A Manchester-based engineering and manufacturing training provider will not appeal its ‘inadequate’ Ofsted rating despite hitting ‘good’ grades in most areas.

Salford and Trafford Engineering Group Training Association (STEGTA) was downgraded from ‘good’ to ‘inadequate’ overall in its report published today following an inspection in late January.

That was despite inspectors giving it ‘good’ ratings for quality of education, behaviour and attitudes, and apprenticeships. Personal development was rated ‘requires improvement’ and leadership and management ‘inadequate’, largely because of safeguarding concerns and poor oversight of subcontractors.

But the organisation confirmed it had accepted the findings and opted not to appeal the decision.

Chief executive John Whitby told FE Week: “We had major staffing issues which impacted our administration and leadership and management in the run up to the inspection.

“We are now back to full capacity within our leadership and management team and have restructured and strengthened our safeguarding team and systems, and have full confidence in our action plan going forward.”

Education and Skills Funding Agency rules state that any provider receiving an ‘inadequate’ rating in a full inspection will be removed from the register of apprenticeship training providers.

Whitby said his firm now expects to enter discussions with the ESFA over intervention, but would not be drawn on what contract termination would mean for the future of his company.

STEGTA delivers level 2 to 4 apprenticeships in engineering, manufacturing and construction, and had 318 learners at the time of the visit. It works with 16 subcontractors across its programmes.

The report praised apprentices’ positive attitudes to their learning and the additional learning they received beyond the scope of their apprenticeship.

It continued that trainers and instructors helped learners to develop their character and confidence.

The report said that there was a “clear rationale” for the curriculum and explained that it was taught effectively by “well qualified and experienced” training officers in the construction and engineering sectors.

But inspectors found that safeguarding arrangements were “weak” despite learners saying they felt safe.

Inspectors said that training for staff was “not sufficiently comprehensive” in how to identify and report concerns, adding that “when staff have identified specific potential safeguarding concerns, they do not routinely follow these up with decisive actions to ensure the safety of apprentices”.

Board members felt they did not get sufficient training on safeguarding and ‘prevent’ duties, while leaders did not regularly review the policies for safeguarding.

Apprentices were not always provided sufficient information to understand risks associated with radicalisation and extremism, it added.

While aspects of the curriculum were praised, inspectors also reported that instructors didn’t routinely challenge apprentices to develop their knowledge, skills and behaviours to a higher standard.

It said that apprentices did not have all the information to make informed decisions about career progression, while leaders “do not provide a curriculum that routinely equips all apprentices for life in modern Britain,” such as around healthy relationships or lifestyles.

Leaders’ oversight of education quality was “too reactive” with “disjointed and vague” processes in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of provision, inspectors added.

Ofsted also took aim at STEGTA’s oversight of its 16 subcontractors, most of which are colleges.

Inspectors found that apprentices follow different programmes of learning provided by subcontractors which “do not always relate to their job role”.

Ofsted’s report said: “Leaders are overly reliant on subcontractors’ own processes in evaluating the quality of training that apprentices receive. Leaders do not plan and influence sufficiently the curriculum content that subcontractors teach.

“Too many subcontractors choose the curriculum content without input from employers and the provider.”

A training provider in the north of England has been forced to close some of its centres as a result of an ‘inadequate’ Ofsted report published today.

Aspire-Igen Group Ltd, which to date has run six training centres across Bradford, Leeds, York, Hull and Scarborough, told FE Week that it had closed “some” of its centres and transferred provision to others where “the achievement of learners’ aims can be better supported”.

It is not clear at this stage which centres have shut their doors and whether any staff jobs have been lost.

Ofsted downgraded the provider to the bottom rating following a visit in December and a report published today, reporting issues such as poor attendance, behaviour and teaching. It had previously been rated ‘requires improvement’ in February last year.

The provider said nearly half of its learners had no prior qualifications and multiple barriers to learning, explaining that “it should come as a surprise to no one that some have struggled to re-engage with formal, face-to-face education”.

Aspire-Igen Group confirmed that it had “also struggled to recruit suitably qualified teaching staff of the past year, and have, at times, been forced to rely on temporary staff from employment agencies to maintain face-to-face lessons”.

A spokesperson said leaders had requested an internal review of the report.

“All that said, although we do not agree with some of Ofsted’s comments, we have taken them on board and reshaped our provision, closing some of our centres and transferring provision to one of our other centres where the achievement of learners’ aims can be better supported,” the spokesperson said.

“In future, we aim to focus our delivery in West Yorkshire around our well-equipped Bradford centres, alongside smaller centres in North and East Yorkshire.”

According to inspectors, Aspire-Igen provides education for young people – many of whom have no prior qualifications or who have high needs, with 575 learners on its books at the time of the visit.

Just under half of those were on health and social care and child development programmes, largely at levels 2 and 3.

Others are on entry level, level 1 and level 2 programmes in areas such as construction, motor vehicle, public services, business administration, hair and beauty, learning support, IT, and hospitality and catering.

Inspectors found that “too many learners do not attend their classes frequently enough,” which resulted in gaps in learning or were “not well-enough prepared” for employment or further training or education.

Inspectors reported poor behaviours and attitudes with disruption in lessons.

The report said that learners on health and social care and child development courses benefitted from work placements and useful careers guidance but too many learners in other programmes did not get the same.

Leaders were “too slow to act” on poor teaching, the report said, adding that efforts to improvement quality are “not effective enough”.

Elsewhere, assessments were not used by teachers to identify gaps in students’ knowledge, which resulted in learners not having a good enough understanding of how to improve or falling behind.

The report continued that “teachers do not adequately support learners to improve their English skills,” and added that “while most learners with high needs make progress towards their individual learning goals, too often this is not rapid enough”.

Ofsted said that workshop space at the firm’s Leeds site was not suitable for the construction programmes, as bays were too cramped, and some online teaching resources on the childcare courses were not appropriate for the age of the learners.

It added that while directors had supported leaders’ work to improve attendance, they “do not do enough to tackle the poor quality of education”.