The Association of Colleges’ area director for London has been made an honorary MBE by the Queen for services to further education.
Mary Vine-Morris was among esteemed foreign nationals awarded honorary gongs this week ahead of the Queen’s birthday honours list next week.
Vine-Morris, who has an Irish passport, has served AoC’s London membership for over seven years and prior to that led on 14-to-19 for local government body London Councils, following a nine-year stint at the Learning and Skills Council.
As well as leading AoC’s membership services in London, Vine-Morris has also been the organisation’s national lead for employment in recent years, working in tricky issues related to industrial relations, pay and conditions.
Khan
The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has congratulated Vine-Morris, telling FE Week: “This fantastic achievement is testimony to Mary’s leadership at the Association of Colleges and long-standing support for further education and training in London, including her continued contribution to City Hall’s work on jobs and skills.”
Awards for foreign nationals are known as ‘honorary’ but recipients are still entitled to use the letters after their name if they choose.
Vine-Morris describes the honour as “deeply personal”.
“I know I should say how pleased I am that this accolade is contributing to the sector getting some well-deserved publicity – and I am – but the truth is this is deeply personal to me. My mom would be very proud of this achievement, and I only wish she was still alive to see it,” she said.
“I was born in in County Cork in Ireland, before moving to Willenhall, in the West Midlands, so I want to share this with all the other non-UK passport holders working so hard in our colleges and across the sector.”
David Hughes, chief executive of the AoC, said: “Everyone at AoC is delighted for Mary. She has worked tirelessly for the sector, for learners, for better education and skills throughout her career and her focus on better outcomes shines through her work.
“The fact the mayor of London is singing her praises tells you all you need to know about her influence.”
The government has ditched its controversial 20 per cent requirement for off-the-job training in apprenticeships and replaced it with a new baseline.
Significant changes to English and maths policy, calculation of prior learning and new eligible costs have also been revealed in draft apprenticeship funding rules for 2022/23.
Published today by the Education and Skills Funding Agency, the rules state that from August 1, the minimum volume of off-the-job hours will no longer be linked to total working hours; instead a consistent baseline figure of six hours per week will be introduced, irrespective of the hours worked by the apprentice.
This means that apprentices who work more than 30 hours per week can now spend less than 20 per cent of their week doing off-the-job training.
The 20 per cent off-the-job training rule was introduced following the apprenticeship levy reforms in 2017. Many in the sector have complained that the rule is the single biggest barrier to apprenticeship recruitment, but others view it as a vital part of the apprentices’ development.
The ESFA said the 20 per cent rule means that an apprentice who works longer hours is potentially unfairly impacted, because higher working hours means a higher threshold for eligibility.
Announcing the change to a six-hour per week baseline, the ESFA said: “From 1 August, the minimum volume of hours will no longer be linked to working hours; instead we will have a consistent figure, irrespective of the hours worked by the apprentice. This will be six hours per week (this figure was chosen as it represents 20 per cent of 30 hours, which all part-time apprentices are currently doing). The six hours per week is for calculation purposes only; once calculated the programme can still be delivered flexibly.”
However, the agency said this change “must not dilute the existing requirement – to provide the right level of training to every apprentice”.
The volume of training that is delivered must be guided by the initial assessment of the apprentice and this “may mean that an apprentice trains for more than six hours per week”.
Association of Employment and Learning Providers director of policy Simon Ashworth welcomed the move.
“The approach using actual and individual contracted hours created inequality. This meant that some individuals had to undertake additional training to their peers, purely because of their contracted hours – which don’t always correlate to what training they actually need,” he said.
“Along with being fairer, the proposed baseline approach is simpler to understand. We are glad that the ESFA have listened and acted on these concerns.”
English and maths requirements changed
The ESFA also announced today that people who start a level 2 apprenticeship without level 1 English and maths will no longer need to automatically attempt level 2 English and Maths tests to complete their apprenticeship.
“It will mean that thousands of level 2 apprentices can focus on securing a level 1 English and maths qualification with only those who are really ready to take the level 2 tests attempting them,” the agency said.
The sector is still waiting on the final outcome of the review, but the agency revealed today that initial assessment has been added as an eligible cost.
But there will be changes resit costs when it comes to eligible and ineligible rules. The ESFA will provide full details when it publishes the outcome of the eligible costs review “shortly”.
More formulaic approach to prior learning
Prior learning refers to skills and knowledge gained by learners before they start their apprenticeship, and must be taken into account by providers when negotiating a price with an employer to ensure cash is not being used to teach an apprentice something they already know.
A new formula that must be used to reduce the price that is agreed with the employer, to account for prior learning, has been included in the funding rules.
To reduce the total negotiated price providers must, from August 1, calculate the percentage of prior learning that the learner has, as a percentage of the off-the-job training hours that they would deliver to an apprentice with no relevant prior learning for the same standard.
The ESFA explains: “For example, if the individual’s prior learning accounts for 300 off-the-job training hours and typically, for the same standard, you would deliver 1,000 off-the-job training hours to an individual with no prior learning, this would equate to 30 per cent prior learning.
“Reduce the price by at least 50 per cent of the prior learning percentage, from the maximum funding band (the 50per cent reduction recognises fixed costs). For the example above, where the apprentice has 30 per cent prior learning, this means there must be a reduction in price of at least 15 per cent of the maximum funding band. This reduced price is the maximum that will be paid using apprenticeship funding (e.g., £8,500 for a £10,000 funding band).
“This new maximum funding amount becomes the starting point for further negotiation on price with the employer. Additional discounts could be applied, for example, where the apprentice is part of a large cohort.”
Rule changes will ‘further improve’ apprenticeships
The ESFA said that having reformed the apprenticeships programme over the past five years, it now wants to “make it simpler to use for employers, training providers and apprentices themselves”.
Announcing the rule changes to this effect, skills minister Alex Burghart said: “We now want to focus on making the system as simple and user-friendly as possible, reducing bureaucratic burdens on employers and providers and giving apprentices the best possible experience.”
Talks are under way for a London-based college to de-merge from its northern-based parent group, FE Week has learnt.
Lewisham College is understood to be in negotiations to be transferred from NCG to its neighbour London South East Colleges (LSEC).
In a joint statement, the two college groups said: “In view of the government’s levelling up agenda and the vital role that further education is set to play in this, NCG and London South East Colleges are engaging in early discussions regarding FE provision in Lewisham and opportunities to collaborate.”
“No decisions have yet been made,” the statements added, however, “discussions are wide-ranging and we look forward to exploring all options together, with a shared focus on continued high-quality FE provision in south-east London.”
London South East Colleges already operates across eight campuses in the London sub-region. According to its website, the group, through its constituent local colleges, can trace its roots in south-east London back to the early 1900s.
In the event a “re-merger” does happen, it will be something Lewisham College will be fairly used to.
Lewisham College, which has campuses in Lewisham and Deptford, south-east London, has been subject to several controversial changes over the past ten years. Its merger with Southwark College in 2012 sparked “fierce criticism” from the University and College Union at the time over the near £300,000 cost of its rebrand to ‘Lesoco’.
Two years later the brand was dropped and it became Lewisham Southwark College. In the years that followed, the college endured two consecutive grade four Ofsted inspection results, becoming the first – but not the last – college do so, and then faced local opposition to proposals to merge with Newcastle-based NCG.
In April 2017 the merger went ahead. Then, 18 months later, NCG announced that it would be splitting Lewisham Southwark College back to two distinct institutions – still part of NCG, but with their own principals.
UCU reps at both colleges wrote to the FE Commissioner in April 2019 claiming that the NCG merger had resulted in mismanagement and a deterioration of terms of conditions.
They called for the FE Commissioner to investigate whether the colleges’ future “could lie elsewhere”. NCG said UCU’s claims were “wholly inaccurate”.
FE Week understands that Southwark College will remain part of NCG.
Multiply represents a menu of interventions for local areas to draw on and tailor to the local context, writes Alex Stevenson
Multiply, the government’s new £560 million adult numeracy programme, is a rare new spending boost for adult essential skills.
As mayoral combined authorities and upper-tier local authorities across England write their investment plans, it’s timely to think about how the programme can achieve maximum impact.
While Multiply money is certainly welcome, it only represents a fraction of what has been lost in investment and learning opportunities.
And, with the programme envisaged to last just three years, it falls short of the sustained, long-term investment that Learning and Work Institute has argued for.
Multiply presents an important opportunity to raise awareness and boost participation in numeracy learning. Adult participation in numeracy learning has fallen by more than 60 per cent over the past decade.
Meanwhile, our 2021 adult participation in learning survey shows that only two in five adults are aware of the existing entitlement to fully funded English and maths learning up to level 2.
Adults who left full-time education early, adults with low qualification levels and adults who haven’t participated in learning recently are all less likely to be aware of the current adult numeracy offer.
The local authorities tasked with delivering Multiply face a sizable challenge but evidence and data can support them to target effectively, improving reach and impact.
Over the past eight months, we’ve been running evaluations of innovative, place-based interventions to look at what works at a local level to engage learners in essential skills learning.
Our evidence suggests that tailored messaging will be vital. Learner engagement must shift away from marketing courses towards showing how learning leads to outcomes that are relevant to people’s motivations in life and in work.
Our evidence suggests tailored messaging will be vital
As the Multiply programme isn’t intended to replace or duplicate numeracy provision delivered through the AEB, this is where things get interesting. The Multiply prospectus sets out a ‘menu’ of interventions for local areas to draw on and tailor to the local context.
This includes options for different contexts and cohorts for numeracy learning, such as the workplace, community groups, parents and people recently released from prison.
This is particularly encouraging, given our findings that contextualising learning, and working with trusted community organisations, are vital for engaging adults.
Delivery can offer flexible routes to qualifications, or be offered as non-accredited learning to boost engagement and confidence in everyday maths.
This aligns well with what the evidence tells us is effective practice in adult essential skills provision.
Reductions in funding rates and moves away from non-accredited learning over recent years mean that much of the outreach work providers do to work flexibly with employers and community groups has been lost.
Meanwhile international practice in adult essential skills often has a very different ratio of accredited to non-accredited learning, and a much greater emphasis on working with employers. So the workplace is seen as a key setting where learners can be engaged and skills developed.
To achieve impact on the wider essential skills picture – including numeracy, but also literacy, digital skills and ESOL, where skills needs are arguably just as acute – the trick will be for local areas to use Multiply investment to unlock wider benefits.
Multiply partnerships forged with wider stakeholders, such as employers, schools, community groups and housing associations, could also boost referrals and participation into other kinds of essential skills learning. This would also ensure that Multiply is accessed by those who would benefit from it most.
Just one in seven of the first students who studied a course designed to prepare them for T Levels chose to progress on to a full T Level, FE Week can reveal.
English and maths requirements, a lack of suitable work placements and more attractive qualification offers have all been cited as factors in the low transition rate.
It comes as the government ploughs ahead with controversial plans to defund alternative level 3 qualifications, such as BTECs, that overlap with T Levels, from 2024.
Ministers have been urged by unions to reverse the “rash” cuts to alternative T Level courses amid the “very concerning” figures.
But college leaders, along with the Department for Education, insist it is too early to write off the course and blamed Covid-19 for the low transition rate.
Just 14% of pre-T Level students move on to full T Level
The T Level Transition Programme (TLTP) is a one-year post-GCSE study course aimed at students who would like to do a T Level but are not quite ready for its academic and technical demands. The programme’s primary purpose is to move students on to a full T Level.
Figures obtained by FE Week following a freedom of information request show that 847 students started a T Level transition programme in 2020, of whom 118, or 14 per cent, went on to start a full T Level the following year.
A further 277 students from the first TLTP cohort chose to progress on to other level 3 courses, such as BTECs, or an advanced or higher-level apprenticeship.
The transition programme was rolled out in parallel with the first three T Levels – in construction, digital and education, and childcare – in 2020. Thirty-two colleges and schools delivered the TLTP in 2020/21 and it is currently being delivered by around 70 providers this academic year.
Colleges that spoke to FE Week, most of whom did not want to be named, said the academically rigorous nature of T Levels, namely requirements around English and maths, was the key reason for why students opted to not go on to study a full T Level.
Students were originally required to achieve either a grade 4 in English and maths GCSE or level 2 in functional skills to pass their T Level programme. But this exit requirement was removed mid-way through the first cohort, in November 2021, after the DfE “consistently” heard of some students being put off taking a T Level because of the rule.
T Level students are now only required to work towards the attainment of maths and English if they have not already achieved grade 4 at GCSE, as they do on other 16-to-19 programmes.
Colleges are free to set their own entry requirements, but research has found that many require students to already hold a grade 4 in English and maths.
One of those colleges is HCUC (Harrow College & Uxbridge College). The college had 52 students complete the T Level transition programme in 2020/21, but only one chose to move on to a full T Level. The rest opted instead for a BTEC in digital, and an apprenticeship or one-year level 3 alternative in early years.
An HCUC spokesperson said the college’s aim with the transition programme was to enable students “to develop the widest skills-set available, based on their individual talents and challenges, to ensure their progression options are as flexible as possible and meet their needs as closely as possible”.
Numerous other colleges reported that transition students opted for more practical courses with less focus on exams, partly because of the Covid-19 pandemic.
As part of the TLTP, students are expected to undertake “appropriate work experience activities” to prepare them for the mandatory 45-day minimum industry placement component of a full T Level.
Research conducted by the NFER on behalf of the DfE was published this week and reported that “very few” students were able to secure placements in the first year of the transition programme because of Covid, which put them off going for a full T Level.
‘We cannot judge the programme on the basis of one year of data’
Catherine Sezen, senior policy manager at the Association of Colleges, said: “Given the impact of Covid on the first cohort of students embarking on the T Level transition programme, it is too early to write off the programme.”
She added that the AoC believes overall progression from the transition programme was “positive” and recommended that progression outcomes “are evaluated over the next couple of years as more T Level are being introduced”.
But Jo Grady, general secretary of the University and College Union, said the government should find the figures obtained by FE Week “very concerning”.
“It is yet more evidence that the government has made a rash decision in stripping away funding for tried and tested level 3 qualifications like BTECs,” she added. “If the government cares about student choice and opportunity, it needs to reverse the BTEC cuts and stop dictating disastrous policy that runs against the advice of the sector.”
Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said the data shows that embarking on a T Level requires a “very big commitment from the student concerned”.
“We are sure T Levels will be a very good option for students confident about their future careers, but this is not the case for many young people, and this is why we have repeatedly argued that a full suite of BTECs and other applied general qualifications should be retained to give young people a range of options,” he added.
The DfE agreed with Sezen: “We cannot judge the programme on the basis of one year of data. The first year of delivery is likely to have been atypical for a number of reasons. This is a new programme, T Levels themselves are new, and providers will still be learning what works in supporting students to progress on to T Levels.
“It was also introduced amid the pandemic, which will have impacted on students and the delivery of the programme. Progression to T Levels may not therefore be representative, and we will continue monitoring T Level progression for subsequent cohorts.”
College staff should be given a 2.25 per cent pay rise next year, the Association for Colleges has recommended.
This is the highest pay recommendation since 2014, but well below the call from unions for a 10 per cent rise.
The joint trade unions – University and College Union, National Education Union, Unison, Unite and GMB – have rejected the offer, calling it “insulting”.
AoC, which negotiates with unions representing staff on behalf of college, said it recognises that a 2.25 per cent salary increase is not sufficient to address the impact of the cost-of-living crisis.
But the association said it could not recommend a higher rate for 2022/23 due to the “enormous funding pressures” facing colleges amid surging inflation.
The AoC and the unions are set to reconvene in June to continue talks.
‘Colleges want to pay their staff more’
AoC chief executive David Hughes wrote to education secretary Nadhim Zahawi earlier this week to plead for emergency funding so that colleges can increase their pay offer.
After making a 2.25 per cent pay recommendation, Hughes said: “Colleges want to pay their staff more, and they absolutely would if they could, but it is clear from discussions last week that they are experiencing enormous challenges dealing with inflation, and particularly spiralling energy prices, as well as increases in national insurance and pension contributions and other costs.
“The impact of this is that pay – which has lagged for many years behind schools and industry – is now resulting in major difficulties in recruiting and retaining the people needed to even maintain delivery, let alone grow the offer.”
He added: “Colleges are reeling from a decade of cuts and are now being hit by soaring inflation which has eaten away at any recent uptick in funding.”
The gap between school and college teachers currently stands at around £9,000.
Last year’s spending review announced that the DfE will be investing an extra £1.6 billion in 16-to-19 education and training by 2024/25, compared with the 2021/22 financial year. This includes an up-front cash boost which will see the rate of funding per student boosted by over 8 per cent in 2022/23.
Hughes said these funding decisions for 2022/23 assume 2 per cent inflation for 16-18 courses and 0 per cent for everything else (adult education, apprenticeships and higher education) which is some way off the current 9 per cent inflation.
But after receiving this latest pay offer, the joint unions said: “The employer body has chosen not to use significant increases in core central government 16 – 19 funding to invest in college staff, despite unions campaigning alongside AoC to secure it.
“The unions have unequivocally rejected the offer from AoC and informed the employer body that they plan to move to ballot.
“AoC have been encouraged to return with a much improved offer to ensure college staff are not forced to take industrial action this Autumn term. The unions agree that they will continue to engage in negotiations while making plans for action.”
Gerry McDonald, chief executive of New City College, who leads discussions on behalf of colleges, said: “We fully recognise the financial difficulties faced by staff across the sector alongside the funding crisis of the sector itself.
“I am pleased that both sides have agreed to continue face to face talks in June to build upon the offer. We have also made a commitment to strengthen recommendations regarding the Living Wage and to workload.”
The mayoral authority in Liverpool has defended the outcome of a recent adult education budget (AEB) tender after receiving complaints that many “out-of-area” providers won contracts.
Sixteen training providers won procured contracts in the Liverpool City Region’s latest AEB competition, which concluded last week and was worth £70 million in total over the next five years.
This is a reduction on the 19 training providers with procured contracts in the last bidding round in 2019, but still equates to the same level of funding – £14 million per year.
However over half of the current providers, who were successful in the previous tender, have not been awarded contracts this time. A network of providers for the area said the results “throw into very sharp focus some worrying trends and concerns for learning providers locally”.
GMLPF chief executive Ian Lomas said the results reveal a “worrying reliance on, and shift towards, contracting with larger, national and out-of-area learning providers”. The loss of local knowledge and expertise will, his federation believes, erode the Liverpool provider base and the region’s ability to respond to local skills needs – the opposite effect of what devolution of the AEB was intended.
His analysis alleges that some of the winning providers are traditionally placed in areas like Birmingham, Manchester and even as far as Barking, London.
One training provider in Liverpool who lost their AEB contract in this tender, who did not wish to be named, told FE Week they are now having to shut down and make 22 local people redundant.
‘The main goal of devolution is to put local people in the lead’
Sue Pember, the policy director at adult education provider network HOLEX, warned that using out-of-area providers “is a major issue and undermines localism and the levelling up agenda”.
She told FE Week: “The main goal of devolution is to put local people in the lead and building and strengthening local infrastructure and institutions. The key to strengthening localities is government funding should stay in the intended area, that it goes to fund local salaries, local services and businesses and, if there is a delivery gap, local institutions are supported to capacity build and fill that gap.”
Defending the tender outcome, a spokesperson for the Liverpool City Region said their officers carried out a “fair, rigorous, and transparent procurement process, as required by law, using anonymised bids, skilled evaluators, and a robust moderation process”.
The spokesperson said the “majority” of the 16 successful providers have a history of delivery in the Liverpool City Region through either devolved AEB funding, Department for Work and Pensions funding, ESFA funded provision or other funding streams such as skills bootcamps.
“The combined authority has a limited pot of money to spend on skills and must award contracts to the organisations that submit the best bids, demonstrating the best value for money for local people,” they added. “Unfortunately, the nature of procurement exercises of this scale means that some applicants will not be successful.”
The spokesperson also said the combined authority expects some of the unsuccessful bidders to continue to deliver training in the city region as subcontractors – a practice that central government and other AEB devolved areas like London are trying to significantly reduce.
Lomas said his federation has already heard of successful out-of-area providers contacting unsuccessful local providers to help deliver their programmes on a subcontract basis – pointing out that subcontracting often comes with a high management fee cost that diverts funding from reaching local residents.
Liverpool City Region took control of the AEB for its area, worth over £54 million annually, in 2019. The remainder of the budget is allocated to grant-funded training providers like colleges.
Sue Pember
It was one of six combined authorities to join the Greater London Authority in securing the first devolution deals for adult education funding.
Pember said that going forward, combined authorities should only use out-of-area providers where they can “demonstrate that local institutions cannot fill that gap”.
This way, she added, funding “stays in the area and goes to support local salaries, institutions and businesses, which in turn will help build and sustain strong communities and grow the local economy”.
But Jane Hickie, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, defended the use of national providers within combined authority areas.
“Commissioning for devolved adult education budgets should be about establishing which providers can best meet local need and have a strong track record of delivery – regardless of where they are primarily based,” she said.
“By their very nature independent training providers are agile in their approach and can quickly meet the needs of learners and employers in the locality.”
Ministers have been criticised for refusing to publish details about a team of “independent assessors” who have been tasked with deciding the future of thousands of BTECs and other level 3 courses.
The first provisional list of qualifications that the Department for Education deems to overlap with the first ten T Levels and face being defunded was finally published earlier this month.
In total, just 160 vocational and technical qualifications – including 38 BTECs – of a possible 2,000 courses that were evaluated now face being axed, from 2024. More courses will be removed in future years.
An impact assessment report showed there are 66,000 enrolments on the courses, 27 per cent of which are students deemed to be the “most disadvantaged”.
Appeals guidance for awarding bodies revealed that the DfE commissioned “independent assessors” to evaluate the qualifications against three “tests”. But no other information has been released about exactly who these independent assessors are, who are making huge decisions on qualifications sat by tens of thousands of students.
Vicky Foxcroft MP challenged skills minister Alex Burghart on this issue in the House of Commons this week, asking him to “confirm who these assessors actually are”.
But the minister refused to say anything other than telling the MP that the DfE has a “range of independent assessors who are going through the processes”.
The DfE told FE Week that six “experts” have been recruited to evaluate the qualifications in total. A spokesperson said the independent assessors were “selected based on relevant experience and expertise, such as qualification design, development, delivery “and assessment approaches”.
But the department refused to say anything further or commit to publishing details about their experience, jobs or how they were recruited.
Sector leaders have called for more transparency due to the “significant” public interest.
Bill Watkin, chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, said: “It is asking a lot of six individuals to review hundreds of qualifications across a range of sectors in what was likely a very constrained timeframe. This process should be practitioner-led, with input from staff in colleges that have a recent, successful track record in qualification delivery.
“We would be happy to suggest practitioners who would be willing to support the department’s independent assessors in making these high-stakes decisions, particularly as determining overlap with wave 3 and 4 T Levels will be an even bigger and more complex task.”
Tom Bewick, who heads up the Federation of Awarding Bodies, has written to Burghart on the issue.
In his letter, seen by FE Week, Bewick said: “I hope you would agree, the department needs to build maximum trust and public confidence in this process. Not least, the provisional list is subject to appeal, so it is reasonable for awarding organisations, employers and wider sector stakeholders affected, to want to understand how a particular decision has been arrived at and by whom.
“Without this kind of information being made freely and publicly available, it is hard to see how the public can be fully confident in the process.”
The three tests that qualifications needed to meet to be deemed to “overlap” with T Levels were:
Is the qualification technical, in that its primary purpose aims to support entry to employment in a specific occupational area(s)?
Are the outcomes of the qualification similar to those set out in an occupational standard covered by a T Level?
Does the qualification aim to support entry to the same occupation as a T Level?
The DfE said independent assessors not involved in the original decision will consider any appeals made by awarding bodies to “maintain the objectivity and independence in the process”.
Awarding organisations have until July 8 to submit appeals.
A large apprenticeship provider for the engineering, nuclear and manufacturing sectors has been downgraded by Ofsted from ‘outstanding’ to ‘requires improvement’ after going more than a decade without inspection.
The provider’s board was criticised for being primarily focused on financial outcomes instead of holding leaders to account and improving the quality of education.
Gen2 is based in West Cumbria and was established in June 2000 by five international companies, for which it now provides training as well as for the wider Cumbrian business community.
At the time of the inspection, there were 1,265 apprentices studying levels 2 to 6 apprenticeship standards. There were also 11 adults on level 2 traineeship programmes studying teaching assistant and business administration specialisms.
The provider was last inspected in 2011 and achieved a grade one at the time. Ofsted this year began inspection of ‘outstanding’ providers for the first time since 2010 after an exemption was lifted.
Inspectors found that quality has worsened for Gen2. “Half of the young people on access to apprenticeship programmes told inspectors that they feel their course was disorganised,” the inspection report said.
“They do not know when they will complete the work experience part of the programme, know what progress they are making or if they are on target to achieve their qualification on time.”
Apprentices, who demonstrate positive attitudes to their learning, are unhappy with “frequent changes” of teachers, and those who know they are behind on their learning feel tutors have not supported them to catch up.
Senior leaders were praised by Ofsted for developing a “clear strategy to meet the skills requirements of the employers they serve and those needed in the region” and for designing a curriculum that “allows most learners and apprentices to progressively develop new knowledge, skills and behaviours”.
But inspectors found that leaders and managers have ultimately not ensured that all learners and apprentices receive “consistently high-quality training”. This is because leaders “do not have sufficient oversight of the quality of education for most learning programmes”.
Staff do have appropriate skills and experience to carry out their roles but leaders do not focus enough on the development of teachers’ teaching skills, Ofsted warned.
The watchdog also found that information on Gen2’s e-portfolio system “is inaccurate” and leaders do not ensure “effective assessments” are carried out at the start of their programme to determine their level of prior learning.
Inspectors also reported that assessors do not sufficiently plan and coordinate on- and off-the-job training for apprentices.
Additionally, governance arrangements are “not effective” as leaders are “not held to account for the quality of education they provide”. The board’s focus “has been primarily on finance as opposed to improving the quality of education for learners and apprentices”.
Leaders have now put in place a new governance board.
Amanda Towers, Gen2’s managing director, said her provider is working “swiftly to address the areas for improvement identified” by Ofsted.
She claimed that Gen2 has “very high success rates”, with an apprenticeship achievement rate of 79.1 per cent and over 90 per cent of learners progressing directly into employment or further/higher education. These results “buck the national trend, with Gen2’s achievement and progression rates rising during the pandemic, in the face of a substantial fall nationally ̶ something we are extremely proud of”.
Towers added: “Our customers and learners, and their families, can rest assured that we continue to be committed to delivering excellence in everything that we do and that we will work swiftly to address the areas for improvement identified by Ofsted.”
