisations suggests the agency has unresolved issues,” he said.

“There is no promised list of ‘organisations (that primes) won’t be permitted to use as a subcontractor’, despite earlier indications that this would happen. The list of names on the register also certainly made me raise an eyebrow.

“If the lack of entries on this list of banned subcontractors was intended to provide reassurance that all is well with every subcontractor, they need to think again.”

However, an agency spokesperson said it was “in dialogue” with lead providers whose subcontractors would be affected. “The list will be published to the sector in due course.”

In summer 2011, the agency promised to crack down on fraud and the misuse of public money in the FE and skills sector.

The extent of concern was revealed in communications at that time, leaked to FE Week, between Geoff Russell, then chief executive of the agency, and John Hayes, former FE Minister.

They revealed that £11m was lost to fraud or misuse in 2010-11, of which only £3m had been accounted for.

Police were involved in nine investigations, Mr Russell said in a letter to the minister that revealed the agency was pursuing 88 new allegations — “a record high” — with a further 17 being investigated by other agencies, including the police.

Meanwhile, the Association of Colleges (AoC) and Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) have been working together on a “more robust approach to the subcontracting process”.

Joy Mercer, AoC director of policy, said: “We have also been working on a common accord that we hope supply chain partnerships will agree to sign.

“AoC and AELP advocate self-regulation and mediation rather than mandatory structures, so it is important to have a solid framework for a code of conduct that enables providers and sub-contractors to ensure value for money while maintaining high standards of delivery to the benefit of students.”

A London-based social enterprise company that worked with young adults to help them to find jobs has gone into administration.

The Walwyn Trust is believed to have left scores of youngsters unsure of their futures.

Miranda Cook, from Cambridgeshire, contacted FE Week claiming that her 17-year-old daughter, Charlotte, a Walwyn apprentice, was not paid last month.

“None of the young people have had a penny in wages or any idea what will happen to their diplomas, written work, references and, in some cases — although fortunately not my daughter’s — provision of their ongoing training,” she said.

Ms Cook said she also had concerns about the Walwyn’s sister company, Mymar Training, which has a current Skills Funding Agency (SFA) allocation of £4,579,466.

An automated response from the email address of Walwyn, which lists its contact details in Penzance, Cornwall, reads: “Please be advised that Walwyn is in administration.”

However, a Mymar worker who answered the phone at its Plymouth HQ said it was continuing to trade.

She declined to put FE Week through to management and said no statement would be issued on the situation of the two companies.

A joint statement from the SFA and the National Apprenticeship Service (NAS) said: “Walwyn Trust is the sister company and employment arm of Mymar Training Limited (who the agency holds a contractual relationship with).

“The agency and NAS have been advised by Mymar that due to new investment they are able to continue to trade.

“The agency and the NAS are working with Mymar to make sure that learners are continuing their learning at Mymar Training. Mymar has reassured the agency that all learners’ wages have been paid.

“The agency and NAS are committed to ensuring that learners receive their full learning and training and to ensure that all apprenticeships meet statutory quality standards and offer a good experience for apprentices and their employers.”

It added: “Any concerned parents or learners can contact Mymar Training in the first instance or the agency’s email address: mymar@skillsfundingagency.bis.gov.uk.”

Last summer, Walwyn launched a partnership with the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC), providing young people with access to paid, one-year workplace apprenticeships.

An REC spokesperson said: “We have contacted Walwyn and are waiting for a further explanation of their current status and whether they are still delivering their workplace apprenticeships scheme.

“If any of our members have encountered any problems working with Walwyn, we would encourage them to get in touch with us through our inquiry line.”

The REC inquiry line is on 020-7009 2100.

FE providers will no longer be penalised for learners on benefits leaving a course because they have obtained a job.

The Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, (BIS) announced that when working out Qualification Success Rate calculations, they would no longer include those who leave their learning early to enter employment, therefore not achieving a qualification.

BIS said they didn’t want to “dis-incentivise” providers by counting, as a fail, those learners who withdrew from study without achievement because they got a job. The move was welcomed by education watchdog Ofsted.

A spokesperson for Ofsted said: “We are supportive of the recognition that measuring only qualification success offers a disincentive to providers that can result in opportunities for employment being missed.”

But they added: “However, if any learner leaves a qualification without a completion, this information must be recorded.  Inspectors will continue to consider changes in circumstance and the consequential outcomes data very carefully, as this will inevitably form the basis of discussions during an inspection.”

“More generally, when judging outcomes for learners, Ofsted already takes into account a very wide range of performance information. This includes success rate data, progress, destinations, in-year performance data, self-assessment reports, previous inspection findings, observations of teaching, training and assessment and the views of staff, learners and employers,” the spokesperson added.

A BIS announcement said they recognised  a learner on Jobseeker’s Allowance or Employment and Support Allowance (Work-Related Activity Group) benefits had three objectives: to achieve their stated learning aim, to get a job, and to stop claiming benefits.

The announcement read: “The current Qualification Success Rate calculation relates to qualifications and does not measure, as a success, those learners who leave their learning early to enter employment and therefore do not achieve their qualification.”

“We do not want to dis-incentivise providers by counting, as a fail, those learners who withdraw from study without achievement because they get a job before they complete their training.

“Therefore, we will exclude from the 2012/13 Qualification Success Rate learners who receive Jobseeker’s Allowance or Employment and Support Allowance (Work related Activity Group) benefits if they withdraw from study because they get a job which results in a job outcome payment.

“In line with the standard business rules of the success rate methodology, we will continue to treat as failures all other instances of non-achievement and we will include all instances of qualification success.”

BIS said they were currently reviewing other aspects of 2012/13 Success Rate Calculations for Learners in receipt of Jobseeker’s Allowance or Employment and Support Allowance in the Work-related Activity Group.

“We will be making some changes and intend to notify the sector about these in early 2013,” added a BIS spokesperson.

 

Newcastle College has been branded “Scrooge” after refusing staff a nationally recommended 0.7 per cent pay rise.

The University and College Union (UCU) likened the college to the tight-fisted Charles Dickens’ character and called it “mean-spirited” for telling staff they would not get the salary boost — suggested by the Association of Colleges (AoC) for those earning more than £15,000 per annum for the 2012/13 academic year.

The college said employees already received at or above the recommended rate, however, due to pay increases in previous years, and wages for the lowest paid workers had risen as part of the national Living Wage campaign.

“We are including last year’s pay rise, which was paid as a lump sum, into all staff wages. So we will still be paying more than the recommended pay rates for all staff,” said a college spokesperson.

“We think this is very reasonable at a time when the government is cutting budgets in further education by 25 per cent and is imposing pay freezes in other parts of the public sector and education. It will enable us to sensibly manage our budgets so we can maintain an excellent quality of services to the learners, who must always be our first priority.”

Jon Bryan, UCU regional support official, said: “The fact remains that 18 months ago, Newcastle College reduced the remuneration given to the main lecturing grade by one third (a cut of approximately £10k a year for some staff). They also spend far less than the vast majority of colleges on staff pay in proportion to the college’s income, continually reporting a figure of just over 50 per cent on staff costs, whereas the average in the sector is over 60 per cent.”

Mr Bryan also criticised the college for refusing to enter into negotiations.

“As the college has refused to implement a national recommendation on pay, the matter should be negotiated by the recognised trade unions. For some reason, it does not share that view — although it is standard practice across the sector and has been the case at Newcastle College for many years now,” said Jon Bryan, regional support official.”

Newcastle said it had corresponded with the union but was not obligated to enter into formal negotiations because UCU was not officially recognised at the college. Mr Bryan said his organisation would continue to challenge the decision in the New Year.

Sally Hunt, general secretary of the UCU, said: “What terrible timing that just days before Christmas Newcastle College refuses to give its hard-working lecturers a pay rise that, by any standards, is far from generous.

“From what we know, the college is not cash-strapped, so how mean-spirited to penalise staff at this time of year. It really does deserve to be branded the ‘Scrooge’ of further education this Christmas.”