Sanctions are being considered for providers who fail to advertise vacancies on the Apprenticeship Vacancy (AV) system, an e-mail seen by FE Week reveals.

From August 2010, providers were contractually required to use the AV system, managed by the National Apprenticeship Service (NAS), to advertise their own vacancies and also of those of any subcontractors.

The e-mail, sent to providers from representatives at the Skills Funding Agency, states the AV system is “under scrutiny” and that the Agency has been “asked to speak with providers with little or no usage statistics”.

It then shows a reminder to the provider of their own use of the system.

It adds: “NAS is undertaking an analysis and review of all providers, looking at Apprenticeship vacancy usage against ILR starts, in order to ascertain providers that are in breach of the Skills Funding Agency contract.

“Providers are also responsible for ensuring their subcontractor’s vacancies are posted on AV. Although this is yet not determined, NAS are considering a range of sanctions that might be used where providers are in breach of contract.”

Possible sanctions, according to the e-mail, include lack of growth to contract for adult skills and apprenticeship contracts.

They also include no employer leads being passed to providers from NAS, providers not being able to participate in marketing or publicity opportunities, and stopping ‘starts’ payments if a vacancy was not advertised through the AV system.

However, Sarah Benioff, director of quality at the NAS, denied that any current plans are in place for sanctions – but did not rule it out for the future.

She said: “At the NAS’ request, Skills Funding Agency relationship teams have been in contact with providers and colleges to offer advice and support to those who are currently not using the AV system.

“Apprenticeship providers are contractually required to use the AV system to advertise their own vacancies and those of any subcontractors. Usage of the system is growing strongly and there are no plans to apply any sanctions for those not using the system.

“We will consider other measures as necessary in future.”

The AV system, say the NAS, is intended for all apprenticeship providers and employers to benefit from a “free and flexible recruitment website and a wide range of candidates, and for potential apprentices to access all current vacancies in one place.”

However, providers have given a mixed reaction to the system

Paul Butler, business development director at Making Your Mark (LOTA), said that they solely use the AV system, with around 70 current vacancies listed.

He said: “We don’t have a problem using it. We found the site to be a good marketing tool. Going through agencies and local papers can cost a lot of money.”

However, Mr Butler is unsure of the use of the site by other providers in Essex as around “one-third” of vacancies for the county are for Marking Your Mark.

A staff member at a different provider, who wished to remain anonymous, said: “I have had comments from employers that it is not detailed enough.

“It is a good tool, because it attracts candidates who are specifically looking for an apprenticeship, but because it is an online system they do not seem to know how to sell themselves as well via this method.”

FE provider membership bodies are calling on Ofsted to take a greater look at the information, advice and guidance given out at schools.

The Association of Colleges (AoC) believes the education regulator should grade the advice handed out to school students, while Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) has urged Ofsted to make it a top framework priority. Since the announcement of changes to the careers system, fears have been raised that students in schools will be “signposted” to an online resource, such as the government’s own National Careers Service (NCS) website, which launches next month.

However, the government has confirmed that from September, schools in England will be required by law to access independent careers advice from an external provider, in addition to any service a school itself provides.

Young people who want face-to-face advice from an outside specialist careers service will be entitled to receive this form of support to help them make an informed choice.

Joy Mercer, director of policy at the Association of Colleges (AoC), was encouraged by comments of Ofsted Chief Inspector Michael Wilshaw, who told the Education Select Committee in February that inspectors would comment on the effectiveness of careers guidance in their reports.

She said: “Young people’s access to appropriate information, advice and guidance is essential for economic improvement and reducing youth unemployment.

“However, as well as commentary, we would like to see this provision graded – because it is only then that schools will give the emphasis to all the opportunities available for young people.

“Without grading, parents may find a comment in the inspection report difficult to locate.”

She added: “It is important to note that this is not a school versus college issue.

“This is about young people being able to make the right choices at the right time based on the best information.

“This would go a long way to help the economy, reduce unemployment, and allow young people to find the career paths that are best suited to them.”

AELP believes that the new obligations will help to raise awareness of apprenticeships among young people at a time when the government is looking to increase the take-up of the programme under the Youth Contract.

Graham Hoyle, AELP’s chief executive, said: “The government’s announcement is excellent news for young people who need advice in the current economic climate that will make a real difference to their prospects rather than just ‘park’ them in the system.

“Schools will need to be made aware of their statutory obligations and as MPs and peers from all parties have repeatedly made clear in Parliamentary debates on the matter, they will need to comply.

“In our view, this requires inspectors from Ofsted to check on school visits that necessary arrangements are in place for students to access impartial advice from an external service. We hope that Ofsted will regard this as a priority under its new framework.”

A spokesperson for Ofsted said they will continue to look at effectiveness of the advice and guidance given at school.

However, the spokesperson also said Ofsted “does not regulate how schools provide guidance to pupils” and that the accountability for meeting the school’s statutory responsibilities lies with the governing body of the school.

“Ofsted believes high quality independent information, advice and guidance in schools is crucial and evaluates the quality of it when conducting their inspections.

“It does provide information and advice for schools and policy makers in the form of survey reports,” said the spokesperson.

An investigation into changes on FE Choices has found more than 2,500 data records were adjusted without public knowledge.

The Data Service, which is part of the Skills Funding Agency, has revealed that 2,639 changes were made to “unique values” in the Learner Satisfaction indicator of the performance comparison site after it went live on January 26.

As revealed by FE Week last month, FE Choices, formerly known as the Framework for Excellence, is under scrutiny for unannounced post-publication alterations.

Despite the changes, made to comparable data fields, neither the Agency nor the Service made a public announcement, which could leave them in breach of the Code of Practice for Official Statistics by the UK Statistics Authority.

The Code requires that prompt public announcements are made on errors which are discovered in statistical reports.

A statement, posted on the Service’s website, read: “The revisions related to the data from the survey of learners.

“The Learner Satisfaction national, provider and organisation type aggregate scores were not affected, but supporting scores on the sub-scales were affected for some organisation types and providers.”

The data changes, according to the Service, included comparative data at organisational type and national level, which was changed to exclude zeros from the calculations. This caused a change in the minimum value and medians.

This change was to background data and no headline score was affected, say the Service.

Changes were also made to correct errors whereby the code for question 7 was wrongly referring to question 6 data (for the 19+, all levels category) and the code for comparative data for question 2 was referring to data from question 1.

The Agency initially said the post-publication changes were made on January 30, but they now say the adjustments took place on February 6.

An Agency spokesperson said: “At the time of the initial message being uploaded onto the FE Choices website it appeared that a change had occurred on January 30 as this was the date stamp on the file which contained the changed data.

“The investigation has shown that the changed file was uploaded to the FE Choices website on 6 February.

“All data on the website from February 7 is accurate and correct.”

The changes, according to the Service, represent 0.7 per cent of the 371,987 total unique values. However, a closer look shows that 205 unique values for “Organisation Type detailed scores” were changed – some 12.7 per cent of the 1,620 total values. Meanwhile, 30 of the 405 unique values for “National detailed scores” were changed, equating to 7.4 per cent.

The Skills Funding Agency said they have “a duty to let users know as soon as possible” about what changes were made.

A statement released by the Agency said: “The Skills Funding Agency has published information on what changes were made to the data on FE Choices, in compliance with statistical protocols.

“The investigation process is ongoing and a full report will be published in due course.”

The Agency also said it is identifying lessons to learn from the episode.

“The Skills Funding Agency and the Data Service continue to abide by the Code of Practice for Official Statistics and have taken swift action to conduct a thorough investigation.

“The Agency and the Service are identifying lessons to learn and steps to take to ensure that there is no recurrence by reinforcing practice, quality management and testing procedures,” the statement said.

As well as the investigation by the Agency, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, under a request by the FE and skills minister, John Hayes MP, and the UK Statistics Authority have launched their own inquiries.

As well as the Learner Satisfaction changes, data has been revised for one provider’s Employer Satisfaction indicator.

The Service said: “The challenge is isolated to one provider and does not raise concern on other providers data or other performance indicators.”

There are too many funding organisations in further education of which none take responsibility for cutting red tape, according to a report by MPs.

The Commons Public Accounts Committee also said that they are “frustrated” the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), does not believe it should be their job to reduce bureaucracy.

According to the report, the failure of both of these points “leads to a poor value and uncoordinated approach, particularly in the case of data requirements”.

The comments come following a report by the committee, published today, on reducing bureaucracy in the sector.

In compiling the report, the committee took evidence from BIS, as well as the Young People’s Learning Alliance (YPLA) and the Skills Funding Agency (SFA).

The Rt Hon Margaret Hodge MP, Chair of the Committee of Public Accounts, said: “There are too many funding organizations in further education, none of whom accepts ultimate responsibility for cutting the bureaucracy that colleges have to deal with.

“We were frustrated that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, which leads on policy for further education and which you would expect to accept overall responsibility, does not believe it should do that job.

“This lack of clear accountability is at the root of many of the issues we highlight in this report.

“For instance, differences between funding bodies in the information they demand create an unnecessary burden on training providers and divert money away from students.”

A statement from BIS say they take their responsibility to reduce bureaucracy “very seriously” and have made significant progress in simplifying systems, removing unnecessary intermediary bodies and removing central targets.

“Colleges, providers and sector representatives are involved in our work and have welcomed the headway we have made,” a BIS spokesperson said.

“We will continue to work with our partners the Skills Funding Agency, Young People’s Learning Agency and others to drive this down even further but we must also ensure public money is properly protected and learners receive a quality service.”

To provide value for money, the committee’s report says, the systems need to be “appropriate, efficient, avoid unnecessary duplication, and balance the protections they provide for public money with the costs of the bureaucracy” they impose.

However, while the report has recognised the attempts being made to reduce the burden of bureaucracy, it criticised the two departmental programmes for not running them together.

Mrs Hodge added: “This is not to say that there are no initiatives to simplify the requirements placed on FE providers.

“Both the Department and the Department for Education have launched separate such initiatives.

“But they are not managed together as a single programme with a clear and consistent goal against which progress can be measured.

“Indeed, the Department considers that such measurement is not even necessary.”

While BIS has required the Agency reduce its administrative costs by 33 per cent, neither they nor the Agency has a “rational view” on the amount by which they would like to reduce bureaucracy in providers.

The SFA disagree, however, that a target for bureaucracy reduction would be helpful or good value for money.

A statement from the SFA says: “Our focus is instead on sector freedom and flexibility to deliver local and sectoral skills priorities.

“This policy inevitably has led to significant removal of now unnecessary process and we will continue to work with the sector to further these aims.”

The report also says that current attempts to quantify the burden on colleges will not provide a complete enough picture and BIS and the Agency do not accept that measurement of progress is necessary.

Meanwhile, the SFA and the YPLA are confident the changes they intend to make in simplifying their funding systems will not put public money at greater risk.

But BIS and the Agencies, according to the report, need to demonstrate, in devolving control and simplifying procedures, their safeguards over the proper use of public money have not been weakened.

Mrs Hodge added: “Finally, moves by the Agencies to simplify funding systems and make them outcome-based must not be allowed to weaken safeguards over the proper use of public money.”

English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) qualifications will continue to be funded for at least one more year, despite changes to the eligibility of literacy qualifications.

Issue 100 of the Skills Funding Agency (SFA) Update states: “Following consideration of the current English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) Adult Basic Skills Certificates, this note confirms the continued funding for 2012/13 of ESOL Adult Basic Skills Certificates at Entry, Level 1 and Level 2.”

The announcement follows a move by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) in February to cease the funding of a centrally held test bank which supports Adult Basic Skills (ABS) qualifications and Key Skills Communication, as well as Application of Number qualifications at Levels 1 and 2.

Jennifer Turner, head of ESOL and literacy at Greenwich Community College, as well as a member of the NATECLA Management Council, said: “It seems to be good news, especially for Level 1 and Level 2 learners who stood to have no ESOL qualifications next year. The 12.5 per cent cut to Adult Learner Responsive funding remains however, and this will undoubtedly result in a reduction in provision across the sector. This announcement does nothing to mitigate that.”

The limited duration of protection for ESOL Basic Skills Certificates raises questions about how the qualification will be funded in the future.

Gordon Marsden MP, shadow minister for FE, skills and regional growth, told FE Week: “While we obviously welcome the continuation of ESOL Basic Skills qualification funding in 2012/13, real questions remain about arrangements from 2013/14 onwards that is understandably still causing concerns across the FE sector.

“I will be pressing Ministers to explain the implications of the scrapping of Basic Skills qualifications on ESOL courses and learners for subsequent academic years.”

Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union (UCU), added: “ESOL is crucial in allowing people to access the labour market and integrate within their communities.We really need a long-term commitment from government. Ad hoc announcements about whether we can expect funding for another year creates huge instability and uncertainty for institutions, tutors and learners and prevents proper planning taking place.”

Chris Hooper, head of ESOL and community learning at Kirklees College, said: “It’s been obvious for a while that changes to ESOL qualifications are on the cards.

“At least this means that when those changes happen, they can be done over a reasonable timescale, rather than last minute.”

The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE) say although they welcome the extended funding for ESOL Basic Skills Certificates, the government’s year by year approach to provision is a concern.

Joyce Black, head of skills for life at NIACE, said: “We are pleased that the funding will be extended for another year and in time for providers to complete their curriculum plans and the associated programme publicity.However the year by year funding is a concern. This extension of funding is good news for learners but we also need to remember that unlike learners who choose to work towards literacy and numeracy qualifications, some ESOL learners must achieve an ESOL Entry qualification to secure their legal status in the UK because it is required for settlement (indefinite leave to remain) in the UK or British citizenship.”

The SFA says Ofqual will shortly be writing to awarding organisations to advise them that the operational end date for current ESOL programmes is now the end of August 2013.

Ofqual has since clarified to FE Week, however, that the funding extension is not related to the change in operational end date.

“The fact that the funding has been extended is not linked to us changing the operational end date for ESOL Skills for Life (we are not involved in funding at all),”an Ofqual spokesperson said.

“We have extended the operational end date so that the current qualifications can continue to be used while we undertake some monitoring work.”

BIS and the SFA are now in discussions with Ofqual to decide if the “shape and content” of ESOL qualifications will change in the future.