Heseltine questions funding agency’s future

A wide-ranging report from the Tory grandee Lord Heseltine (right) questions the role of the Skills Funding Agency, instead calling for devolved powers and funding to be handed to regions through local enterprise partnerships.

The former deputy prime minister suggests that almost £48bn of government cash in different Whitehall departments should be placed in a single local funding pot. He also proposes adding a further £9bn of EU cash, arguing that EU spending was bureaucratic and inefficient.

The 39 partnerships would then bid for the cash to spend on meeting local needs “free from Government diktat”.

One of the 89 recommendations in Lord Heseltine’s No Stone Unturned report says: “The budget for vocational training for learners aged 19 and over, and all funding currently set aside for apprenticeships for those aged 16 and over, should be devolved to local areas through the single funding pot.

“This therefore calls into question the continuation of the Skills Funding Agency (SFA). Each partnership should incorporate skills’ needs within their local economic plans driven by the needs of local employers and the practical experience of FE colleges.”

free from Government diktat”

His report was released just over a month after the Association of Colleges (AoC) warned that the partnerships were failing to take advantage of the “fantastic” education resources offered by colleges.

An association report said that there was “patchy” engagement between the two, with a lack of college representation on partnership boards and a lack of understanding of the role that FE played in economic growth.

“We very much agree that growth needs to be at the forefront of government activity, but we do not want to see added layers of bureaucracy brought in that could actually hinder college responsiveness,” Martin Doel, AoC’s chief executive, said.

“Suggestions that money should be handed directly to local authorities who would then distribute it would add extra complication to an already intricate funding system. Any disassembly of the SFA could lead to more labyrinthine structures. This would be yet more change for the sake of it.”

He said that much of the association’s research suggested that, “with a few notable exceptions”, partnerships almost completely ignored education and training in their area, which would hamper the growth agenda.

“We will wait and see what action is taken by government in light of this report and stand ready to contribute to the debate on the way ahead.”

Mark Ravenhall, the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education’s director of policy and impact, said: “No one feels skills’ mismatches more heavily than the thousands of people unable to access adult learning due to narrow funding rules.

“But despite some salient weaknesses, there is much to be commended in the current system, particularly more recently with some flexing of funding rules. We hope this continues, with learning providers given more freedom to plan and show accountability to their communities.

“This was the vision put forward by Lady Sharp last year.”

Lord Heseltine’s 228-page report, launched on October 31, sets out a comprehensive economic plan aimed at improving the UK’s ability to create wealth.

It makes the case for a major rebalancing of responsibilities for economic development between central and local government, and between government and the private sector.

“For the UK to face up to the challenge of increasing international competition, we must reverse the long trend to centralism. Every place is unique. Local leaders are best placed to understand the opportunities and obstacles to growth in their own communities,” Lord Heseltine said in the report.

New courses bypass the regulator

The government has allowed new adult English and maths qualifications to be funded without the usual approval of an independent regulatory body because “gaps in provision were causing issues”.

The Skills Funding Agency (SFA) said new qualifications were due to be available from August, but that the timescales for their development and accreditation had been “challenging”.

“We have been alerted to gaps in provision as a result of the Qualification Credit Framework offer not being available and we understand that this is beginning to pose issues for a small number of colleges and training organisations,” said a statement from the agency. “Therefore, in order that learners are not disadvantaged, and that colleges and training organisations can respond to demand, we are putting an interim arrangement in place.”

From October 24 to December 31, English and maths qualifications already submitted to Ofqual to help adults progress to GCSE or level 2 functional skills standard can be funded without final approval from the regulatory body.

We have put in place these interim arrangements so that colleges and training organisations can continue to respond to the needs of learners and employers,” said an agency spokesperson.”

The SFA said the plans had been agreed with Ofqual and were made under the government’s Innovation Code. The code, available from April this year, was a key recommendation of last year’s Colleges in their Communities inquiry, led by Lady Sharp.

“We have put in place these interim arrangements so that colleges and training organisations can continue to respond to the needs of learners and employers,” said an agency spokesperson.

Ofqual said that it knew that the qualifications were important to learners and providers, and had ensured “swift” accreditation processes. The regulatory body said it approved proposals as soon as they were “of the right quality”.

A spokesperson said: “We think that regulated qualifications are a good way to assess and reward learners’ achievements, but recognise there are times when this may not be what learners and centres are looking for.

“We are happy that the SFA has clearly set out its expectations that funding through the Innovation Code will in many cases lead to the development of new regulated qualifications.”

Carol Taylor, the director of research and development at the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education, said: “We note that this is a short-term contingency plan and would urge regulating bodies to move swiftly, to enable providers to use these new qualifications to best support learners.”

She added that the adult education charity would “keep a close eye” on developments.

The SFA said that only qualifications from the following awarding organisations would be funded: OCR, City and Guilds, and Ascentis.

OCR said its proposals were in the final stages of accreditation at Ofqual. It was “excellent news” that measures had been put in place to immediately fund qualifications given the “great demand”.

A spokesperson said: “Ofqual has put these replacement qualifications under high scrutiny and OCR is positively working with the regulator to get these qualifications accredited at the earliest opportunity.”

New report critical of government’s education divide

The government’s departmental split over education responsibility has been branded “damaging and artificial” in a new report from the 157 Group.

The division of arrangements for those aged 18 and under, and those aged 19 and above, “risks separating planning for apprenticeships from that for other routes.”

Effective Transitions from School to Work: The Key Role of FE Colleges recommends the divide between the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills respectively, comes to end.

It also describes the split in funding for education, between the Education Funding Agency and the Skills Funding Agency, as “unhelpful”.

“Although colleges work hard in practice to minimise the significance of artificial barriers imposed by age, it is not helpful that provision for young adults is split between two departments of state and two government agencies, particularly when the latter appear to be adopting different operating principles,” says the report.

It adds: “We call for a unified approach and a single line of responsibility for all forms of education and training for young people from the ages of 14 to 24.”

The report goes on to highlight, with the use of case studies, how FE colleges had developed such an approach, with a “coherent and inclusive system that bridges the worlds of employment and education.”

Lynne Sedgmore, executive director of the 157 Group, said: “FE colleges are already taking advantage of the new freedoms and initiatives recently introduced by the government to help build inclusive and responsive local systems.

“As large but flexible and dynamic institutions, colleges are well placed to exercise local leadership, respond rapidly to business and community needs, and help young people succeed in making the transition from school to work.

“Colleges could be even more effective, however, if instead of the artificial divide at 19 there were an overarching strategy for provision for 14 to 24-year-olds, with the college role being clearly articulated and promoted by the government.”

The report also calls for a review of arrangements for financial support, including child benefit, jobseeker’s allowance and learner support funds and recommends more clarity about the circumstances in which FE colleges might receive an allocation of funding for pupils aged between 14 and 16.

Marilyn Hawkins, chair of the 157 Group, said: “To secure effective progression and minimise the duplication of resources, it is important that colleges should be involved in any development of new schools with a vocational or technical specialism.

“Colleges also have a central role to play in supporting apprenticeships at all levels, and having them funded and managed through an agency focused on adult skills rather than on the development of young people does not make sense. Nor is it helpful that provision for young adults is split between two departments of state and two government agencies.”

Visit www.157group.co.uk to read the report in full.

How leading-edge practice can entice the policymakers

Look at what is happening on the ground if you want to understand the way that things are moving, says Sarah Robinson. Developing more coherent arrangements for the transition from school to work is a case in point in light of the 157 Group’s new report, Effective Transitions from School to Work: The Key Role of FE Colleges.

The conventional wisdom is that practice follows policy. Strategic decisions are taken at the centre and practitioners duly implement change. It follows, therefore, that if you want to understand the future, you need to read white papers and ministers’ speeches — and keep an eye on Whitehall.

In reality, however, things often happen the other way around. It is leading-edge practice that shapes the future, with policymakers struggling to catch up.

To understand the way that things are moving, you really need to look at what is happening on the ground. Developing more coherent arrangements for helping young people to make the transition from school to work is a case in point.

In think-tanks and policy circles there is talk of a ‘middle tier’ — a level of decision-making between government and schools.

Most agree that Whitehall cannot run everything, but there is no consensus on what intermediary arrangements should be put in place. Some in local authorities, for example, see the chance to win back a central role they once held; for others, that would be a backwards step that would undermine moves to free education from bureaucracy.

While the policy wonks debate the issue, a new ‘middle tier’ is already emerging on the ground.

In Stoke on Trent, as in other areas of the country, the local FE college has taken a lead. It is working with the local authority and other partners to sponsor new studio schools and academies, and to provide progression pathways for their pupils.

It is using the ability to form a multi-academy trust to set up a structure within which separate institutions will do what they do best, but all will collaborate to ensure clarity and quality for learners.

The collaboration builds on, and is strengthened by, the college’s existing links with local industry and higher education.

In policy circles there is also increased debate about whether it is right to split responsibilities at 19 between the DfE and BIS. Should the two combine or would it be better for the DfE to have responsibility for all those up to the age of 25, as it already does for those with learning disabilities?

The 157 Group is clear that the present split is unhelpful. Many of those aged 19 to 24 need the same sort of programmes as those under 19; it is simply that, for one reason or another, their progress has been slower.

Similarly, it makes little sense to split responsibility for apprenticeships from responsibility for pre-apprenticeship programmes.

While the policy is sorted out, however, colleges are bridging the gap. The latest 157 Group publication, Effective Transitions from School to Work, highlights many excellent examples of what is being done.

Leeds City College, for example, has set up an Apprenticeship Academy offering a work-focused route for young people aged 14-24. In addition to working closely with schools to promote and prepare young people for work-based learning, there are four clear pathways for 16 to 24-year-olds — preparation for apprenticeships or foundation programmes, employed status apprenticeships, apprenticeship training agency (ATA) apprenticeships and higher level apprenticeships. Other 157 group colleges are actively involved — for example, through the development of ATAs and other initiatives.

Finally, although government may have set a clear strategic direction following the Wolf Review, the all-important detail on the nature of study programmes for those aged 16 and over is seriously incomplete.

It is likely that once again the true shape of the policy will be fleshed out by those on the ground. Colleges such as my own are already hard at work on the task.

Sarah Robinson, 157 Group director and principal of Stoke on Trent College, which features as a case study in the 157 Group’s new report.

Subcontracting probe uncovers ‘poor value for money’ management fees

An Ofsted probe into subcontracting has uncovered lead contractors charging management fees “as a way of generating income for doing little work”.

The Ensuring Quality in Apprenticeships report highlights how subcontractors felt they were getting “poor value for money” from management fees and reveals many lead contractors were overcharging according to Skills Funding Agency (SFA) guidance.

Released today, the report said: “Although some lead contractors legitimately regarded subcontracting as a way of meeting the needs of employers or expanding their training offer where they did not have the expertise themselves, others clearly saw it as a way of generating income for doing little work.”

It added: “Subcontractors who were not part of a training group or consortium were unhappy at what they perceived as poor value for money for the management fees charged by lead contractors.

“Of the 45 lead contractor fees charged to subcontractors in the survey, just around half were above the maximum of 15 per cent of the contract value that was the expectation of the SFA.”

Inspectors also found some apprenticeship programmes too short to embed the skills being developed.

There were even examples of apprentices, particularly younger ones, being used as cheap labour during training and then being discarded in favour of new apprentices.

The report, based on surveys of 17 subcontractors and interviews with 110 apprentices and 40 employers, comes a year after the SFA introduced a policy of £500k minimum contract values.

This meant smaller providers could either form a consortium to reach the minimum value or set up as a subcontractor for larger providers. The use of the latter option saw subcontractors surveyed endure a cut in their funding of between 10 and 35 per cent.

Just four months ago FE Week told how lead contractors appeared to take an average management fee — or top-slice — of 23 per cent from subcontractors. Research from the SFA suggested that lead contractors charged subcontractors more than £175m, based on allocations worth almost £760m.

Ofsted’s national director of learning and skills, Matthew Coffey, said: “The introduction of the minimum contract value has forced often very good smaller providers to either work together or become a subcontractor of a larger provider.

“In several cases this has diluted accountability and has placed a greater distance between the learner and those responsible for learning.”

Ofsted has recommended the government and other agencies look at an independent whistleblowing hotline and called for guidance on who can act as a lead contractor, linked to performance rather than contract value.

FE and skills Minister Matthew Hancock said: “We have already taken extensive measures to safeguard and improve the quality of learning provided through the apprenticeships programme, and tighten up subcontracting arrangements.

“We have introduced a minimum duration period, meaning all apprenticeships must be between one and four years, with limited flexibility to allow adult apprentices with prior experience to complete more quickly. But the changes we’ve made will take time to have effect.”

He added: “I will consider the report and its recommendations for the government in detail, and take any necessary further action to improve the quality of apprenticeships, and expect providers to do the same.”

An SFA spokesperson said: “We will look in detail at the Ofsted report and will consider, with the sector, its recommendations. We continue to work with the sector to support and guide on subcontracting, including where additional controls may be needed.

“The engagement and management of subcontractors are the legal and contractual responsibility of lead providers.

“We have very clear rules and expectations on how lead providers must assure themselves that they use subcontracting appropriately and we intervene where it identifies that public funds or learners are at risk.”

Training providers exploited and undervalued

Last week Peter Cobrin’s article on the FE Week website highlighted that all was not well in the world of training providers. In this second article he considers their claims of exploitation and being undervalued.

Training providers are businesses and need a financial and administrative environment that is sustainable, predictable, consistent, and transparent.

Is this the world in which training providers operate? I think not. We would not allow schools and FE colleges to work with young people under such uncertain financial and administrative pressures — although critics of Education Secretary Michael Gove’s reforms suggest this is just what is happening.

I’ve heard stories from providers whose contractual terms were varied overnight on a like-it-or-lump-it basis, or where contracts were severed without warning with apprentices and employers being told before the provider.

I am not pretending that all providers are perfect, nor that all primes, be they colleges or companies, are rogues. But clearly all is not well, and the responses from David Way, chief executive of the National Apprenticeship Service and Geoff Russell, former chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency, when questioned at the Select Committee on who is responsible for monitoring the relationships that deliver training, offer no reassurance.

The sharp end of the apprenticeship programme is where training and young person engage — whether it’s off-site in a college or training centre, or in the workplace.

The responsibilities of the employer are clear – wages, employment protection, health and safety or holiday pay. Government and authorities make great efforts to court and incentivise new employers. Contrast this with the world of the training provider.

I have been working with one well-regarded IT training company with more than 20 years’ successful experience in the highly competitive world of commercial IT training.
Their struggles to penetrate the complexities of the regulatory world of apprenticeships reflect well on their persistence and determination – and very badly on the processes and procedures.

Now we didn’t need a review to reach these conclusions did we?”

This is wrong. We need new entrants from the commercial training world who bring with them a commercial rigour and a real sense of what defines the quality delivery of training, learned a world where there are no soft landings.

The perception among training providers is that they operate in a sector where they are undervalued, expendable and easily replaced. Not a recipe for quality.
So where does this leave us?

First, the contractual relationships between training providers and their prime contractor need to be externally evaluated and monitored, and clear procedures and processes put in place for when issues arise.

There needs to be a clear code of practice to cover issues such as the rights of a prime contractor to contact an employer or apprentice over the head of the training provider.

This would eliminate the situation where one prime phoned around employers advising them that their training provider was “in liquidation” – a false allegation. Or, another example, where a prime contacted apprentices advising them that they were being transferred to another provider.

Second, there needs to be a hotline for training providers “in trouble”, so that issues don’t escalate.

Third, training providers who sub-contract need a clearly defined organisational and representational structure with a coherent voice at the top table.

Now we didn’t need a review to reach these conclusions did we?

FE Guild go ahead for Association of Colleges

The Association of Colleges (AoC) has won government approval to “take forward” its proposals for an FE Guild.

The AoC’s winning bid for the guild, submitted with the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) and “key partners” at The Institute for Learning (IfL), had been in competition with proposals from The Independent College Partnership (ICP).

But FE Minister Mathew Hancock revealed that he had given the AoC the green light today at the launch of Lord Lingfield’s Professionalism in Further Education review.

“We have asked the Association of Colleges to take forward their partnership’s proposals for a guild that will support and enhance the professional standing of those who teach in further education, and I look forward to working with them to develop these,” said the Tory MP, speaking at East London’s Building Crafts College.

The guild plan was initially set out in a paper presented to the FE and skills ministerial advisory panel at a meeting chaired by former FE Minister John Hayes around four months ago.

But even then the idea was seen as a response to Lord Lingfield’s review of professionalism in the sector, which produced an interim report in April recommending the scrapping of compulsory registration with the IfL and an end to the requirement for lecturers to be qualified teachers.

Martin Doel, AoC chief executive, said: “We look forward to taking forward proposals with AELP, on behalf of a wide range of partners, to form a guild.

“We think the combination of a guild and an FE covenant represents a very powerful means by which increasing professionalism might be further developed as a partnership across the FE sector between employers and employees.

“However, in order to endure and succeed, the guild will need time and space in which to develop and there will need to be clear agreement on what the guild is, what it does — and will not do — and how it relates to the existing organisations in FE.

“It will need to build on and complement the achievements of those organisations already involved in professional development in the sector.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) said no timescale had been set for the guild to be set up.

Graham Hoyle, chief executive of AELP, said: “Together with the AoC and other partners, we have high ambitions for the Guild working with colleges and independent providers to make the UK have the best FE and skills system in the world.

“One of the strengths of the bid is the aim to develop teaching and learning skills that will go beyond the traditional classroom based model, which will enable the sector’s workforce to operate across the full range of ages and qualification levels.

“The FE Guild will have a clear remit to promote and sustain links with business both nationally and locally so that the sector becomes increasingly the provider of choice for more employers.

“We also believe that the guild can add value by attracting members from outside the core BIS-sponsored provider group.

“We will develop benefits and services which will aim, for example, to attract non-state funded trainers and training organisations.”

The IfL’s chief executive, Toni Fazaeli, said: “We welcome the report’s references to a recognisable professional identity across further education and skills. We agree that teachers and trainers need greater flexibility to explore and make a creative and innovative contribution to professional excellence.

“We are pleased to be a key partner in the proposal led by the AoC and the AELP to run the new FE Guild.”

Lord Lingfield, working with an expert panel, was commissioned by the government to look at raising standards and professionalism in the FE sector.

Their conclusions include the endorsement of a guild to enhance the status of the sector by providing a single body to set professional standards and codes of behaviour, as well as develop qualifications.

They also recommend that high performing colleges and providers should be recognised and given more freedom with the independent and publicly recognisable award of chartered status.

In addition, they recommend that teachers of English and maths as well as those working with students with learning difficulties or disabilities should have specialist qualifications.

Chris Banks, ICP chair, said: “We are glad the Minister has decided to take forward the FE Guild. We wish all those involved with developing it success, because it’s an important opportunity for the sector and the country and we need to get it right.

“We do hope they will take the opportunity to do something innovative and effective that will enable more young people, adults and employers to experience outstanding FE and training.”