MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 448

Ruby Parmar

Chair of Governors, Milton Keynes College Group

Start date: January 2024

Concurrent Job: Various non-executive director roles

Interesting fact: A few years ago, Ruby participated in the Milton Keynes’ version of Strictly Come Dancing. After four months of intensive dance training with a professional partner, Ruby went on to win the competition and raise £10,000 for charity.

Dan Beale

Director of Partnerships, FEA

Start date: January 2024

Previous Job: HMI Further Education and Skills, Ofsted

Interesting fact: Dan was previously a national standard swimmer and today volunteers at a local swimming club helping young swimmers to develop their skills and confidence in the water

Shaun Hope

Principal & CEO, Bishop Auckland College Group

Start date: February 2024

Previous Job: Vice Principal – Curriculum and Standards, Hartlepool College of Further Education

Interesting fact: A former professional footballer, Shaun spent three seasons at Coventry City from 1999 to 2002, playing against Premier League and England regulars including Joe Cole, Jermain Defoe and current Middlesbrough FC head coach Michael Carrick

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 450

Mel Higgins

Trustee, WorldSkills UK

Start date: January 2024

Concurrent Job: Principal and Chief Executive, Northern Regional College, Northern Ireland

Interesting fact: Mel is a keen cyclist and joined his staff to complete sponsored cycles between the Campuses (100 miles) to raise funds for local charities

Martin Rennison

Director of Business Growth and Employer Partnerships, North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire College

Start date: January 2024

Previous Job: Interim Director of Business Development Solihull College and University Centre

Interesting fact: When not working, Martin is a fully qualified FA coach and the chairman of his local football club, Barton Rovers JFC

Construction giant could face £17m clawback after apprenticeship data error

A government-sponsored construction giant is facing a potential clawback of almost £17 million after an apprenticeships data blunder.

The Construction Industry Training Board’s (CITB) accounts for last year revealed it had set aside £10.9 million due to “non-compliance” with the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s funding rules for the academic years 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21.

But, its newly published financial statements for 2022-23 reveal this liability has ballooned by over 50 per cent to potentially £15.2 million between 2018 and 2020, while a further £1.6 million is being paid back for 2020-21.

The executive non-departmental public body, which has been chaired by former ESFA chief executive Peter Lauener since 2018, was found to have “issues with records management” and couldn’t evidence various funding claims. 

CITB’s latest accounts state, however, that it is “very confident” that the final clawback position will be “much lower” than the potential liability pot it has set aside.

The body expects the matter to conclude by the end of March 2024.

A CITB spokesperson said: “We are currently working with the ESFA to finalise audits of historic CITB provision. We included a conservative provision in the 22/23 accounts but expect the final figure to be much lower given the work we have in hand. 

“Over the last 18 months, we have been driving forward a comprehensive transformation of our training operations, including improvements to compliance as well as curriculum quality. That programme is delivering real results at pace.  

“Our most recent external assurance work gives us confidence that current arrangements are robust, and that these issues are historic in nature.”

The CITB, sponsored by the Department for Education, has historically been one of the largest providers of construction apprenticeships. However, apprentice numbers have dropped dramatically in recent years.

It was visited by Ofsted last year which resulted in it dropping from ‘outstanding’ to ‘requires improvement’ in May 2023.

The watchdog’s latest report revealed it has stepped away from its troubled subcontracted provision after finding ineffective oversight, with inspectors stating that leaders “focus too heavily on contract compliance and not on the quality of education”.

CITB confirmed at the time it was winding down its subcontracted delivery, which it was undertaking with 24 partners in areas such as carpentry and joinery, construction skills and bricklaying.

The organisation said the decision was linked to government policy in 2021, which demanded providers in FE significantly reduce their subcontracted provision after scandals and cases of poor oversight were brought to light.

Ofsted’s previous report on CITB from 2017 showed it had 9,000 apprentices on its books, but the report from May 2023 showed just 629.

Lauener, meanwhile, has been chair of CITB since 2018 and will serve his term until 2026. 

More recently, Lauener, who is also chair of the Student Loans Company, stepped down as chair of college giant NCG (formerly known as Newcastle College) three years earlier than planned for “personal reasons”.

NCG is also locked in a £9 million funding clawback dispute with the ESFA, due to alleged 16 to 19 and adult education budget funding claim errors between 2018/19 and 2020/21 – the first three years of Lauener’s term as chair.

Research shows the resits policy needs a complete rethink

Four in ten 16-year-olds did not achieve good passes in their GCSE English and maths last year. Most of them must continue studying English and maths during their 16-to-18 education as part of the resit policy. Yet despite the volume of students affected by this policy, we still know surprisingly little about how effective it is at improving outcomes and addressing inequalities.

Continued study of English and maths makes sense. Literacy and numeracy strongly correlate with later outcomes like wages, health and life satisfaction. Providing further opportunities to develop these skills during the 16-to-18 phase is imperative, especially for students who are struggling at the end of their GCSEs and have had fewer opportunities growing up.

The recently announced Advanced British Standard (ABS) places great emphasis on strengthening these skills, with all students required to take English and maths until they are 18. However, what the ABS will mean for students not achieving a good pass at 16 remains uncertain and is a key topic in the ABS consultation document.

Currently, what should be a positive opportunity to develop worthwhile skills has been variously described as ‘endless resit failure”, a ‘demoralising resit cycle’ and a ‘dispiriting cycle of resits’. But an upcoming election and discussions around the ABS present a real opportunity to ambitiously redefine our approach for these learners.

To help inform the debate, we did a brief analysis of resit students’ entries and performance using publicly-available DfE data.  

We found that an overwhelming majority enrol in GCSE resits (80-85 per cent), even though this is only a requirement for those who score a grade 3 in their GCSE exams. Alternatives like functional skills qualifications (FSQs) barely get a look in. This is driven by a range of factors, including brand recognition, staffing shortages, funding implications and criticisms around the reformed FSQs.

Our most vulnerable learners are ostensibly going backwards under this policy

However, achievement levels in GCSE resits are low. In 2022/23, only one-quarter of students passed their English GCSE resit and fewer than one in six passed their maths resit. Disadvantaged students and those with special education needs fare particularly badly, being 30 to 40 per cent less likely to pass on average. Alternative level 2 qualifications (mostly FSQs) have pass rates that are around four times larger, and the disadvantage gaps are much smaller.

When we look at the difference between grades achieved at 16 and grades achieved during 16-18 education, there are trends of extremely low progress on average and negative progress scores for disadvantaged students and students with SEN. This implies that our most vulnerable learners, who are in most need of support, are ostensibly going backwards under the resit policy (though, of course, they don’t lose their original GCSE grade).

The majority do not make progress, and those who do are overwhelmingly students with higher prior attainment and lower levels of disadvantage. Clearly, the current policy is not working.

One possible solution is to develop new programmes that focus on developing the core literacy and numeracy skills young people need. This could involve combining approaches from GCSEs and FSQs as well as weaving in new material and teaching methods.

These programmes should be designed to avoid the stigma associated with less academic/more functional alternatives to GCSEs. We know many students take GCSEs because they are better recognised and hold greater value with stakeholders, including parents and employers.

We could achieve this by replacing existing options with level 2 maths and English qualifications that can be taken with either an academic or functional focus, but both branded as ABS modules. This would allow students to take a programme of study that best aligns with their needs and aspirations while reducing the sharp distinction between academic and technical qualifications that currently exists.

We are at a crossroads. The ABS and surrounding policy discussions offer us a chance to provide much greater opportunities to students who are currently required to resit. We cannot let this opportunity slip to ensure every learner can progress towards the numeracy and literacy skills they need.

FE Commissioner flags insolvency risk after Leicestershire college ‘took their eye off the ball’

A Leicestershire college group is being propped up with emergency funding after the FE Commissioner flagged an insolvency risk, as governors admit they “took their eye off the ball” following a “turbulent” post-merger period.

The SMB Group was handed a government warning notice last July after “serious cash flow pressures” came to light. FE Commissioner Shelagh Legrave is now deploying her team of national leaders of FE and governance to help its recovery.

Staff restructuring is also underway, although it is not clear how many jobs are at risk.

The SMB Group was formed shortly before the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 through the joining of Brooksby Melton College and Stephenson College. Quality at both colleges pre-merger was judged by Ofsted as ‘good’ and the financial health of the newly merged college was also good.

In a report published last week, Legrave said a downward trend in student numbers has continued since the merger and made a large dent in income.

There was also a “significant” increase in pay and non-pay costs in 2022/23, which will result in a “substantial operating loss”. SMB recorded a £3.6 million deficit last year, but this year’s accounts are yet to be published.

Bailout funding for an undisclosed amount from the Department for Education is being used so that the college can continue its day-to-day running. Governors have even been told to “ensure they understand” their responsibilities including the provisions of the insolvency regime.

Legrave said early indicators for this academic year point to a “more positive” 16 to 19 student intake, though the college is anticipating another year of substantial losses even after taking account of the recent uplift in 16 to 19 funding rates.

“Work is underway to finalise a recovery plan which will need to demonstrate a credible path to financial sustainability and identify solutions to the impending cash shortfall”, the FE Commissioner added.

To balance the books the college has embarked on a “substantial cost reduction programme” that has involved closing most of the Melton campus and relocation of most provision to the Brooksby campus.

Quality of education has meanwhile suffered since the merger after Ofsted downgraded the group to ‘requires improvement’ last year.

Jane Wilson joined the college’s board in 2017 and became chair in 2022. She told Legrave that the merger, followed soon after by lockdown, had combined to distract the newly forming board and “cloud issues”.

She admitted that the board “took their eye off the ball” regarding income and wasn’t monitoring financial trends closely enough.

Other members said the financial issues were “foreseeable, but not foreseen” and referred to the board as being “relatively passive”.

Governors also told Legrave that post-merger, “a structure came about through attrition” and that the senior leadership team, formed by existing managers, “did not embed or prove effective”.

Chief executive Dawn Whitemore, who joined in 2018 and told the Melton Times in May 2022 the merger was a “lifesaver” for both colleges, revealed in Legrave’s report she had decided the “best way to move forward” was for her to focus on finance and for her deputy to focus on curriculum and quality.

She said she now recognised that this “wasn’t the right strategy” and that she “hadn’t secured the correct structure in place for leadership to be effective”.

Leadership of curriculum and quality was highlighted as particularly problematic, and several decisions of that post-merger period were identified as “concerning”.

A board member, for example, referred to the introduction of A-levels and running classes of three or four students as “worrying examples” and spoke of how the “feel” of the merged college was wrong.

Legrave said the board should now engage external advice from a turnaround specialist to “stress-test key aspects of the recovery plan and cashflow forecast to give assurance that the forward projections are robust and credible”.

A spokesperson for the college group told FE Week: “SMB College Group recognises the challenges currently facing the education sector, which is impacting a number of colleges across both the region and the wider nation. 

“We are continuing to work in partnership with the Department for Education, the FE Commissioner team and other key advisors, and have already scoped and agreed a single improvement plan, which currently is progressing well with key milestones all on track. 

“We currently have no debt as a college and have not yet agreed to the final support required. Our governors, executive team and our employees are all committed to ensuring our students remain at the heart of all of our decisions.”

Colleges can take the lead now to go beyond net zero

As a world, we cannot go on burning fossil fuels and overheating our planet. Failure to act will lead to more problems locally, with freak weather such as storms and flooding becoming more common and more extreme. Even worse will be the effect in countries more vulnerable than us, where bad weather means crop failure and famine and flooding means houses, livelihoods and people literally washed away.

It is right that our country is committed to net zero. Everyone is going to have to play their part. That is why Diana Barran – one of the better education ministers I worked with – recently announced that she and the Department for Education were working on a net zero plan right now. We need to hold them to account to do so. 

Some decisions are categorically for government, and we should leave them to it. Only government can ensure we install more wind, more interconnectors with Europe and elsewhere. 

The hard one is heat. A lot of UK emissions come from gas boilers. I write this column in my gas boiler centrally-heated house. There is a good chance that you are reading it in similar circumstances. The same will be true for colleges: gas, or even less clean fossil fuels are used extensively across the sector. That is going to have to stop. 

The best approach is likely to be a ground source heat pump. For colleges with sufficient grounds this will be quite easy. You dig a 4-foot deep trench and lay what is known in the trade as a “horizontal slinky” – a pipe that goes round and round along the bottom of the trench. It collects some heat from the ground (no matter how cold it is, the heat is concentrated) and bingo, you have a nice warm building. If you have playing fields and a car park, you know what to do. Go for it. 

For colleges without sufficient grounds the best approach is likely to be a deep bore hole system. Get yourself a very large drill bit and excavate 200 metres deep into the rock. Put your array straight down, around a U bend, and back up again. If one is not enough, put another one nearby. 

Go and meet Baroness Barran; I bet she will see you

This technology is proven, but it is not yet common. The country needs to practise, because as the old cliché goes, practice makes perfect. Experience certainly lowers costs. And where better to practise than with the FE estate? After all, it will be further education that will be training people to install these arrays. Nobody is better-placed to be a pioneer in this area. 

Train the people and have them install your own heat pumps. And when you train your students, work out where the current government regulations are helpful, where there is unnecessary red tape and where more training or more certification would lead to a better result. 

You should find a coalition of the willing: colleges with large grounds, some with apparently terrible sites. Go and meet Baroness Barran; I bet she will see you. Offer to work together with each other, with experts and with her and the department to come up with a plan. Implement that plan, and come up with lessons learned. We want to learn how to deliver net zero at least cost, with least maintenance and least disruption. Those lessons will apply not just to the further education estate but to schools as well. Not only that, but they will apply to hospitals, prisons and every part of the massive government estate. 

I also think we can be more ambitious. Colleges need heat mainly during the day. Houses need heat mainly in the evenings. Can we come up with a solution whereby your array heats your buildings in the day and nearby houses in the evening? That would mean lower capital costs of decarbonisation for households, a revenue stream for colleges, and getting to net zero more quickly and easily as a nation.

Looks like a win-win-win to me. 

Employers warned years ago that hairdressing T Levels wouldn’t cut it

Ministers were warned by hairdressing and barbering experts that employers would reject T Levels years before their development belatedly ceased, FE Week has learned.

The government’s T Level rollout hit another major setback this week as plans to introduce the flagship qualification in the two disciplines were canned months before they were due to be taught.

Aspiring T Level beauty therapists have also been left in limbo as the government is still exploring employer demand for the qualification, despite being in development since 2021.

College leaders have reacted angrily to the “shock” timing of the decision after extensive marketing efforts and millions of pounds spent on new facilities and staff training. Hair and beauty T Levels were originally planned to launch in September 2023. They were then delayed, with six months’ notice, to September 2024.

Skills minister Robert Halfon announced the decision to cut the courses after hair industry representatives said they preferred existing level 2 and 3 apprenticeships and level 2 qualifications.

FE Week has since learned that industry leaders have been warning the government that the T Level wouldn’t work for their sector since T Levels were first mooted – but were overruled by officials.

Beauty sector bodies were however still in favour of the T Level. Halfon said the government is still “exploring” a standalone beauty and aesthetics T Level to be introduced “after 2025” as the industry wants “a good quality level 3 classroom-based progression route”.

Industry sources told FE Week they don’t foresee the qualification being ready for teaching until at least 2026, some five years after development first started.

DfE officials told colleges on Thursday that the decision regarding hairdressing and barbering “was not taken lightly” and encouraged them to place students on existing classroom-based qualifications or apprenticeships.

This is the second time a proposed T Level has been ditched.

Development of a human resources T Level ended in 2021 because the government couldn’t find an awarding organisation to run it.

And questions remain over whether there will be a T Level in catering, which was originally due to launch for students in September 2023.

The rollout date was pushed back to “at least 2025” with the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) at the time warning “it has become apparent during the development stage that there is not a shared vision of the technical qualification”.

At the same time, the catering T Level awarding organisation Highfield Qualifications cut ties with IfATE. The T Level remains without a licensing awarding organisation, but the government’s T Level website still said students can start the course in September 2024 at the time of going to press.

FE Week has learned the DfE hopes to finalise arrangements for the catering T Level “before the summer”.

T Levels in animal care, craft and design, and media, broadcast and production were delayed to September 2024 and are currently on track.

This means employers from the catering and hair industries have rejected T Levels being forced on their industries, despite ministers claiming their level 3 qualifications agenda is “employer-led.”

‘Scrambling for alternatives’

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, complained to Halfon yesterday that “recent decisions on T Level implementation are both undermining confidence in T Levels and are making it harder for colleges to deliver the high-quality technical offer for young people we all want to see”.

In a letter, Hughes said: “This is the second year in a row in which announcements to delay qualifications have been made in the spring term, leaving colleges scrambling for alternatives a few months before the start of term and six months after they have already advertised and started admitting students to programmes.”

He said he “cannot understand” why it has taken so long for decisions on the hair and beauty T Levels to have been made and called for an “urgent review” of all other T Level routes.

Doomed from the off

Employer bodies told FE Week it was a mistake to “lump” hair and beauty sectors together because the industries were so different.

Tina Ockerby

Hair industry insiders told FE Week employers had been against a T Level from the beginning, but said it was pushed through because government was determined to get the policy in place.

One leading figure in hairdressing training who sat on an early IfATE panel when the T Level was first proposed said they were told to approve the plans.

Tina Ockerby, managing director of the grade one training company Kleek Apprenticeships (formerly SAKS), said employers didn’t like the hairdressing T Level plans “from day one” but were overruled by officials.

“From day one, we sat around that table and said it wouldn’t work. But we were basically told, ‘well, it’s policy, so tough,” she said.

Ockerby, who claims to have been removed from the route panel “for being too vocal, they said I was being obstructive”, said employers were warning IfATE that salons would not take on students for industry placements and weren’t confident the qualification would deliver the standards they needed. 

Development of the hair and beauty T Levels began in 2021 when NCFE won the contract from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education in partnership with VTCT. FE Week reported at the time the contract value for the hair and beauty T Level route was £4.7 million.

The DfE refused to disclose how much has been spent on developing those T Levels to date.

Experts said it was a mistake to join hair and beauty qualifications together. The government admitted as much this week, but this was apparently made clear to them at the start of the T Level development process.

Caroline Larissey, chief executive of the National Hair & Beauty Federation, told FE Week the skills shortages in the hair sector require apprentices “on the shop floor” rather than a two-year classroom-based programme.

“The worry was that we couldn’t get the learners we wanted on the apprenticeship as it was, and then we had T Levels coming in. It was almost muddying the water. We were very much on the side of fighting for the apprenticeship,” Larissey said.

Hair and beauty are “absolutely poles apart as industries,” Larissey added. “Unfortunately, hairdressing, barbering and beauty all get lumped together. That’s why the T Level went ahead, because of the beauty side of it.”

Threshold (in)competence

One reason why employers wouldn’t get behind the T Level was the standards expected of students while out on industry placements.

Ockerby said: “We thought, okay, so students will go to industry, have a couple of weeks in a salon and be shampooing hair. They said no, this is the list of skills we think they should be doing. We laughed out loud and got in to trouble.

“They thought these students from college, that the salon owner doesn’t know, are going to go into a salon and they’re going to be able to cut and colour hair, at threshold competency. 

“We were like, you guys are on a different planet. You think any decent manager in their right mind is going to get this kid and go, yeah you crack on with my clients, here’s a pair of scissors. It’s absolutely ridiculous.”

Threshold competence is DfE language used in T Level policy to signal that a student is “well-placed to develop full occupational competence with further support and development”.

Larissey also took aim at the concept. “They’ll [students] be out with this threshold competence. Well, that’s not going to help us as an employer.”

Keep the capital

Colleges that received capital funding specifically to build and develop training facilities for the hair and beauty T Levels will be able to keep the cash.

But where hair, barbering and beauty T Level uplifts were due to appear on 16 to 19 allocations, these will be removed.

Providers attending a DfE webinar on the T Level changes on Thursday were told: “Providers will be receiving the normal lagged 16 to 19 funding for their students (without the T Level uplift) and should use this to support those who switch to alternative courses.”

Adding to the public funding spent on the hair and beauty T Level to date is at least £3.2 million on capital projects.

Thirteen colleges won funding through waves four and five of the government’s T Level capital pot for hairdressing, barbering and beauty therapy equipment and facilities. Projects were approved by T Level route. In this case, hair and beauty projects were worth between £250,000 and £750,000 each.

The principal of one of those colleges, Grant Glendinning of Education and Training Collective, told FE Week it “wasn’t a massive surprise” to see the hair and barbering T Levels go, but “we definitely need to make sure we safeguard appropriate training routes at level three, including more investment in those apprenticeships”.

While the capital funds may still one day be used for beauty T Levels, projects on hairdressing and barbering can be used for continuing qualifications and apprenticeship training.

The grants had to be used for capital projects related to T Levels.

Funds will only be clawed back if colleges can’t now spend it or use the facilities on alternative hair and/or beauty courses.

The same rules apply to the T Level specialist equipment allocations. DfE said it will monitor spending to make sure it’s spent on continuing hair and beauty courses.

Any building projects that have not yet been completed can continue. The DfE expects these be to used for hairdressing, barbering or beauty therapy training.

ESFA failing to curb apprentice assessment ‘bundling’

Awarding bodies are demanding clarity over the government’s position on “bundling” of apprenticeship end-point assessments (EPA), after officials watered down the rules on the banned tactic.

It comes after years of allegations that professional bodies are unfairly offering extra perks or inducements to their EPA offer despite being ineligible costs, with no decisive action from officials to curb the behaviour.

The additional services can include, for example, membership, chartered status, or additional materials free of charge to apprentices who have their EPA carried out by the professional body.

Other end-point assessment organisations (EPAOs) have long complained this practice disadvantages apprentices who undertake their EPA with a different EPAO and has created an uneven playing field.

Education and Skills Funding Agency policy was previously clear that EPAOs “must not” bundle in any extra products or services into their EPA offer. Officials have also issued multiple warnings to the sector, including in March 2023 when an update revealed “we have had several instances of ‘bundling’ brought to our attention in recent weeks” with a vow to identify and clamp down on individual culprits.

But in September 2023, the ESFA launched the new apprenticeship provider and assessment register (APAR) and weakened the wording of its rules to state that officials now only “do not expect you to promote or offer any additional financial reward, service or membership to improve your likelihood of being chosen by a provider”.

Smaller EPAOs allege that “bundling” is still rife and providers are being strongarmed into doing their EPA with professional bodies. They are calling on the government to enforce their rule or be clear that the behaviour is now allowed.

David Pearson, chief executive of DSW Learning, said: “The bundling of products and services alongside end-point assessment violates ESFA conditions and it does so for good reason; the practice disadvantages apprentices, brings EPA into disrepute, launders the levy, and restricts competition. 

“DSW are one of several end-point assessment organisations that have repeatedly reported the issue. We would like the ESFA to take decisive action against this practice, or to confirm that the bundling of additional services is now tolerated, and in doing so enable those organisations that play by the rules to do so on a level playing field.”

Jacqui Molkenthin, an independent EPAO consultant, told FE Week the ESFA has failed to take any enforcement action despite bundling “hiding in plain sight on some EPAO websites”.

She said the ESFA has caused “disillusionment” that officials will ever act on an issue that is “directly negatively impacting the marketplace”, adding that the agency “need to make a choice, do they, or do they not permit bundling, and if they do not then they must enforce their condition”.

The Department for Education refused to clarify its position when approached by FE Week, and instead repeated that the ESFA “do not expect EPAOs to promote or offer any additional financial reward, service, or membership to improve the likelihood of their being chosen by a provider”.

Websites altered as bodies deny bundling

Every apprentice takes an end-point assessment at the end of their training to confirm the person meets the required occupational standard. Each EPA must be conducted by an independent organisation, and it is up to training providers and employers to choose the EPAO at the beginning of the apprenticeship.

Competition in the EPAO space is fierce and has allegedly led to the deployment of extra incentives by some professional bodies. The practice can include explicit bundling, such as including membership to a professional body, or implicit bundling such as exempting some apprentices from examinations and fees to gain professional status based on their choice of EPAO.

Professional bodies have also been accused of offering discounts on their non-EPA products or services if they are used for EPA, such as discounted qualifications; or threatening that discounts will no longer apply on the non-EPA products if they are not used for the EPA.

FE Week approached multiple professional bodies who had been accused of such behaviour, but all denied any wrongdoing.

Several have however changed their websites since FE Week’s approach.

The Chartered Management Institute’s website has for years stated that “CMI is the only professional body who can award chartered manager status and has it embedded in the EPA”. 

Another section said: “If you’re completing EPA only through CMI then on confirmation of your apprenticeship result you are eligible for: foundation/full chartered manager status (depending on your apprenticeship standard); three months free CMI membership”.

A CMI spokesperson denied that it includes any additional services in its EPA offer and insisted that “any” apprentice who has successfully passed the relevant EPA can apply for chartered status at their own cost, no matter which organisation they do EPA with.

The institute then altered the wording on its website to state that CMI “is the only professional body who can award chartered manager status which apprentices can apply for, following their EPA”.

Another section now reads: “If you have completed your EPA only with CMI or have completed your EPA with another end point assessment organisation, you will have met the knowledge criteria for becoming a chartered manager.”

While not permitting bundling is an ESFA condition, EPAOs must also comply with Ofqual’s conditions, one of which says: “An awarding organisation must not advertise or promote its qualifications in a manner that is likely to be misleading to users of qualifications.”

Molkenthin pointed out that if an EPAO does not bundle then it must not market in such as way as to mislead users to think it does.

The Institute of Sales Professionals (ISP) was also alleged to offer free membership to training provider staff and apprentices that only use the institute for EPA. Its website said: “Every training provider and learner studying towards an ISP-assessed apprenticeship standard will get the added benefit of a free associate membership.”

But an ISP spokesperson claimed the institute did not “bundle” and insisted this offer was open to all provider staff and apprentices on sales-based apprenticeships, regardless of which EPAO they did their assessment with. 

The institute’s website was changed after its response to FE Week to say: “Every training provider and learner studying towards a sales-related apprenticeship standard will get the added benefit of an optional, complimentary student membership.”

Competitor EPAOs and providers also alleged the ISP mandates an additional qualification be taken in the sales executive level 4 apprenticeship, which is not included in the assessment plan and is being bundled with EPA.

ISP’s spokesperson admitted the institute does make an additional qualification available as an option, which comes with additional charges if providers choose to include it, but denied the offer was mandatory.

“It is a however requirement that any training provider or educational organisation offering any ISP-Ofqual regulated qualifications must be approved by the ISP as the awarding body, for which additional charges are applied outside the eligible costs of end point assessment,” the spokesperson said.

They added that the ISP has been “aware for some time” about the concerns of bundling, but said the institute has not been approached by the ESFA or any other regulatory body in connection with this issue. 

It has however sought assurances that the way it makes student membership and ISP certification available to apprentices is appropriate twice over the past 12 months.

On both occasions the ESFA said they “did not regard our approach as bundling”, the spokesperson said.

‘We have been fully transparent on our approach’

Elsewhere, apprentices who successfully complete their senior people professional apprenticeship EPA with the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) are automatically entitled to apply for chartered membership, subject to standard membership and joining and fees.

But if an apprentice completes the same apprenticeship EPA with a different EPAO they are asked to undertake an upgrading assessment, with a cost of £120 for a telephone assessment and £60 for a form-based assessment, to determine whether they can apply for chartered membership.

A CIPD spokesperson denied this was bundling additional services within its EPA provision, adding the institute has been “fully transparent on our approach with both ESFA and the relevant regulatory bodies”.

The Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) has meanwhile allegedly told providers that apprentices who use the professional body as their EPAO are eligible for free student membership, but apprentices with other EPAOs would have to pay a fee.

CIH refuted this and claimed it has always offered free membership to all apprentices studying housing, no matter which organisation does their EPA.

It has however decided to start charging £78 for membership to all learners from April 1, 2024.

Active IQ is another EPAO accused of “bundling”, specifically that it offers free qualification registration with a range of EPAs, including sports coach, team leader and early years.

A section on its website, which has been removed since FE Week’s contact, said: “Our EPA fee includes comprehensive apprentice and teaching resources, as well as free additional, supplementary qualifications where available.”

Jenny Patrickson, Active IQ managing director, said: “Where an apprenticeship provider wishes to purchase further services in addition to our EPA delivery for them, they are required to go through Active IQ’s centre approval process.

“This incurs additional costs and process for them, which we administer completely separately, to ensure that any supplementary qualification delivery, assessment, or quality assurance activity is distinct from the EPA services being provided. We are currently reviewing our marketing materials and web pages to ensure clarity for all providers on our offering.”

Prior to the launch of APAR, the DfE told the sector on multiple occasions it would remove EPAOs from the apprenticeship market if they breach its conditions including by “bundling”. 

The department refused to say whether it has taken any direct action against a bundling culprit to date.

Alternative provision in ‘desperate need of reform’, damning Ofsted and CQC report says

Alternative provision in England is in “desperate need of reform” amid “systemic issues” that lead to “inconsistent outcomes” for young people, two watchdogs have said in a critical report today.

Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission said absence of national standards and a lack of clarity on responsibilities for AP commissioning and oversight is leading to “inconsistent and ineffective practice”.

They found this is often exacerbated by “underdeveloped strategic planning, an insufficiently clear purpose of AP and a lack of monitoring of children’s outcomes”.

The report, published today, looks at how education, health and care partners commission and oversee AP, making recommendations for improvement.

Schools or local authorities commission AP for pupils who have been excluded or cannot attend mainstream school.

The report was based on Ofsted and CQC visits to six local authority areas, and more than 700 survey responses from those within the AP system. The primary purpose of AP in the areas it visited was to prevent children from being permanently excluded. It also functions to help young people reintegrate into education.

But the report found key agencies often fail to “strategically collaborate” and decisions on moving young people in AP into post-16 education were “often delayed” and there was “a lack of a clear exit plan or family involvement”.

The report notes there was “little joint working between health, education and care professionals” to support children’s access and progression to post-16 education and “the overall picture is of a system in desperate need of reform”.

It said “inconsistent and often ineffective” commissioning and strategic planning meant support for children planning the next step into post-16 was “highly variable”.

Support for young people after they’d entered post-16 provision was “not consistent”.

“One parent described this as ‘a sense of a cliff edge’. Sometimes, it felt abrupt when support from professionals who had been working with children and young people stopped. Some young people were unable to sustain their placement,” the report said.

However, it also flagged instances of good practice of children successfully reintegrating into mainstream education and post-16 destinations, such as FE institutions hosting open days and career weeks.

“Many providers were supporting children to plan for their next steps,” the report said. “They were developing strong working relationships with further education institutions and organising visits to college open days. Children could familiarise themselves with the courses on offer, class sizes and behavioural expectations. This helped them make informed choices.”

The report also noted that secondary-aged children needed more careers guidance and often remained in AP until the end of Year 11 “without clear plans for the most suitable post-16 pathway and provider, or for how to achieve their goals.”

Ofsted ‘concerned’ over standards

Ofsted said a mix of registered and unregistered settings means the “quality of oversight for children in AP is highly variable”.

The report also found “limited specialist provision led to children being placed inappropriately in provision that was not resourced to meet their needs.. often for long periods of time”.

Sir Martyn Oliver, Ofsted’s chief Inspector, said: “We are concerned that some children’s education and care falls below the standard they deserve.

“We need more clarity about how AP can be used effectively so that children have consistently positive experiences.

“We also remain concerned about the widespread problems with unregistered AP – after 12 years of calling for the mandatory registration for all AP, it is clear that the need for reform is more urgent than ever”.