The deputy prime minister has revealed plans for a new pre-apprenticeship scheme that he called “traineeships”.

Nick Clegg, speaking at an event held by the Confederation of British Industry on youth unemployment, said the scheme would provide support for people leaving school with minimal work experience or qualifications.

It was a package of training and work experience to allow young people “to get the basic, necessary skills, with a recognised qualification at the end of it – an extra rung on the ladder to get you on your way to an apprenticeship or job”.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) told FE Week the scheme would be used to tackle “unacceptably high” levels of youth unemployment.

“We are already helping young people improve their skills through pre-employment training, by expanding the apprenticeships programme, introducing the access to apprenticeships scheme and by protecting funding for basic and intermediate learning for 19 to 24 year-olds,” a BIS spokesperson said.

“As part of that continuing work, we are looking at developing a new ‘traineeship’, an extended package of training and work experience that will enable young people to get the skills that they need to secure a place with an employer.”

Unionlearn warned that the scheme would need to be properly assessed to make sure employers did not exploit young people as cheap labour.

“Traineeships should be paid unless they are for a clearly limited period of work experience,” a spokesperson told FE Week.

“They must also not be allowed to replace real jobs and existing work. The focus must be on developing the skills of the learner and all traineeships should lead to an apprenticeship, where possible.”

It is unclear whether the traineeship scheme will replace access to apprenticeships, the current programme designed to help young people aged 16 to 24 on to an apprenticeship.

David Harbourne, director of policy and research at the Edge Foundation, said: “What Mr Clegg is talking about is a programme below level 2; a pre-apprenticeship programme.

“This obviously isn’t a new idea. But one problem with all such programmes is that some of the people most likely to benefit live chaotic lives.

“This can lead to non-completion rates that are higher than politicians and their civil servants are prepared to accept, especially if there is a strict time limit for completing the programme.”

The Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) have long campaigned for a form of preparatory training for apprentices.

“The need for it has grown more urgent over recent months because the access to apprenticeships programme has only been moderately successful and because employers are now raising the bar for full apprenticeship entry requirements,” an AELP spokesperson told FE Week.

A radical shake-up of the qualifications system for 15 to 19-year-olds in England has been proposed by an influential cross-party committee of backbench MPs.

The Education Select Committee concluded a near year-long investigation that focused on GCSEs and A-levels with a recommendation that exam boards lose the right to set their own syllabuses for each subject.

Instead, each board would bid for a contract with the government to design, in most subjects, a single syllabus or specification, against which all boards would then set questions.

The move would be designed to stop a “race to the bottom”, whereby the boards competed to offer “easier” versions of a particular exam course, which would then prove attractive to schools and colleges which were desperate to raise results.

Graham Stuart, Conservative MP for Beverley and Holderness who is the committee’s chair, said: “The public have lost confidence in exam standards and this needs to be put right. We’ve got to stop the dumbing-down of the courses that young people sit and stop exam boards competing on how ‘accessible’ their syllabuses are.

“We believe that the best reform would be the creation of national syllabuses. There could be a competition…to decide which exam board would design the syllabus for a particular subject which would then be accredited by the regulator, Ofqual.

“After that, any board could set an exam for that syllabus and compete on innovation, efficiency, service and support. Ofqual would ensure that the boards didn’t compete by making papers easier.”

The report, without giving specific examples, said the “incentives” of England’s accountability system could lead to boards offering “easier” courses.

It said: “In a world where schools are under pressure to achieve ever better exam grades, and exam boards measure their own performance by market share, there is an obvious inbuilt incentive for competing exam boards to provide syllabuses which make lesser demands of students.”

In evidence to the committee, the Department for Education (DfE) agreed, saying: “Competition seems to present significant risks of awarding bodies producing more ‘accessible’ specifications.”

Jon Coles, a former director general at the DfE, hit out in evidence against a “culture in which it is seen to be acceptable [for boards] to say… ‘do this [exam] because it’s easier’”.

The report said some subjects could have more than one national syllabus: it gave the example of a choice of texts in English literature or periods in history.

The recommendation was the most significant change put forward in the committee’s 101-page report. However, it appears to be less revolutionary than that attributed last month to Michael Gove, the Education Secretary.

In proposals leaked to the Daily Mail, Mr Gove would re-introduce O-levels in a system in which the boards would compete for a single contract to both design courses and set questions in each subject. Mr Stuart reportedly described moving to this entirely new system by Christmas – a move linked to Mr Gove –as “reckless”.

Other concerns raised by the committee included cost – the average secondary school was listed as spending £85,000 on testing, although no figures were listed for colleges – perverse incentives, as teachers focused extra attention on middle-ability children who are central to league tables, and the endorsement of textbooks by the boards.

The MPs also proposed the establishment of national subject committees for large GCSE and A-level subjects. Comprised of representatives of learned societies, subject associations, higher education and employers, these would scrutinise question papers and influence the design of syllabuses.

Joy Mercer, director of policy at the Association of Colleges, said: “The number of exam boards without doubt makes for a complex system, and the [once] promised reduction in cost per exam has never materialised.

“However, there must be proper consultation on what form and structure any replacement takes. AoC would expect colleges to be fully involved in any process that would see exams changing in the future. Our members teach one third of all the country’s A-level students each year and know full well what can work successfully and what does not.”

There must be proper consultation on what form and structure any replacement takes”

The Select Committee can only make recommendations to ministers, rather than formulate policy. The Government’s full proposals on the exams system and secondary national curriculum are expected by the summer break.

The Skills Funding Agency has launched its second annual ‘College and Training Organisation Survey’.

The questionnaire looks at how effective the Agency has been in improving the way it operates and communicates with the sector.

The results of the first survey, published last September, found that 60 per cent of respondents thought the SFA had not made good progress in reducing bureaucracy in the sector.

Lead providers who subcontract will need to provide a report next year that proves they are not taking too much in management fees, according to the Skills Funding Agency (SFA).

“(Each provider) must provide a report from its external auditors at the end of the contract year that provides assurance that the funding that it has retained is no more than is required to cover the actual costs directly incurred in managing its subcontractors,” the SFA website said.

The clause forms part of the main terms and conditions for provider agreements in 2012/13.

Geoff Russell, chief executive of the SFA, told FE Week: “I’m asking the prime contractor to do two things. Demonstrate to me you have the processes and the controls to be able to properly oversee a subcontract – which is going to discourage people from doing it quickly – and that the only fee you’re charging is what you incur by way of direct costs.”

Mr Russell said the SFA was still working on the details of the new clause, and would be considering small providers who either used reporting accountants or were not audited.

“There’s no sense going crazy over someone who’s subcontracting £10,000,” he said.

RSM Tenon, a leading audit firm, said they had a meeting with the SFA to discuss the changes two weeks ago.

Chris Mantel, director for audit and advisory services at RSM Tenon, told FE Week: “I believe there are more questions than answers at present.

“Clear guidance will be required by the SFA to ensure a consistent approach is adopted across the sector and, given the topic, I don’t believe that there is a simple solution, especially in an environment of freedom and flexibility.”

One subcontractor told FE Week in June that the management fees used by some lead providers were a “rip off”.

Sally Garbett, an independent consultant and trainer for Read On Publications said: “One of my local FE colleges has nearly £5 million for 16 to 18 apprentices.

“They hiked their management fees from 20 to 30 per cent this year and will now retain £1.9 million of the 16 to 18 apprenticeship funding for a management fee.

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

Inspectors this week received praise from two of England’s largest colleges, despite new data confirming a sharp rise in the number of institutions receiving poor grades.

The principals of South Thames College, in south west London, and Leeds City College said they had been impressed with the fairness of recent inspection visits in which both received “good” overall verdicts.

Both colleges, which educate many disadvantaged students, said they had been concerned that inspectors would pre-judge them based on achievement data, as Ofsted under new chief inspector Sir Michael Wilshaw pushes a tough “no excuses” culture. Their fears had proved unfounded.

Sue Rimmer, principal of South Thames College, which was inspected in May, told FE Week: “Going into the inspection, we did have some concerns because of the things that we had heard, including particularly the rumours that the inspection result was more or less set before they walked through the door because of an overt reliance on raw data.

“But our experience was very positive. The inspectors were taking into account their personal judgment. They certainly talked to the students a lot – and one of the significant things for us was that there was a key focus on what they saw in the classroom.”

Peter Roberts, principal of Leeds City College, which was also inspected in May, agreed. He said: “The inspectors never lost the focus on teaching and learning and the impact on the students, which no one would argue with.”
The two colleges said they had both been fortunate to have had experienced inspection teams.

However, their “good” verdicts appear to have been achieved in the face of an inspection regime which, new evidence suggests, is getting tougher even before the advent of a new framework next term.
Data compiled by the Association of Colleges (AoC), shown to FE Week, reveals that the proportion of colleges judged outstanding halved between September 2011 to March 2012 compared with the previous year, while the percentage graded inadequate leapt seven-fold.

In the year to September 2011, five colleges, or 7 per cent of those inspected, were found outstanding, compared with only 3 per cent (one college) in the following six months. Some 4 per cent (three colleges) were inadequate in September 2011 to September 2012, compared with 29 per cent (nine colleges) in the period to March this year.

Lesley Davies, the AoC’s deputy chief executive, said: “Some of our member colleges have been disappointed in their inspection results over the past few months. Anecdotally, our members are reporting that the inspections have been inconsistent and there has been a lack of transparency about the process.”

Mr Roberts said the 20-inspector team had managed to get its head around the complexity of an organisation operating on seven sites with 1,200 staff. He added, however, that Leeds City College, which was found to be a “good college with good capacity for improvement” knew it was still on an improvement journey.

Ms Rimmer said there were still areas of concern around Ofsted, including the “punitive” language of “requires improvement” being introduced to replace the satisfactory grade for the new inspection framework starting in September.

She was also concerned that inspectors may now over-emphasise particular performance management arrangements in colleges, when their main focus should be the student experience, and that many experienced Her Majesty’s Inspectors may be nearing retirement.

She said: “For us, the experience in the core inspection team was very noticeable; that they had been HMIs and were drawing on a lot of experience, and they are getting to the stage where they are approaching retirement.
“If new inspectors are coming in who do not have that experience and understanding, we could be in trouble.”