Who’s fooling who over the GCSE fiasco?

Professor Daniel Khan OBE, chief executive of OCN London, considers this year’s change in grade boundaries.

Since thousands of 16-year-olds collected their GCSE results, the unprecedented decline in A* to C grades has hardly been out of the press. For the first time in the history of the qualification, the percentage of students gaining these grades has fallen. At the fore of the fiasco is the altering of the grade boundaries for English between January and June.

The consequence of such interference was that a student who received a C grade in January could have received a D in June, with the exact same mark. Altering the boundaries in the same academic year has been labelled “scandalous” by some teachers and head teachers and will undoubtedly have serious implications for the futures of thousands of young people.

Ofqual immediately responded that the June grades were “fair” and the issue lies in the January examinations. The grades awarded in January were “generous” and, as a result, in June the boundaries were raised and fewer students achieved the crucial C grade.

Yet, contradictory to this, recently leaked letters reveal that Ofqual ordered the awarding organisation, Edexcel, to alter the June grades just two weeks before the results were published. They did so amid fears that too many students were going to get C grades.

Education Secretary Michael Gove has offered his sympathy to students who have not received the grades that  they expected — he has even admitted that students were treated unfairly — but has ruled out ministerial intervention.

Nevertheless, the remarkable decision to move grade boundaries between January and June has sparked suspicions of pressure directly from Gove.  Since assuming office he has taken a firm stand against grade inflation and has often spoken of the “dumbing down” of exams. It seems more than a coincidence that the first decline in the number of A* to C grades happened this year — who’s fooling who?

What has happened raises questions over the very purpose of education”

Regardless of whether Gove did directly put pressure on Ofqual,  the fuss this August raises questions over the purpose of education. It highlights the direction which this Government appears to be heading and its keenness to use grades as a sole measure of success.

Gove’s vision for the future of GCSEs recommends the introduction of one exam per subject, provided by a single board, without assessment by coursework. His desire to implement a traditional examination system, which harks back to O-levels, will produce a certain culture within secondary education. Such a focus on exams, and allusions to the former system, has led to many accusing Gove of being stuck in the past and reluctant to adopt more innovative ideas.

Exams test a student’s ability to study in a very specific way. Under the Gove doctrine the general aim of education would be to prepare students to absorb as much information as possible and then recount it all in just a few hours at the end of the academic year. Other measures of ability, such as independent pieces of coursework, would be discounted. Arguably this would assess just one form of intelligence and risk reverting back to the two-tier system where students who performed less well in exams were left behind.

The direction of the Government, and the furore over the GCSE grades, begs the questions — should secondary education require students to acquire knowledge solely to perform well in exams, knowledge that they may use little of in the future, or should it prepare them for the workplace and equip them with skills for life?

Further, is intelligence a single entity or is it multi-faceted and expressed in a variety of ways? If the latter is true then surely using exams as the key driver behind learning is somewhat one-dimensional. Using exams as the primary way to test the performance of students fails to consider that there is more to education than out-performing classmates in the number of A* to Cs achieved.

The fools in this fiasco will be awarding organisations if they allow politicians or regulators to dictate their mission, values and ethos. They need to ensure that learners are fairly assessed and given the opportunity to enhance the quality of their lives and enrich their community through the acquisition of knowledge and skills.

Changes to your PAYE

The much-loved P35 is one of a host of forms on their way out under reforms of the Pay As You Earn (PAYE) system next year. Here, former Association of Colleges finance specialist Robert Russell looks at the issues those who hold the purse strings should be aware of.

Finance directors have to budget for all the “knowns” and “unknowns” as referred to by former United States Secretary for Defence Donald Rumsfeld, who said: “There are known knowns — there are things we know that we know.

“There are known unknowns — that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns — there are things we do not know we don’t know.” And it is the unknowns which so often cause finance departments angst.

Crossing the chairman of the board’s palm with silver might provide a short-term solution, but many find creating a contingency fund more pragmatic and less risky.

The following are changes to existing procedures which may affect budgets for the coming year, and ones that all finance directors should be aware of.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has determined that the existing PAYE system wasn’t operating as intended and it will be introducing Real Time Information (RTI) from April.

The reforms, with all employers using the new system from October 2013, will result in monthly reconciliation of pay records, replacing the annual reconciliation and potentially-affected cashflow.

The new system will see the abolition of the P35, P14, P46, P38a and P38. New forms coming in their place include full payment submission, employer alignment submission, employer payment summary, National Insurance verification number and earlier year update.

The move to RTI seems innocuous, but results in some surprising changes, including the introduction of reporting of payments below the National Insurance threshold, and HMRC state, “even if the amount is less than £20 a-month”, and the removal of P38s for students.

There will be an additional cost of £150m to £200m a-year across the college sector”

With regards auto enrolment, from October, the Pensions Act 2011 and The Automatic Enrolment Regulations have established new deadlines for employers.

These were stretched for the smallest companies, but most colleges will have to comply at some point in 2013 — this staging is determined by payroll size.

The necessity of enrolling all eligible staff onto the local government pension scheme (LGPS) or teachers’ pension scheme (TPS) is likely to cost colleges quite a bit.

When auto enrolment was introduced in the US in 2006, pension take-up increased to 90 per cent from the previous 50 to 75 per cent.

Colleges, with about 60 per cent uptake of pensions currently, increasing to about 80 per cent, would see an additional cost of £150m to £200m a year across the sector.

Pension contributions increase in April; colleges should be aware that most of their TPS staff will face the second round of increases in their contribution rates from that date.

Those TPS members in colleges with pay freezes will have less take-home pay at the end of April. Most LGPS members will face increases from April 2014.

It should also be noted that in the longer term, employers may well face increases in their contributions from the current 14.1 per cent.

The Department for Education states the employer contribution cap will be set “at 2 per cent above the employer contribution rate calculated ahead of the introduction of the new scheme in 2015”.

Another issue relates to employer’s national insurance contribution rebate for contracted out staff — that is, those enrolled on the TPS and LGPS.

The Treasury has stated it will remove the 5.3 per cent existing contracted-out rebate which public service pension scheme members and their employers enjoy — 1.6 per cent rebate for employees and 3.7 per cent rebate for employers.

The Treasury has not issued a date for the closure, but the rebate will close when the new higher state pension is introduced, which may not be for a few years yet.

The abolition of this would result in additional costs to the sector of between £120m and £160m a year.

Plans for audit of ‘rip-off’ provider fees shelved

Plans for a government clampdown on “rip-off” provider fees have been shelved as industry leaders look at self-regulation.

The Skills Funding Agency had said providers who subcontracted would need to prove they weren’t charging excessive management fees.

But its plans to introduce stricter controls, revealed in FE Week in July, were dropped in favour of input from within the industry.

That input, due from December, will come from  the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) and the Association of Colleges (AoC).

An agency spokesperson said: “We are continuing to work with the sector on a range of issues relating to effective supply chain management.

“An external advisory group is currently working with the agency to assess how to effectively implement this.

“We have agreed not to invoke this particular clause until the work is complete.

“This has been communicated to all providers and as soon as the work of the advisory group has been completed, the outcomes will be shared with the sector.”

One subcontractor, who wanted to remain anonymous, spoke to FE Week in June, branding some FE college fees a “rip-off”.

We advocate sector-led self-regulation rather than mandatory structures.”

And Sally Garbett, an independent consultant and trainer for Read On Publications, told FE Week the following month: “One FE college hiked their management fees from 20 to 30 per cent this year and will now retain £1.9m of the 16 to 18 apprenticeship funding.

It had got nearly £5m for 16 to 18 apprentices.

“I find it hard to think that any admin operation could cost £1.9m. And I know that the advice and support they provide amounts to little more than quarterly visits and administrative monitoring.”

However, the days of such fees could be numbered as the agency gets advice on management issues.

Paul Warner, director of employment and skills at the AELP, said: “It was a very positive step by the agency to take these proposals off the table while the advisory group is still undertaking its work.

“This will give the sector an opportunity to come up with solutions that avoid burdening colleges and providers with costs that take money away from frontline training – and this, after all, is what the issue is about.

“I am confident that we are well on course to produce an accord that will help to put an end to poor practice while safeguarding legitimate business arrangements between providers.”

An AoC spokesperson added: “We advocate sector-led self-regulation rather than mandatory structures.

“We are working hard with AELP to ensure that best practices are shared across all providers who sub-contract any of their funding.”

Focus on ‘Deptford not Delhi’ says Ofsted chief

Colleges  could be at risk of focusing on international opportunities to the detriment of home-grown learners, Ofsted chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw has warned.

The former head teacher and executive principal spoke  on the dangers of foreign recruitment in FE at a conference organised by the Association of Colleges (AoC).  His remarks came in  an  introductory speech  to around 160 delegates at the event, held on Monday last week at Prospero House, London Bridge.

Conference-goers, who were banned from live tweeting, later told FE Week that the chief inspector questioned the drive of colleges to increase their intakes from abroad, questioning whether the focus should be on “Deptford not Delhi”.

They also told FE Week, which was subject to a press ban for the event, that Sir Michael spoke of supporting colleges in their concerns over inspections.

His warning on looking abroad came just five months after former FE Minister John Hayes launched the FE Global Strategy.

The AoC had played a key role in developing the strategy at the request of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS).

It’s clear to us that colleges are businesses and they need to be business-like”

In December, BIS said in its New Challenges, New Chances report: “Although currently higher education is by far the largest export market, there is significant emerging demand and potential for technician and higher level vocational skills, which are widely recognised as essential to sustain balanced economic growth.

“Further education exports are already valued at £1 billion a year.”

The report added: “We want to ensure that FE is in the strongest possible position to take advantage of these opportunities and punch its weight internationally.”

And even the AoC itself has taken a lead on capitalising on foreign potential with its move to create an India Office for recruitment on behalf of subscribing colleges.

But Joy Mercer, AoC policy director, defended moves abroad.

“It’s clear to us that colleges are businesses and they need to be business-like if they are to effectively deliver quality to their students,” she said.

“The government’s report called for a global education strategy that’s very much about providing opportunities to our students and our colleges on an international stage.

“For colleges that engage in international work there’s no evidence it diminishes the quality of education at the time of inspection.”

An Ofsted spokesperson declined FE Week’s request for a copy of Sir Michael’s speech.

However, Miss Mercer said she welcomed a commitment from Sir Michael to put FE inspections “on a level playing field” with those for schools.

“But we are disappointed this won’t happen until the new inspection framework for schools, in 2016,” she said.

“One such disadvantage against schools is the fact colleges’ data registers student retention levels, whereas schools don’t.”

Failed Skills Funding Agency research tender ‘ridiculous’

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.”

Another student satisfaction website launches

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.

AoC ban delegates from tweeting

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.”

Jason Holt, author and CEO, Holts

The chief executive of Holts Group of Companies and author of the independent review into apprenticeship for small and medium-sized companies talks to FE Week

Jason Holt always wanted to run his own company and started to hone his entrepreneurial skills at an early age. Having worked out that baking horse chestnuts in the oven toughened up the shells, he spotted a business opportunity, flogging ‘unbreakable’ conkers to classmates at Highgate School, in north London.

He later funded a gap year selling ice cream on a beach in the Canary Islands and importing boxer shorts – which had yet to take off in Spain at the time – and selling them on to Spanish retailers.

It was a lucrative venture that came to an abrupt end when his business partner dumped him after working out he could make more money trading alone. Having learned his first tough lesson in business, Holt returned to the UK to start a degree in geography at Leeds University.

A law conversion course followed and Holt spent the three years working as an insolvency litigator for a City law firm “on a good day, winding up a company, making a man bankrupt or evicting someone from their home”.

I sensed ministers were looking for something much more radical”

While it was a depressing at times, he admits he was fascinated by the reasons companies failed. “I made it my business to ask them [the insolvency practitioners] why they thought it [the company] had failed…95 per cent of the time it was because of the business owner or managing director not being there physically or taking their eye off the ball as opposed to being someone who just wasn’t good at their job,” he says.

But the job began to take its toll. “If you do that, day in, day out, you start to get very cynical about life,” he says. “Not only are you upsetting the business owners…your client isn’t happy because they are spending good money after bad to recover debt owed to them – so no one was happy to see me.”

The turning point came when his housemate – also a solicitor – was involved in a case where the person she had evicted from his home killed himself. “I could see how upset she was and I thought ‘that could be me one day’,” says Holt.

I sensed ministers were looking for something much more radical”

When his father asked him to join the family jewellery business in 1999, Holt decided to jump ship. “It was a big decision because there was a [legal] partnership in front of me, which is an extremely cushy number – albeit that you have to work extremely hard – whereas in business, you are at the mercy of whatever is thrown at you and you are much more exposed,” he says.

And as the boss’s son, he was acutely aware that he couldn’t just walk in and take over. “It would have been wrong to say to the staff, who had been there for so many years. ‘Here’s Jason, now he’s in charge.’ I didn’t know anything about jewellery or gemstones…who was I to say anything?” he says.

Holt spent the first few months observing and while he could see that Holts Gems – which had been in the family for 50 years – was a “solid business,” he had broader concerns about the future of the jewellery sector. “I remember seeing a report that said that future of the industry was on its knees, and without some serious training to bring in new blood, more and more products would be manufactured abroad,” says Holt.

As it happened, there were government regeneration grants galore at the time and Holt applied for a £25,000 to set up a school to teach gem-cutting – one of the main functions of the business at the time – free-of-charge to others in the trade. Industry colleagues were sceptical at the time, arguing that sharing his staff’s skills and expertise could put the company out of business.

Ten years on, the training school – or Holts Academy as it is now known– has more than 1,000 students working towards level two and level three courses in everything from jewellery to business enterprise and is currently the only government accredited apprenticeship and vocational provider in the industry.

two-and-a-half days a week for a couple of months” (pro bono) quickly turned into “five days a week for five months.”

As a not-for-profit part of the business, the Holts Academy is “in a sense, a social enterprise,” which aims to help others and the jewellery industry as a whole, says Holt. “I think people have realised that, by sharing and collaborating, you are more likely to get a positive outcome for the sector than if you naval-gaze.”

Despite his achievements as an SME owner – Holts has grown from eight to 80 staff over the last decade – being asked to carry out a government review came as a shock.

He recalls: “The week they asked me, my wife and I went to Milan for our wedding anniversary and I probably bored the pants off her about it. We talked about it non-stop and agreed it was a great opportunity, a real honour…”

But the project, sold to him as “two-and-a-half days a week for a couple of months” (pro bono) quickly turned into “five days a week for five months.” And while the initial findings of his report – that employers are largely “clueless” about what apprentices are, how they are trained and how to hire them – came as no surprise to many in the sector, Holt says he sensed ministers were looking for something “much more radical,” particularly education minister Michael Gove, who questioned the need for training providers in the delivery of apprenticeships in SMEs.

“We had this whole discussion and I was like: ‘In an ideal world, we wouldn’t need providers, but if I asked an employer to take on an apprentice now, they wouldn’t know what to do.’

While Holt doesn’t regret his decision to take on the review, he admits he is disappointed with parts of the government response to his report, particularly the reluctance to get schools involved in educating young people about apprenticeships and vocational careers.

Under new guidelines introduced this month, schools now have a statutory requirement to provide careers advice and guidance in schools, but like many in the sector, Holt is concerned about what this will mean in practice.

“From what I understand, this could be as little or as much as a person pointing young people to the National Careers Advice website…call me old-fashioned, but that to me isn’t careers advice.”

He also feels let down by the government’s “flat refusal” to rationalise on pre-apprenticeships – something he feels many young people would benefit from as part of their preparation for the workplace.

“I think there is an issue with the supply of good candidates [for apprenticeships]. Colleges aren’t getting the quality of supply so they aren’t necessarily giving employers what they are looking for…but many colleges would argue that they are not paid to support an individual by getting them ready for employment.”

The Holt Review also highlighted the need to improve relationships between providers and employers. The National Apprentice Service could meet the needs of employers far more effectively by reducing the time it takes for vacancies to be approved and listed on the site (which can take up to a week at the moment).

He would also like to see a Trip Advisor-style website where employers could rate providers. “It’s a crude measure, but it’s how we look at things now…and why can’t we be consumers? Actually, I don’t see why it couldn’t fall to the private sector, which does it so elegantly. If you look at something like Hot Courses [which provides online information on school, college and university courses], it’s fantastic – they could do it with their eyes closed.”

While he admits he is still getting used to having a major government review named after him, Holt says there is still plenty to do.

He has agreed to be involved in a working group that will oversee the implementation of the review and has various meetings lined up with civil servants over the coming months.

“At the end of the day, the review is just a document that sits on the BIS website. But to be part of something that is changing so rapidly and is so positive for learners, communities and industry…it’s great and I feel privileged to be part of that,” says Holt.

Group Training Associations ‘the answer to skills gap’

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.